(TX) Clerk shoots reported beer thief

Status
Not open for further replies.
So, being held accountable for your actions means you should die over a case of beer?

Apparently he thought so, who am I to question him!

Grunt Out!
 
So many things to ponder.
What if the store was a gas/beer/diamond store?
Shooting the thief for 10 bucks of beer not ok?
Shooting the thief for 50 bucks in gas still not ok?
How about if the store held a $200,000 diamond?
I bet it would be ok then huh?

What's an 18 pack of beer cost? $15 or $20 bucks?
What did a horse cost in 1880?

Back then you would be hung for stealing a horse.

So when did the value of the theft become the precedent for the punishment of the crime?
To me, stealing is stealing. It's the act of removing something from someone else that does not belong to you, nor do you have the right to.

The punishment should not equate to the value but the act itself.
 
“You can’t run rampant and just go steal beer. I mean if that guy let him steal beer then what’s next. They steal your car. They steal everything,” said Ary Bolanos who is a customer.

I wouldn't shoot the man for stealing 18 brews. If I felt he was reaching for a gun to shoot me, of course I'd have acted the same. Especially in an area where crime is going up.

It's no better here. NE San Antonio has turned into an area of drugs, murder, armed robbery and arson.
 
In California it is not "Theft" or "Shoplifting" until the thief has left the store premises with the goods.

Someone mentioned previously that the clerk would have to stop the guy before he left the store, but that following the thief outside was a bad idea.... how are you to stop the "Thief" before they have even legally stolen the goods?

Myself, knowing that I am armed most of the time, would not have followed the thief outside, due to the fact that I would have the foreknowledge that I most likely would end up having to shoot this guy because he stole 18 cans of beer - for me, that is not a worthy reason to end someone's life.
 
One thing not taken into account here is attitude.if you are not prepared to shoot you may not have time to decide whether you will or wont in a confrontation.as said in these threads he was a criminal first.and he paid the price for his criminal act.there comes a time when man must decide whether
he looks on or fights.I'v been there.made my play and nobody got shot.where I live now its quite but near by, 20 miles people get shot weekly for nothing.
one guy lent a weed wacker aand asked for it back he got a shotgun load and dead.another argued ove a lighter and got killed.:uhoh:-:confused:-:banghead:
 
Bartholomew: Let me clarify a bit.

If this type of theft is truly the problem Arfin describes, then we need to change the laws first because as it stands right now, you run a real risk of going to jail for this type of shoot as the cases cited above show.

This is what I was in agreement about. I'm sure that many of the cases you looked at had an outcome that was most likely proper. Sadly there are cases that even when a person does most things proper, they are still found guilty. There really is no leeway on anything involving a gun. That is why I said it is sad our society in many times protects criminals more than the actual victims, when the criminal is wounded, fatally or not. It would be nice to see more laws change, i.e. Castle Doctrine, etc.., but we'll just have to see.

The example you gave of the guy getting his .357 and going to "apprehend" the criminal is an excellent example of what not to do. I don't really see too much of a parallel between that case and the clerk we are discussing. It is one thing to go hunt down a criminal and a whole different situation if the guy has just run out the door with 18 cans of beer and you go to intervene in some manner. We aren't the clerk, so we don't know what he saw, felt, or reacted to, but you can bet he will have to explain it now.

No question these are tough scenarios and a person better be smart in all of their actions, because they can count on having to answer for any and all actions they take. Carrying a gun is a lot of responsibility.
 
Batholomew, here in Texas you can and many people have been legaly shot for leaving with stolen property at night.

Yes, and in several cases people have also gone to jail for shooting someone over stolen property at night. I cited two examples of those cases earlier in the thread. I'd also note that those two cases are the most recent precedent on the issue. That tends to suggest that Texas courts are interpreting those rules more strictly, not less.

Now if the chance of a felony conviction is worth less to you than whatever property is moseying away, then feel free to exercise your rights; but you should know that Sec. 9.42 of the Penal Code isn't the "Get out of jail free" car that some people seem to think it is.
 
If I could narrow it down to several factors, it would probably look like this:

1. Don't associate with criminals or bring them around your home.
2. Use the recreational intoxicant of your choice in moderation and in a safe environment.
3. Choose your friends wisely (see #1).
4. Don't pursue people once the initial threat/incident has passed.

If you took the 500+ cases claiming self-defense that I have been skimming and applied those four criteria, there would be about zero cases left.

+1

An old biker one time told me that the best defense was to not be in a bar where someone was looking for you.

Mike
 
For everyone that is talking about this guys death over 18 cans of beer, just a few things to ponder. What if he was breaking into your house and all he wanted was 18 cans of beer or the $5.00 you paid for it? Would you sit be idle while he robbed you in your home? What if he came up to you on the street and tried to take $5.00 from you? Would you let him?

If aliens abducted you and try to steel your beer would you let them?

I don't know what you wanted me to ponder about. All those situations are rediculous and don't really parallel the main point of FOLLOWING the thief. All those situations the thief COMES to you.

Breaks in your house- BANG!

Mugging me- BANG!

Steals beer from the store in which I
work and runs out the door- 911

What's an 18 pack of beer cost? $15 or $20 bucks?
What did a horse cost in 1880?

Back then you would be hung for stealing a horse.

Also back then women and black men were not allowed to vote.

If those things were viable in society they would still be the same. But they aren't viable, so they aren't the same.

The point is that following bad guys fleeing the scene is a bad idea. To some who say he might have been trying to get his liscence plates, the facts don't seem to fit. If he was trying to get numbers off the plates, then why did he get close enough to witness a threatening gesture at night. He followed the bad guy to confront him while armed and that my friends is an escalation of force.

We wouldn't have even gotten away with that in Iraq. If the guy stole MREs from us and we chased him and shot him when he was reaching for something that wasn't a gun we'd be sent to Levenworth.
 
The difference between shoplifting a case of beer and someone breaking into your house, or stealing a high dollar value of diamonds is that the first is not a felony. The other two are. Breaking into someone's home is considered a VIOLENT felony. If the thief used force to take the diamonds, this ALSO is a violent felony. It is feasible, if unlikely, that a person could try to take the diamonds without using force. It THAT happened, there would be no justification for using deadly force. This is why you have cameras, telephones, and insurance. You only use deadly force when these things won't help you.
 
We're just going around in circles on this one.

There are those of us that believe crime is crime and something should be done about it. (not advocating chasing down every single criminal you can.)

There are those that believe unless the crime is worthy of defense, you should do nothing about it.

What bothers me and several others on this thread is that too many people dismiss crime because it isn't SEVERE enough, or a weapon wasn't used in it, etc... Which for ME, not anybody else, but ME, is a lot of bunk. A crime is a crime. One more time I will repeat I am not advocating vigilante justice in every crime that takes place, but if someone is stealing something, I will try to stop them. Not necessarily with a gun or weapon, maybe with a verbal warning or something else, but at least make an effort rather than allowing the crime to happen.

In the end, you will have to make your own individual choice what you will do when you are faced with a criminal act and then live with the consequenses.
 
Bartholomew Roberts Quote:
Batholomew, here in Texas you can and many people have been legaly shot for leaving with stolen property at night.

Yes, and in several cases people have also gone to jail for shooting someone over stolen property at night. I cited two examples of those cases earlier in the thread. I'd also note that those two cases are the most recent precedent on the issue. That tends to suggest that Texas courts are interpreting those rules more strictly, not less.
I see that there is alot of misconceptions of what happens in TX, so I will try to clarify with the law. Quoting a few cases that has different scenarios does not change how the law is applied with grand juries in TX.


PC §9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor
.

PC §9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

mljdeckard quote:

Two VERY BAD things I see here. Anytime one uses deadly force, if his story states that he FOLLOWED the bad guy, he is in trouble. Or rather, if he followed the bad guy, there better be a compelling reason such as, "I followed him into a shopping mall where it looked like he was going to open fire on a bunch of people". Otherwise, if the BG is walking AWAY from you, the need to defend yourself no longer exists. It is time to call the police and hope for the best. You don't get to follow someone and kill them just because you are offended that your life WAS in danger a few seconds ago. If the threat is LEAVING, you have no justification to FOLLOW. This flies in the face of being able to tell a jury that you did everything possible to prevent this terrible incident.

If he reached for "something" in his pocket, while he was taking a case of beer to his car, a reasonable person would assume he was reaching for his KEYS. NOT A GUN. Just because you WANT it to be a gun doesn't mean it is. As much as it might give you the willies, you better dang well KNOW it's a gun before you start shooting people. I am willing and able to defend against someone who is trying to shoot me. Not someone who I THINK MIGHT BE trying to shoot me.

Well, as you can see from the highlighted text in TX law, the clerk was exercising his right and within the law. In this country called TEXAS, everyone knows that DEADLY FORCE is justified after sundown, because we DONT have to see, guess, imagine, hope, pray or wish that you have or don't have a weapon. Eyesight and visual recognition is not that good at night. That is why it is expressly written in the law. Deadly force is justified TO PREVENT THEFT DURING THE NIGHTTIME, AND CRIMINAL MISCHIEF DURING THE NIGHTTIME. It keeps people honest. So spread the word, "DON"T MESS WITH TEXAS."
If some don't like it, they can move to Saudi Arabia, they don't shoot you; they just cut off your hands.
 
I have toned down my argument some but I ill say this: I worked as a clerk for about a year at night in a poor town.

I dealt with shoplifters on a weekly basis. Shoplifters come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and ages from the very young to the very old. I had a total of six people arrested and zero people got shot. Four got aay that I know of (one ran like a track star). But I am willing to bet that there were plenty more.

Killing people for thievery is not much of a deterent. When we hung horse thieves (an often cited and very misunderstood action... Stealing a horse was closer to attempted murder than theft) people still stole horses.. often. Criminals by and large do not stop commiting crimes out of fear of being harmed. They already understand that is possible. If you ant to escalate violent crime let the BG know he will be shot. That way he knows to shoot you before robbing the place.
 
If you want to escalate violent crime let the BG know he will be shot. That way he knows to shoot you before robbing the place.

Following that logic then we should be totally passive to all aggression and violence and it will go away?
 
Well, as you can see from the highlighted text in TX law, the clerk was exercising his right and within the law. In this country called TEXAS, everyone knows that DEADLY FORCE is justified after sundown, because we DONT have to see, guess, imagine, hope, pray or wish that you have or don't have a weapon. Eyesight and visual recognition is not that good at night. That is why it is expressly written in the law. Deadly force is justified TO PREVENT THEFT DURING THE NIGHTTIME, AND CRIMINAL MISCHIEF DURING THE NIGHTTIME. It keeps people honest. So spread the word, "DON"T MESS WITH TEXAS."
If some don't like it, they can move to Saudi Arabia, they don't shoot you; they just cut off your hands.

I don't think I'd want a lawyer who went in to court in my defense prepared with this. To paraphrase Inugo Montoya, I don't think those highlighted sections mean what you think they mean.
Just for starters, are you sure that shoplifting falls under the definition of any part of this?
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property

It might fall under theft. Does TX law differentiate between petit theft and grand theft? If so, is petit theft included under the subsections you cited above? Chest-thumping and and hoorahing about internet oversimplifications of TX law aside, I will leave you with this. I lived in TX for several years and the laws were no different back then; they are old laws. If it was as clean-cut and easy as you say, one would expect to read every day about all the shoplifters, burglars, vandals, petty thieves, muggers, cattle rustlers, etc. getting gunned down in droves by righteous Texans who are confident that they are operating on the right side of the law. I don't remember it being that way in Laredo. I don't remember it being that way out in Sonora where my then-girlfriend lived. It's not that way right now in Houston where my brother lives. In fact, TX seems to have as much (or more) crime as the rest of the nation. Why aren't the criminals fleeing to states where, compared to the internet version of TX, they could operate in safety and with near impunity?
 
Joe Demko Quote:
Well, as you can see from the highlighted text in TX law, the clerk was exercising his right and within the law. In this country called TEXAS, everyone knows that DEADLY FORCE is justified after sundown, because we DONT have to see, guess, imagine, hope, pray or wish that you have or don't have a weapon. Eyesight and visual recognition is not that good at night. That is why it is expressly written in the law. Deadly force is justified TO PREVENT THEFT DURING THE NIGHTTIME, AND CRIMINAL MISCHIEF DURING THE NIGHTTIME. It keeps people honest. So spread the word, "DON"T MESS WITH TEXAS."
If some don't like it, they can move to Saudi Arabia, they don't shoot you; they just cut off your hands.

I don't think I'd want a lawyer who went in to court in my defense prepared with this. To paraphrase Inugo Montoya, I don't think those highlighted sections mean what you think they mean.
It is amazing that you chose to respond to my personal opinion and not about the legal copy of law that was posted, as it pertains to this particular case.

Joe Demko Quote:
Just for starters, are you sure that shoplifting falls under the definition of any part of this?

Quote:
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property
OK, Smarty. What is the legal definition of "lifting someone's personal property from their shop" then leaving with it without permission?? If they wanted to differentiate theft, they would have written it in the law. So, a reasonable person would agree that the State of Texas means ALL THEFT. WHY??? Because THEFT IS THEFT. No difference.
 
Look, Lucky, you are the guy making claims about how Texas law works. It's your responsibility to prove your own claims; not mine to disprove it. That is the way debate works. Otherwise, things just devolve into increasingly wilder unfounded assertions accompanied by "You can't prove me wrong!"
 
Joe Demko quote:
Look, Lucky, you are the guy making claims about how Texas law works. It's your responsibility to prove your own claims; not mine to disprove it. That is the way debate works. Otherwise, things just devolve into increasingly wilder unfounded assertions accompanied by "You can't prove me wrong!"

Huh!!!! You really wanted to the reply to your questions below???
Just for starters, are you sure that shoplifting falls under the definition of any part of this? Quote:(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property
It might fall under theft. Does TX law differentiate between petit theft and grand theft? If so, is petit theft included under the subsections you cited above?
I wouldn't answer something that obvious. Then it seems like a drowing person trying to climb onto a straw.
 
I see that there is alot of misconceptions of what happens in TX, so I will try to clarify with the law. Quoting a few cases that has different scenarios does not change how the law is applied with grand juries in TX.

Then maybe you could explain why the law did not in apply in the cases I cited?
 
Bartholomew Roberts Quote:
Where there were no allegations of self-defense, defense of others, or defense of property in wrongful death action based on negligence, shield of justifiable homicide provided by Vernon's Ann.P.C. art. 1222 (repealed) inflicted for purpose of preventing theft at night did not exonerate defendant, who shot and killed decedent in attempt to fire warning shot after observing decedent stand over engine compartment of defendant's parked automobile, lift battery out of car, set it down in front of car and close hood. Howsley v. Gilliam, 517 S.W.2d 531 (Sup. 1975)

Guilty, because there is no such thing as a WARNING SHOT. Any bullet leaving your gun should have a reason behind it. He should fry.


PC §9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary
to avoid imminent harm;

(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh,
according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm
sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and
(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the
conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

PC §9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible,
movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property;
I haven't read the case, but from what you stated; here is why he was convicted. He obvious was not in fear of death or serious bodily injury because he stated that he was attempting to fire a warning shot and therefore a reasonable person would agree that the shooter didn't feel in danger when he fired the gun. So therefore, in TX, that means deadly force was not immediately necessary.

Bartholomew Roberts Quote:
Defendant was not justified in using deadly force by shooting victims with firearm to prevent theft of his car keys, wallet, and damage to his car; damage to defendant's car had already been committed when defendant left scene and then returned after arming himself, and there was no evidence that victim was attempting to flee or escape with defendant's wallet and keys. Heng v. State (App. 1 Dist. 2006) 2006 WL 66461, Unreported, petition for discretionary review refused.

Same as the other case. Guilty because of the sections quoted. Deadly force is justified when it is immediately necessary. The shooter cannot use that defense at a later time.
 
from post #6

Officials say a clerk was killed at this store several years ago by another man trying to steal a can of beer.

I'm not sure what if anything this statement has to do with THIS situation. THIS time the theif left the store with the beer so it's very, very ,extremely obvious that the BG did not have any intentions of harming the clerk. The clerk should have stayed behind cover, gotten the lic.no. of the car and reported it to the police. Stolen car? Oh well... ring up a $12 loss for the day and go home without having to hire a self-defense lawyer. (A lawyer would ask for $5,000 - $10,000 retainer for a court case just to defend your actions.) You could probably prove self defense but it's certainly not a slam dunk case.
I'd rather just be out the $12 and let the PD handle it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top