(TX) Clerk shoots reported beer thief

"properly articulate yourself "

Very important. On so many levels. Cool heads prevail for a reason. Not the least of which is the ability to convey vital information when it's needed most.

ClickClickD'oh Quote:

Not at all.

Operating within the confines of the law is an exercise in being able to properly articulate yourself to authorities. A man carjacks you with a gun, you should be reasonably able to state that you felt that your life was in danger. You aren't then defending your property, you are defending yourself.

Click to expand...

Then what is the gun for? Pointing a gun at a person in the conduct of a crime is a defacto intent to cause harm. All arguments about property defense are moot when the thug starts the encounter with a gun. It's simply not about property at that point.

Click to expand...

REALLY!!!????!!!!! I never said the BG pointed the gun at the you. He was just showing it in his waist band. So now you have no mention of being able to recover the property by other means.
So are you now agreeing that the clerk's action was not about the beer, after the thief started to reach around for what the clerk reasonably thought to be a GUN. "Is it simply not about the beer at that point?" Seems like we have a convert.

Lucky45 said:

REALLY!!!????!!!!! I never said the BG pointed the gun at the you. He was just showing it in his waist band.

Click to expand...

Now you are being disingenuous with your arguments.

You said,

...whenever anyone is being carjacked by a man with a gun...

Click to expand...

However, that doesn't actually change anything. If a man is trying to force me out of my vehicle against my will and is displaying a weapon, either in his hand or in his waste band, he is using a weapon as a threat in the commission of a crime. He gets the standard response drill.

Texas Penal Code 29.03(a)2 [Aggravated Robbery] Uses or exhibits a deadly weapon

Texas Penal Code 9.32(a)3 [Deadly Force In Defense of Person] to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

Lucky45 said:

So are you now agreeing that the clerk's action was not about the beer, after the thief started to reach around for what the clerk reasonably thought to be a GUN.

Click to expand...

Please do not assume what my argument is based upon you presenting a disingenuous argument, it's bad form.

The clerk put themselves into the shooting situation by following the criminal, while carrying a firearm. It is very easy for a prosecutor to argue that the use of lethal force by the clerk started when they armed themselves and followed the criminal, thus invalidating any claim to self defense from later actions. The same way I couldn't claim self defense if I took my firearm and drove around the bad parts of Dallas trying to get carjacked.

The law says that if you are legally where you are supposed to be, like a place of employment, and carrying a concealed weapon with license (like the clerk) then you are justified to use deadly force in certain instances. That is what transpired with the clerk. He has CHL, he did not just arm himself. He was armed from the time he recieved his license.

My point about the gun was to show that the gun does not have to be displayed in a menacing way for you to use deadly force, because I would not wait until it was pointed my way when someone has already committed a crime against you.

When dealing with weapons and crime we are discussing a different topic than shoplifting.

The argument goes that the clerk in the OP had no weapon, was fleeing the scene and posed no threat to the clerk. The clerk was only legally justified in shooting the shoplifter as it was in hours of darkness and he was in the state of Texas. In another state, or if this had occured during the day time the clerk would be facing a Grand Jury.

A man with a gun who is trying to rob you either through the display of a weapon or pointing it at you is likely committing assault and should be dealt with differently.

The weapon clarifies the issue regardless of how you insert it into the situation, even if the weapon is not capable of causing harm (say unloaded or a non-firing replica) in most states and certainly for me regardless of the state.

Lucky45 said:

That is what transpired with the clerk. He has CHL, he did not just arm himself. He was armed from the time he recieved his license.

Click to expand...

That argument isn't going to stand up in court. Wearing a weapon, and being licensed to carry a weapon is not the same thing as drawing your weapon. You aren't using deadly force when you wear a concealed weapon. You are using deadly force when you draw your weapon with the intent to use it.

As I said before, if the prosecutor can show that there was another method to recover the product, or the value of the product, or that the store had previously considered this level of loss not to be up to the level of the use deadly force, or even much less normal force.. then any claim of justification for the use of deadly force goes right out the window.

Yes, the law says you can use deadly force to protect property. BUT, and this is a giant BUT, it also says you can't do that if there are other means of recovery and only if it's considered immediately necessary.

If the prosecutor shows that the establishment didn't consider the use of deadly force necessary in similar circumstances in the past, you're sunk.

Why is this important?

Simple. If the prosecutor invalidates the claim of lethal force in defense of the property, the person has zero recourse as to why he put himself in the situation that he claims to have had to use lethal force in defense of himself. He illegally put himself into a shooting situation. A self defense claim won't stand there, any more than a carjacker could claim self defense when his victim shoots at him.

If the perp had whipped out a pistol while inside the store taking the beer, the story would be completely different. Then it would be an immediate case of self defense in which the actor did not have to put himself into the position to use deadly force. As it is though, the actor invalidates that claim by following the thief out of the store.

Titan6 said:

In another state, or if this had occured during the day time the clerk would be facing a Grand Jury.

Click to expand...

Sorry for the double post, but a point of Texas law.

This case will face a Grand Jury, as is required by Texas law. All fatal shootings in Texas go before the Grand Jury no matter how clear cut they are. If the man is indicted or no-billed on this case is likely to be a result of the attitude of the DA. If the DA wants, he may just go before the Grand Jury and tell them he sees no reason to pursue the case, or he may press for an indictment. Of course, just because the DA decides not to follow the case doesn't mean you followed the law. The reverse is also true, the DA pushing for an indictment doesn't mean you broke the law. Remember, Texas DAs are elected.

Flak_Jakett wrote:

So if a criminal does not want to change his actions although knowing the consequences: then why should an owner change their reactions.

Click to expand...

I don't think the guy knew he was going to get shot.

Isn't there an old saying that IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE

Click to expand...

.

Click to expand...

Is there a law which sates that shop lifting is punishable by death?

If you or someone else decide to shoplift in the near future, then you should remember that you MIGHT just have a bullet with your name on it waiting for you by someone who does not share your views.

Click to expand...

I believe that tailgaters put people's lives at risk. More at risk than shoplifters for sure. Would it be okay for me to shoot tailgaters? I bet they don't share the same views on it as I do.