Quantcast

(TX) Clerk shoots reported beer thief

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Drizzt, Sep 6, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. usmcgrunt

    usmcgrunt Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    22
    Location:
    TEXAS
    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!
     
  2. BBQJOE

    BBQJOE Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    737
    Location:
    ARIZONA
    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.
     
  3. beaucoup ammo

    beaucoup ammo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,216
    Location:
    San Antonio
    “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.
     
  4. Sir Aardvark

    Sir Aardvark Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,277
    Location:
    Southern California
    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.
     
  5. TEDDY

    TEDDY Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    883
    Location:
    MANNING SC
    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:
     
  6. camslam

    camslam Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    741
    Location:
    Chilling Out in the Valley of The Sun
    Bartholomew: Let me clarify a bit.

    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.
     
  7. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    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.
     
  8. RPCVYemen

    RPCVYemen Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Messages:
    1,937
    +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
     
  9. Flak_Jakett

    Flak_Jakett Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Messages:
    172
    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

    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.
     
  10. W.E.G.

    W.E.G. Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Messages:
    7,402
    Location:
    all over Virginia
    I bet he won't do that again.
     
  11. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    13,035
    Location:
    In a part of Utah that resembles Tattooine.
    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.
     
  12. camslam

    camslam Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    741
    Location:
    Chilling Out in the Valley of The Sun
    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.
     
  13. Joe Demko

    Joe Demko Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    6,523
    Location:
    Just two minutes from sanity.
    I'm sure the agents of our government say much the same thing when doing things like enforcing gun laws and executing no-knock warrants. Still, if it is what you believe it is what you believe.
     
  14. Lucky45

    Lucky45 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    22
    Location:
    TX
    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.

    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.
     
  15. Titan6

    Titan6 member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Gillikin Country
    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.
     
  16. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,301
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    Following that logic then we should be totally passive to all aggression and violence and it will go away?
     
  17. Joe Demko

    Joe Demko Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    6,523
    Location:
    Just two minutes from sanity.
    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?
    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?
     
  18. Titan6

    Titan6 member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Gillikin Country
    Texas Rifleman- I am not sure how a thief running away with a case of beer is violent and aggressive please explain?
     
  19. Lucky45

    Lucky45 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    22
    Location:
    TX
    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.

    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.
     
  20. Joe Demko

    Joe Demko Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    6,523
    Location:
    Just two minutes from sanity.
    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!"
     
  21. Lucky45

    Lucky45 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    22
    Location:
    TX
    Huh!!!! You really wanted to the reply to your questions below???
    I wouldn't answer something that obvious. Then it seems like a drowing person trying to climb onto a straw.
     
  22. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    Then maybe you could explain why the law did not in apply in the cases I cited?
     
  23. Joe Demko

    Joe Demko Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    6,523
    Location:
    Just two minutes from sanity.
    Thank you, Lucky. You've told me all I need to know.
    Long days and many nights to you.
     
  24. Lucky45

    Lucky45 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    22
    Location:
    TX
    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.


    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.

    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.
     
  25. MinnMooney

    MinnMooney Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2007
    Messages:
    1,608
    Location:
    east-central Minnesota
    from post #6

    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice