(TX) Clerk shoots reported beer thief

Killer- As I said I can handle a thief without help. I do not rely on anyone other than the police to help me with anything security related.

Police are trained to deal with criminals so I suppose I rely on them to handle that but that is the system we live in.

There are other ways of dealing with people. In the world I live in a gun is a near last recourse of a reasonable train of thought and action. If it is the first thing you reach for then things have gone poorly or you are the one responsible for the outcome of every encounter.

BTW- Tresspassing and burglary are quite different than shoplifting in that there is a presumption of violence as the actors motives are unknown. My comparison was beteen two non-violent crimes. Check fraud and shoplifting.

 

Don't get too carried away with your own rhetoric.

 

wow - what he said... can't say it any better. (but of course I'll try in my own vernacular) an 18 pack of beer is a ***TY thing to get killed over... but when you are stealing property it aught to be a concern what "could" happen. Its just not for the vast majority of people who think other people's property belongs to them and that they can take it with impunity. If you don't think anything is going to happen to you if you steal X, what makes you think they think something is going to happen to THEM if they steal Y?

This isn't just about an 18 pack from a convenience store. If the guy/gal will brazenly do it there, then they probably don't have a problem taking it from you garage or house. Which puts you to the next level of what will THEY do to get away with it when you catch them. Unfortunately, you are now up in yer PJ's at 4am prolly not at the height of your cognitive powers facing an aggressor. Sucks to be you... didn't feel he was worth nabbing for an 18 pack...

No i don't think the death penalty should be handed out for beer thieves... if they give up and are nabbed etc etc... they should be given every opportunity to figure out that its just not worth it to be a thief. If they turn on someone and act like they might "try" something or get froggy... once again its their bad thinking. (or probably correct thinking to them... its probably worked before for them........)

Bleh either way... its the incorrect thinking that their deeds WILL go unpunished that they proceed with unlawful acts to begin with. Its also incorrect to think "others" will learn from it (to not do it... they often learn to come better armed to subjugate a victim) The choice comes in if we as a people are going to take it... and that is a path i'd rather take. if my choices were wolf or sheep, i'll take wolf vs. wolf any time i can remotely get away with it. Wolf vs. Sheep is rarely a good outcome.

J/Tharg!

 

Excellent moral analogy. But Tharg... You forgot the Sheep dog. Does the sheep dog always kill the wolf? Nope. Normally he chases it off. Does the wolf come back? Sometimes... sometimes the wolf moves on. Is the wolf needed to maintain balance? Guess it depends on your POV. If you are sheep than you fear the wolf... If you are sheep dog than you confront it and drive it away... Kill it if you have to... But only if you have to. If there was no Wolf there would be no sheep dog. But the sheep would still get eaten.

 

Titan, come on. Are you trying to say that we need criminals to maintain the balance in society? I'm not saying that is what your position is, but based on reading that paragraph, that is how it sounded.

That my friend is messed up logic. What you imply is "sheepdogs", (i.e. people that care that crimes are commited and are willing to do something about it) need criminals for some perverse way of life, where they can go hunt down or drive off these "wolves". I know many a gun owner, many with conceal carry permits, and not one of them feels that way.

I'm sure the vast majority of people with firearms wish there never would be a need to use them defensively. I'll say this again. The thief probably didn't think he was going to be shot and killed over 18 cans of beer, but that was his choice to steal. If he hadn't been stealing, he probably wouldn't have been shot and killed. It has nothing to do with balance, unless you are talking about the thief being mentally imbalanced.

 

Who said anything about a sheep dog?

I said Wolf vs. Wolf. If we are to strictly stick to the metaphor wolves do not kill other wolves all the time, sometimes they back them down to submission, and of course sometimes they chase them away.

The sheep however lets the wolf do what the wolf wants, be it eat them, or move on because it "isn't hungry".

I said i'd take wolf any time i can remotely get away with it. IE, if its obvious that presenting an aggressor attitude is going to get me no where, it wouldn't be smart to do it. Everything relies on POV... that includes one's take on the situation at the time. If pulling a gun is going to get me shot by the 10 guys robbing the bank, it would be useless to do so at that time. Better to play sheep and live than to play wolf and die.

As for "balance" its a long standing argument that if there was no evil then there would be no good. Its extremely black and white which isn't how the world operates. (well - outside of political realms)

But in the end ya... if there were no thieves/murderers/rapists/angry people/psycho's/etc etc i might even find myself in an anti posture... but if those things didn't exist, what would an anti have to fight for? The non-existance of gun-related crime? hehehe

So much lawyer talk going on on this one. I don't know when it happened, but at some point before i was born common sense lost its mojo. I don't think people should die for stealing beer, but i think people who steal beer should expect to die because its a reasonable (common) outcome when you are putting persons other than yourself in a situation where you are removing property from them. The day a crook looks at me and says give me yer wallet and don't think about shooting me because its only money is the day I'll know we are truly whipped. Have we gotten to the point that we don't even let criminals be held accountable for their (own) actions??!?!

I love computers and gadgets and computer games and (modern) guns... but sometimes i think i was born in the wrong era. Used to be a time a person had to be responsible for all his/her actions be it to pay a loan, take care of his/her family, and be aware of his/her choices in public. At least that is the rosy picture i gather of times long gone. Could be that i just have an ingrown hope that at some point (average) people really did act like that.

at any rate... another novel written in internet anals of time

take care all!!!

J/Tharg!

 

I don't have much sympathy for beer thieves.

I don't see the upside to a clerk chasing a beer thief outside the store.

 

well if someone is stealing to get it ...

until the penalties are severe then nothing will change. I work hard for what I have and don't believe in letting anyone steal what I work hard for. I give a lot of great and valuble stuff away but only as I am led or choose to.

You do gooders have had your way for years and it is only gettin worse. One thing for sure is the dead robber won't be stealing or hurting anyone else will he?

 

In the times and places where the most severe penalties for even petty crimes were used, was there still crime?

 

Crime has actually dropped considerably in the past 15 years or so nationwide. I guess the Do-gooders getting their way is working?

But my contention is that there will always be crime and criminals (wolves) and there is nothing we can do to ever put a stop to it. Criminals know fully well that they could die for stealing your CD player but do it anyway. Most criminals lack the ability to think ahead so much as week or so because they live day to day.

As Tharg pointed out without crime then we would live in perfect society where there would be no need to use guns in defense. Such a thing has never happened in this country despite a yearning for ''The good old days''. When the lord of the manor had his proles whipped for poaching, people still poached. When thieves were crucified, people still stole.

I recognize that not everyone is strong enough to deal with a petty criminal on an emotional and mental level therefore they feel they have to resort to violence. And not every case will things work out as expected. But certainly with some training and proper mind set it could be done by most people.

I guess you have to decide wether or not you are truly a mindless sheep (and therefore bound and determined to only one course of action) or a free thinking individual capable of creative abstract thought.

 

Titan:

Who decides what a PETTY criminal is? Is it something that becomes obvious within the first couple of seconds when someone is committing a crime? I suppose most of us will just have to brush up on our Jedi Mind tricks, so we can deal with these criminals on an emotional and mental level and resolve these PETTY crimes like you have the power to do.

You know the funny thing to me? It has always made sense that when someone attempts to control another (as happens during crime), force equal to or greater than that of the criminal usually does a stellar job of resolving the situation.

I'm sure for the majority of people on this forum or not, have escape or de-escalation as their first choice when confronted with a crime, however, using violence is a definite option and should be. Your comment sounds just a bit self-righteous and it is my hope that the rest of us mindless sheep somehow, someway wise up someday. I'll keep my fingers crossed.

 

This is exactly the contention by some people in here. That is why I don't know why is there still an arguement when an owner uses deadly force to protect his property. This right is afforded to them by law with specifications. So if a criminal does not want to change his actions although knowing the consequences: then why should an owner change their reactions. It should not matter just because it is beer or any intrinsic valuable, they knew before they committed the crime, that they might die; end of story.

 

Lucky45,

There's a very important point you are missing about the TX law regarding the use of deadly force in defense of property.

Underlined.

It's very very important.

If your property is insured against loss, and not some sort of one of a kind, it's recoverable. Or so is it's value. If your store carries any sort of theft loss insurance, you can't use deadly force to protect it's merchandise since it is recoverable loss.

 

Camslam- IME petty criminals are by and large cowards, babies or mentally ill. If they were grown up mature people they would not be petty criminals. If they were a major criminal they would much more likely stick a gun in your face and try to rob the till than waste time on a six pack.

That is the main reason it is easier to control situations involving them. Jedi Mind tricks? I suppose you could call it that but really sheer balls will overcome most easily.

Have I claimed the moral high ground? Perhaps. It depends upon your POV. As I said not everyone is strong enough. Just because a person is not strong enough to complete a task does not make them a bad person. However a person that takes the easy way out (a gun) over a harder solution with a better result strikes me as either weak, narrow minded or lacking moral fiber.

Lucky45 - My contention is that people often commit much more dangerous and deadly crimes (speeding, drunk driving) or crimes that have a more negative impact on social economics (writing bad checks) and yet no one is endorsing that we put a stop to those through summary execution. Say the police stop you and you are over the legal limit. Should they now shoot you in the back of the head? After all you are still a threat due to your public intoxication and that would be the easier way out. A minute ago you were willing to kill someone to avoid paying $30 in cab fare.

For some, somehow the dynamics change when we are dealing with personal property. Is it because it is YOUR stuff? Are you that attached to YOUR stuff that you would rather live with killing a person?

A drunk driver knows full well before they get behind the wheel of a car that they might die or kill someone. Yet people who you would never suspect still do it every week. So where do you draw the line?

Even that is not really true though. The only reason that Texas allows for the exception is due to the fact that it is difficult to tell what the threat is at night. Many states do not allow it all. Some go fruther. This is not a legal issue to me. No where have I disputed the legality of storekeep's actions. This is a moral issue. The state I live in now allows gambling. I do not gamble because I am opposed to it on moral grounds.

We also open the door to possibilities we would likely not like to see in our lifetimes. A very powerful yet morally bankrupt corporation could use such laws to back corrupt actions (surprising I know but such things have happened in our past) that would be detrimental to a healthy society for example. A perverted person could use such laws to back legal serial killings such as the fictional example of the Atlanta shop owner posted earlier in the thread.

 

Titan: I hear where you are coming from, but it still puts a big old smile on my face. I'll grant you there are a few people I have come across in my time on this earth that I would not mess with PERIOD. They have a look about them on their face that says, "you really don't want any of this."

That being said, a criminal is a criminal. Most are stupid, and some more so than others. As I mentioned in my previous post, I think the first thing an alert person, in particular a CCP holder would do is assess the situation and try to de-escalate it. I would imagine that verbally talking the criminal down would be right up there as a prime option. However, in the end, what most criminals and people in general respect, is equal or greater force than what they are presenting.

I suppose I didn't care much for your broad generalization in the way people deal with criminals versus what you might do. To each their own and hopefully we'll have few or no situations where we have to find out what works.

Cheers.

 

Wait its legal to shoot people for stealing your beer? My house parties will never be the same.

 

So what? Is it the do badders turn now? Will you start shooting every kid who steals a candy bar, because someday he will do worse crimes?

Talk about broad generalizations. If a criminal is a criminal than why are there misdemeanors (is that how you spell misdemeanor?) and felonies?

I think it is become some crimes are worse than others and I believe in punishments that fit the crime.

I think it would only take a microsecond to realize that someone shoplifting beer is a PETTY crime. The distinction of petty crime is pretty easy to understand and well defined.

The guy was an employee.

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

Right, because shoplifters are killed all the time right?

Wynona Ryder is soooo lucky to be alive.
Whoah wait, so am I. I shoplifed a pack of gum one time.

 

Nope. It's a Chevron/Amoco on the corner of Buford Hwy and North Druid Hills, by the I-85 overpass. Last time I was out there was late 2003.

My understanding is that most people thought it was a joke, or graffiti. I asked him about it out of curiosity, and a Dekalb officer confirmed it for me.

 

Flak_Jakett wrote:

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


Flak_Jakett

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. If that is not enough to deter in YOUR mind that you should not steal, then there is no hope for some people. It deters my mind, I would never steal. ( Unless the stuff belongs to me) Then it is just REPO.

 

Killing a man is a powerful, certain and irreversible thing to do.

If a few beers is worth it to you and you think you are that much in the right than you will likely do just that.
I would submit that to do such a thing over so little is an act of evil. If that is the moral code you follow than you have my pity. But you would not have my mercy if I were on your jury.

 

Well EricF perhaps so? I could find no news items about it. Certainly he would be a person of interest.

But for those of you who don't believe in Jedi Mind tricks....


WI: Bar owner chases down .44 Magnum-toting robber
Source: Oshkosh Northwestern

“Herb Ott doesn’t like to be robbed. In fact, he takes it pretty darn personally. On Thursday around noon, a man in a camouflage mask and clothing and carrying a .44 Magnum handgun and a bag walked into Ott’s bar, Poor Nate’s Tavern, in the township of Dellona about 50 miles northwest of Madison. The bartender, who declined to give her name, said the robber never pointed the gun at her, but went straight to the money drawer. She began screaming for Ott, who was upstairs doing the bar’s books, as the robber headed out the back door with nearly $5,000 in his bag. The 68-year-old Ott came charging downstairs and burst out the back door after the robber, shouting at him to stop. ‘I told him, ‘Give me my frickin’ money back,’’ Ott said. Ott followed the robber through the countryside behind the bar, careful to keep his distance. The robber ducked from tree to tree, looking back at him from time to time, Ott said. He ran up a hill toward some rental cottages before Ott found him trying to hide behind a shed. Ott began to swear at the robber — ‘I used the Lord’s name in vain. I think he was scared’ — and the robber handed the money bag and loaded gun over to him.” (09/08/07)

Link: http://tinyurl.com/yrl5qu

He faced down an armed robber and got the money and the loaded gun handed over to him using nothing but brass balls the size of cantelopes. Smile if you want to it can be done.

 

Well, then you might want to consider the likely hood of having a serial number and cell mate waiting for you when you find out the DA doesn't share your view of the TX penal code on defense of property.

Really, it's the attitude of the DA that will put you in jail for this or set you free. If he thinks the property, or it's value is recoverable and you still used deadly force... you will go to jail.

Someone had better be stealing the Mona Lisa, your breeding stock, or the cure to cancer before you use deadly force just to prevent theft.

Never forget the recoverable clause. The DA won't.

The second thing the DA will throw at you, consistancy. They will look through your balance sheets to see if you have been suffering theft losses before. If you have, and you haven't been using force to prevent those incidents the prosecutor is going to make the jury think you went Rambo. I don't think I have to say, that's not a good thing. Unless you can produce a company policy statement dictating a change in enforcement behavior he's going to fry you as a loose cannon enforcer type out to prove himself, especially if the prevous method has just been to notify the police.. or even worse to just write off the loss.

So, things to consider
1) Is the loss recoverable in terms of actual item or value
2) Has the previous response differed. This will be used to show that in similar circumstances it wasn't believed lethal force was necessary.

 

Well according to your suggestion, then you are saying that whenever anyone is being carjacked by a man with a gun, that everyone should get their butts out the car and let them have it. Because obviously the carjacker is not their to harm you, they just want the car for other personal purposes. Plus your car must have insurance since it is on the public highway, so you are covered and can recover your loss.
So no need to use deadly force here, so I guess we should call for the repeal of all castle doctrine LAWS.

 

Here's a recent story from my neck of the woods about a clerk who didn't confront the beer thieves, but tried to get the license plate number as the thieves were getting in the car to drive off. The clerk was shot by the thieves while he stood watching them at the door.


http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=1526709

One sure gets the impression this is a dangerous line of work, and I can understand why the clerk in the OP was on a hair trigger. I don't think he acted in his own best interest when he followed the thief, but I wouldn't say he wasn't justified in what he did.

 

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.

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.