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.
Batholomew, here in Texas you can and many people have been legaly shot for leaving with stolen property at night.
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.
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?
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.
A crime is a crime.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
(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 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:
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.
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.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
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!"
I wouldn't answer something that obvious. Then it seems like a drowing person trying to climb onto a straw.Just for starters, are you sure that shoplifting falls under the definition of any part of this? QuoteB) 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 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.
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)
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.
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.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;
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.
Officials say a clerk was killed at this store several years ago by another man trying to steal a can of beer.