A gun is neither a badge nor a judicial robe.
Texas gas station clerk arrested after fatally shooting accused thief | TheHill
Texas gas station clerk arrested after fatally shooting accused thief | TheHill
Once Again, Killing Thieves has Consequences
- Thread starter biku324
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Self defense 101 ..... don't shoot someone for stealing something (unless it's your daughter).
Over beer?
Nope, not justified legally.
Nope, not justified legally.
While I agree with what has been said, I wonder if the penalty would be less severe if it happened at night. Seems I have read that shooting a thief under cover of darkness is a lesser crime, if none at all.
Unfortunately our laws are way too much in favor of the criminals.
sigp220.45
US Veteran
We’ll see what the grand jury says.
I was in ABQ a couple of years ago testifying in an old reservation rape case and had lunch with an AUSA friend. She had just been no-billed by the federal grand jury on a case where an older Native man who had been the victim of a bunch of thefts heard someone messing around with his horse trailer. He stuck his rez-standard Marlin Model 60 out the window and touched off a flurry of rounds. The next morning he went out to check and wondered: Hey! Who put this dead 19 year old girl by my trailer?
I agree shooting at people over some 7-11 beer is foolish. I’d just get the plate and call the cops, who would most likely not care.
I was in ABQ a couple of years ago testifying in an old reservation rape case and had lunch with an AUSA friend. She had just been no-billed by the federal grand jury on a case where an older Native man who had been the victim of a bunch of thefts heard someone messing around with his horse trailer. He stuck his rez-standard Marlin Model 60 out the window and touched off a flurry of rounds. The next morning he went out to check and wondered: Hey! Who put this dead 19 year old girl by my trailer?
I agree shooting at people over some 7-11 beer is foolish. I’d just get the plate and call the cops, who would most likely not care.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,512
- Reaction score
- 6,083
There was some validity to that concept with regard to burglary of an occupied dwelling under common law, actually going back to Moses and Hammurabi. In a property crime where the thieves were pursued for recovery of the stolen property and then shot for refusing to comply I wouldn't expect "it was dark" to be any better defense than "he needed killing".
sipowicz
Member
Not American beer anyway.
PENAL CODE CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
Morality questions aside about deadly force to protect property...
The event was a theft and did take place at night.
So baring any other information I believe the use of force was technically justified.
Morality questions aside about deadly force to protect property...
The event was a theft and did take place at night.
So baring any other information I believe the use of force was technically justified.
I want to know why no one has shot the thief in the other thread selling Sam Adams beer for $28 a pop?
Jack Flash
Member
It's not that the police don't care, it's the DAs. I read that flagrant shoplifting is rampant in many American cities because stealing items valued less than $950 is simply not prosecuted. Stores are closing right and left as the shelves are literally picked bare.
Welcome to Woke America.
Welcome to Woke America.
OP
At risk of causing law dilettantes to clutch their chests in horror, statutes on books frequently are invalid because of application of state or US Constitutional rules after the statute was written. I'd urge those wanting to school themselves on current legal rules on serious matters to find their state's current uniform jury instructions on the matter. These are continually updated by state courts of final appeals through an administrative office of state courts; the very best information on affirmative defenses is found there.
Here are New Mexico rules as an example - the current statute on justifiable homicide by citizen is wildly different.
14-5171. Justifiable homicide; self defense.1
An issue you must consider in this case is whether the defendant killed __________________ (name of victim) in self defense.
The killing is in self defense if:
1. There was an appearance of immediate danger of death or great bodily harm2 to the defendant as a result of __________________3;4 and
2. The defendant was in fact put in fear by the apparent danger of immediate death or great bodily harm and killed __________________ (name of victim) because of that fear; and
3. A reasonable person in the same circumstances as the defendant would have acted as the defendant did.
The burden is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self defense. If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant acted in self defense you must find the defendant not guilty.
USE NOTES
1. For use when the self defense theory is based on necessary defense of self against any unlawful action; reasonable grounds to believe a design exists to commit a felony; or reasonable grounds to believe a design exists to do some great bodily harm. If this instruction is given, add to the essential elements instruction for the offense charged, “The defendant did not act in self defense.”
2. The definition of great bodily harm, UJI 14-131 NMRA, must be given if not already given.
3. Describe unlawful act, felony, or act which would result in death or some great bodily harm as established by the evidence. Give at least enough detail to put the act in the context of the evidence.
4. UJI 14-5190 NMRA (assailed person need not retreat), must be given if at issue. If at issue, UJI 14-5191 NMRA (self defense; limitations; aggressor) and UJI 14-5191A NMRA (first aggressor; exceptions to the limitation on self defense) should also be given.
[As amended, effective October 1, 1985; January 1, 1997; as amended by Supreme Court Order No. 19-8300-016, effective for all cases pending or filed on or after December 31, 2019.]
Now, here's the statute:
30-2-7. Justifiable homicide by citizen.
Homicide is justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:
A. when committed in the necessary defense of his life, his family or his property, or in necessarily defending against any unlawful action directed against himself, his wife or family;
B. when committed in the lawful defense of himself or of another and when there is a reasonable ground to believe a design exists to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury against such person or another, and there is imminent danger that the design will be accomplished; or
C. when necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed in his presence, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in necessarily and lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.
History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-2-8, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303, § 2-8.
The reason lawyers are expensive is because they're worth it.
Last edited:
The Texas penal code cited is current and is the law in the state of Texas. At this point I have not seen any rules, state or otherwise, that change or nullify the statutes. I cannot see how instructions to a jury, after conviction, would change the law.
If charges are brought and a conviction is entered then the statute would not apply since a violation of the law is evident by the conviction.
None of this is to say the use of lethal force, as in this case, is reasonable in such a circumstance. Discretion is often better than action.
If charges are brought and a conviction is entered then the statute would not apply since a violation of the law is evident by the conviction.
None of this is to say the use of lethal force, as in this case, is reasonable in such a circumstance. Discretion is often better than action.
studenygreg
Member
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2016
- Messages
- 235
- Reaction score
- 243
I probably would shoot someone over beer but you have to draw the line somewhere. Is he supposed to allow people to steal beer from the store whenever they want? That's a lot of money lost and will add up fast. You can run a business like that. I wish he got the 2nd one as well.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
OP
How this would work is a defendant would be placed on trial for some degree of murder. He/she would raise the 'affirmative defense' of self-defense or other recognized defense. As the trial goes to the jury, the trial court judge must instruct the jury on the law as well as the defense - that's why jury instructions matter...they are how the jury is to apply the law.
Every state is different - you couldn't shoot someone over property in NM.
The “pure” defense of property, i.e., not including a defense against force and violence, is always limited to reasonable force under the circumstances. See, e.g., State v. Waggoner, 1946-NMSC-001, 49 N.M. 399, 165 P.2d 122; Brown v. Martinez, 1961-NMSC-040, 68 N.M. 271, 361 P.2d 152. In Brown, the Court held that resort to the use of a firearm to prevent a mere trespass or an unlawful act not amounting to a felony was unreasonable as a matter of law.
Thus the lack of... "I'm so thirsty I'd kill for a Coors" banners at Triathlon events held at Pikes Peak.
