Once Again, Killing Thieves has Consequences

[bulletslap]

Deleted- duplicate post.

 

[biku324]

Not shooting people certainly is cheaper.

 

[bulletslap]

Dallas district attorney John Cruezot not prosecuting minor crimes | The Texas Tribune

Dallas County DA generally will not file charges for theft under 750 dollars.

It makes it very tough on store owners and honest citizens, not that “Let ‘em go Creuzot” cares about anyone other than the criminal class that elected him.

 

[FAS1]

Good, bad or indifferent the Texas statutes do allow the use of deadly force to protect property.

A crime was committed: Robbery/Burglary

Clerk was the lawful possessor of the stolen property

Clerk was in fresh pursuit

Thieves were going to leave with the property if he didn't act

Event occurred at night

Yes, it seems like this meets the law how it is written in Texas, but he better be telling his lawyer that the one that got away pointed a gun at him or they tried to run him over before he shot at them.

I wonder if there is video?

From a news article: "Johnson followed them into the parking lot to tell them to put down the beer, then fired five shots at their pickup as they drove off, police said."

 

[Flattop5]

If your life or someones else's life isn't threatened, walk away. Decisions have consequences.

I was in a convenience store recently, and I saw a bum stealing candy. I looked around to hail a clerk. No clerk was visible. He must have been in the back room. My options were: A) grab the bum and risk getting stabbed; or B) walk away.

I chose B. I walked away. It's not my candy, and the bum will get a "trespass" and maybe a ticket.



-------------------

 

[biku324]

A crime was committed: Robbery/Burglary

Clerk was the lawful possessor of the stolen property

Clerk was in fresh pursuit

Thieves were going to leave with the property if he didn't act

Event occurred at night

Yes, it seems like this meets the law how it is written in Texas, but he better be telling his lawyer that the one that got away pointed a gun at him or they tried to run him over before he shot at them.

I wonder if there is video?

From a news article: "Johnson followed them into the parking lot to tell them to put down the beer, then fired five shots at their pickup as they drove off, police said."

There was no robbery nor burglary. The crime was shoplifting, a form of larceny. I suspect 4 cases of beer to be of misdemeanor value. Burglary is unlawful entry to commit a theft or felony; robbery is theft by use or threatened use of force.

'Fresh pursuit' only applies to law enforcement.

Yes, it was successful shoplifting/larceny.

Time of day or night is irrelevant as the clerk clearly was not threatened nor (just as obviously) did he feel threatened as 1) he chased them, and 2) he had and used a gun.

There's no rational justification for this absent a credible, deadly threat to the clerk. That horse (use of deadly force to protect property) left the barn long before most of us were born.

 

[RCL-09]

There was no robbery nor burglary. The crime was shoplifting, a form of larceny. I suspect 4 cases of beer to be a misdemeanor value. Burglary is unlawful entry to commit a theft or felony; robbery is theft by use or threatened use of force.

'Fresh pursuit' only applies to law enforcement.

Yes, it was successful shoplifting/larceny.

Time of day or night is irrelevant as the clerk clearly was not threatened nor (just as obviously) did he feel threatened as 1) he chased them, and 2) he had and used a gun.

There's no rational justification for this absent a credible, deadly threat to the clerk. That horse (use of deadly force to protect property) left the barn long before most of us were born.

I have never really seen any reason/explanation as to why night allows for lethal force for theft/criminal-mischief while daylight does not.

 

[FAS1]

There was no robbery nor burglary. The crime was shoplifting, a form of larceny. I suspect 4 cases of beer to be of misdemeanor value. Burglary is unlawful entry to commit a theft or felony; robbery is theft by use or threatened use of force.

'Fresh pursuit' only applies to law enforcement.

Yes, it was successful shoplifting/larceny.

Time of day or night is irrelevant as the clerk clearly was not threatened nor (just as obviously) did he feel threatened as 1) he chased them, and 2) he had and used a gun.

There's no rational justification for this absent a credible, deadly threat to the clerk. That horse (use of deadly force to protect property) left the barn long before most of us were born.

I don't know, this is how the Texas law is written.

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.

 

[CH4]

I have never really seen any reason/explanation as to why night allows for lethal force for theft/criminal-mischief while daylight does not.

Perhaps because we weren't around 150 years ago when Texas created the law to understand the legislature's intent; apparently they haven't seen the need to change it. Not sure if there's more recent case law that addresses it. Personally I think all states should have similar language in their use of force laws. Our country certainly lacks the necessary deterrence to keep such meatheads in check.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

Simply put, you cannot use deadly force unless you are threatened with deadly force.

Everything else is commentary.

 

[RCL-09]

Perhaps because we weren't around 150 years ago when Texas created the law to understand the legislature's intent; apparently they haven't seen the need to change it. Not sure if there's more recent case law that addresses it. Personally I think all states should have similar language in their use of force laws. Our country certainly lacks the necessary deterrence to keep such meatheads in check.

I don't know when the original statue was written or how many changes have been made in its history.

 

[RCL-09]

Simply put, you cannot use deadly force unless you are threatened with deadly force.

Everything else is commentary.

As it relates to this case, it is not commentary, it is the state (Texas) Penal Code.

You can also use deadly force (in most states) in defense of others. The Texas statutes read:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:

(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and

(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

 

[biku324]

But where is beer stealing in the statute??

 

[Muss Muggins]

A: I would fair poorly in a race against people who are able to elude a 24 year old while carrying a case of beer each.

2: Regardless of the law, it is a poor idea to chase people who have not fired at you and then fire at them. It is possible that when they enter their vehicle, they will return fire. And then you’ve lost your life over $60 in beer. As it is, the clerk has at least temporarily lost his freedom. And his pistol . . .

Not my circus . . .

 

[Jon651]

Politicians have made it illegal to shoot thieves. Probably protecting their own.

As humorous as your post may be, the exact opposite is true. Politicians have made it MUCH EASIER to shoot thieves. It wasn't very many years ago that the Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground laws didn't even exist in the public consciousness. Now, in more than a few states it is acceptable to use deadly force to defend property - with little or no guidance on how large and important or small and inconsequential that property must be before you are allowed to use said force.

In many places the only thing keeping the use of deadly force in check in many instances is no longer a threat of criminal prosecution, but simply how much hassle you are willing to deal with in the aftermath of pulling that trigger because the law says you can.

 

[Jon651]

Good, bad or indifferent the Texas statutes do allow the use of deadly force to protect property.

After all, steeling some 12-packs is not the same as stealing (and thus depriving a person of the ability to make a living) a truck full of tools and equipment.

An interesting point. What does Texas (and other states) law say about how inconsequential a piece of property must be before it cannot/should not be defended using deadly force?

I cannot say if the store clerk in question would have reacted the same way if the thieves took a penny from the change cup on the counter and walked out. In that kid's mind, however, a few twelve-packs rated a lethal response so obviously he thought the bar was pretty low.

 

[mscampbell2734]

After reading that Texas statue it's clear most people here are making the very common mistake of sloppy/lazy/ignorant use of words.

Theft/Thieves means taking property. PERIOD, taking something that does not belong to you.

ROBBERY is taking property by the use or threat of force.

A subtle difference but in the eyes of the law an important difference. Robbery means someone is attacking with the intent to make off with property. This is why you can shoot robbers but not thieves.

 

[RCL-09]

An interesting point. What does Texas (and other states) law say about how inconsequential a piece of property must be before it cannot/should not be defended using deadly force?

I cannot say if the store clerk in question would have reacted the same way if the thieves took a penny from the change cup on the counter and walked out. In that kid's mind, however, a few twelve-packs rated a lethal response so obviously he thought the bar was pretty low.

As it relates to theft value only affects the level of the offense.

(e) Except as provided by Subsection (f), an offense under this section is:

(1) a Class C misdemeanor if the value of the property stolen is less than $100;

(2) a Class B misdemeanor if:

(A) the value of the property stolen is $100 or more but less than $750;

(B) the value of the property stolen is less than $100 and the defendant has previously been convicted of any grade of theft; or

(C) the property stolen is a driver's license, commercial driver's license, or personal identification certificate issued by this state or another state;

(3) a Class A misdemeanor if the value of the property stolen is $750 or more but less than $2,500;

(4) a state jail felony if:

(A) the value of the property stolen is $2,500 or more but less than $30,000, or the property is less than 10 head of sheep, swine, or goats or any part thereof under the value of $30,000;

(B) regardless of value, the property is stolen from the person of another or from a human corpse or grave, including property that is a military grave marker;

(C) the property stolen is a firearm, as defined by Section 46.01;

(D) the value of the property stolen is less than $2,500 and the defendant has been previously convicted two or more times of any grade of theft;

(E) the property stolen is an official ballot or official carrier envelope for an election; or

(F) the value of the property stolen is less than $20,000 and the property stolen is:

(i) aluminum;

(ii) bronze;

(iii) copper; or

(iv) brass;

(5) a felony of the third degree if the value of the property stolen is $30,000 or more but less than $150,000, or the property is:

(A) cattle, horses, or exotic livestock or exotic fowl as defined by Section 142.001, Agriculture Code, stolen during a single transaction and having an aggregate value of less than $150,000;

(B) 10 or more head of sheep, swine, or goats stolen during a single transaction and having an aggregate value of less than $150,000; or

(C) a controlled substance, having a value of less than $150,000, if stolen from:

(i) a commercial building in which a controlled substance is generally stored, including a pharmacy, clinic, hospital, nursing facility, or warehouse; or

(ii) a vehicle owned or operated by a wholesale distributor of prescription drugs;

(6) a felony of the second degree if:

(A) the value of the property stolen is $150,000 or more but less than $300,000; or

(B) the value of the property stolen is less than $300,000 and the property stolen is an automated teller machine or the contents or components of an automated teller machine; or

(7) a felony of the first degree if the value of the property stolen is $300,000 or more.

 

[RCL-09]

After reading that Texas statue it's clear most people here are making the very common mistake of sloppy/lazy/ignorant use of words.

Theft/Thieves means taking property. PERIOD, taking something that does not belong to you.

ROBBERY is taking property by the use or threat of force.

A subtle difference but in the eyes of the law an important difference. Robbery means someone is attacking with the intent to make off with property. This is why you can shoot robbers but not thieves.

But in Texas, according to the Penal Code, you can shoot "thieves".

 

[biku324]

So our hardy clerk used deadly force to stop a Class C misdemeanor? I see 'Soap on a Rope' in his future.