Jewelery store robbed.... owner arrested??

[Condition1]

So, recently in Texas a jewelery store was robbed and the owner shot at the fleeing robber. The police then came and arrested the owner after he reported the robbery. They arrested him for "Deadly Conduct".

Full (albeit short) story:
Mesquite jewelry store robbed; owner arrested | Dallas County | WFAA.com

Deadly conduct is defined in Texas statues as:
Sec. 22.05. DEADLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.
(b) A person commits an offense if he knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of:
(1) one or more individuals; or
(2) a habitation, building, or vehicle and is reckless as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied.

Now, statues regarding Deadly force state:
PC 99.42. 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.

So, I'm wondering.... what happened he? Any thoughts on why this guy got arrested? Was this simply a case of local LEO's discretion? Or would one say the rule of thumb is to arrest first and ask questions later?

I'm curious because it sounds as if the jeweler did what many (anyone?) would do if someone were running off with your $10,000 ring.

Thoughts?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Openroad]

I'm curious because it sounds as if the jeweler did what many (anyone?) would do if someone were running off with your $10,000 ring.

Thoughts?

I would say if the jewelry store was in a mall as the news story states, firing your weapon at a fleeing suspect was a poor judgment call on the part of the owner. Intent follows the bullet, so who knows where it will go indoors in a busy shopping center!

Hope it turns out okay for the owner, but I would let the robber (and my ring) run off and later file an insurance claim! He has surveillance footage so it's clear it was a robbery, I think he just let the heat of the moment drive his decision... that's never good if it's just anger about being robbed.

[NCHornet]

I didn't read the article but based on your statement that the owner shot a "FLEEING" suspect is why I would say he was arrested. In most states a firearm may be used to protect human life, and not property. If the BG was fleeing than what threat was he to the store owner? Was he firing a gun back at the owner? Isn't TX a castle doctrine state now? It will be interesting to see how this plays out. The police may have more info that isn't released as well.

NCH

[NCHornet]

After now reading the story I would expect my first reply to be accurate.

NCH

[Bashful]

Texas is one of the states that allow the use of deadly force to protect property.

Deadly Force to Protect Property

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

[pax]

So, I'm wondering.... what happened he? Any thoughts on why this guy got arrested? Was this simply a case of local LEO's discretion? Or would one say the rule of thumb is to arrest first and ask questions later?

Condition1 ~

No, I think the officers were following the law as written.

Breaking down the use of deadly force law, we learn that you can use deadly force to protect property (to stop a thief) in Texas under the following circumstances:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under
Section 9.41 ;...

Would he be justified under Section 9.41, to shoot a fleeing thief? Dunno. Better go look that up. But assuming for the moment that he could, there are some other hoops to jump through:

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; ...

Nope, he doesn't qualify under that one. The theft had already been committed.

...

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; ...

Okay, he fits under that one. Should be good, right?

Well, maybe he fits under that one. This was a theft, not a burglary and not a robbery. So it had to happen "during the nighttime" to qualify under the statutes. What time of day was it? 4:45 pm ... hmmm. That's not nighttime.

Plus there's an "AND" that follows, another qualification:

and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; ...

Did the shooter "reasonably believe" that there was no other way to get that diamond back? No security guard, no cop, no dialing 911 with a description of the thief and direction of travel? No possibility of reading a license plate? No pictures of the thief on the security cams?

Most jewelry stores have very good surveillance videos and the odds are that the owner was well aware that the cameras would have captured good images of the thief which would facilitate recovery of the item even if the thief got away immediately after the theft. Similarly, jewelry stores have well-documented inventory, again intended to facilitate recovery of the item after the fact. With these systems in place, a jewelry store owner cannot "reasonably" believe that there is no other means to prevent permanent loss of an item other than killing the thief on the spot.

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.

Did the store owner have reason to believe that if he tackled the thief instead of shooting him, the guy had a weapon or some other means of killing or permanently maiming the store owner? Presumably the answer to this is 'no,' but that's one of the things that would show up during the investigation.

So depending upon the specific circumstances of the theft, shooting the fleeing thief in the back was probably not a lawful action on the part of the store owner, at least not by the laws of Texas. There's this perception out there -- especially among my Texan friends -- that a thief just plain needs killing and the laws will always support that. It's not true. The law actually provides a fairly narrow set of requirements that must be met. Shooting a thief in the back as he runs away does not meet those requirements in many if not most circumstances.

pax

[Biomortis]

Arrested and Convicted are two different things. Will have to see how it turns out.

[retsupt99]

This surprises me, especially with all the other stories of shootings I've read about in TX. There certainly must be much more to the story...we'll find out later.
Something doesn't sound right.

[Mardet65]

Arrested and Convicted are two different things. Will have to see how it turns out.

You're right, there is a great difference between arrest and conviction. However, too many times it's how much money, time, misery, etc did it cost you.

[Free American]

Most likely he was arrested for the bullets sent downrange into the mall. Had he HIT the BG he would probably have been OK.

[JimmyC4]

I just wish he hadn't missed...

[Sportsterguy]

I just wish he hadn't missed...

+1. He probably wouldn't have been arrested.

[64zebra]

I'm sure there will be other details to come out of this.
Not enough info to see exactly.

+1 on not missing

[dukalmighty]

I think that even in Tx on your own property or even being robbed/carjacked if you shoot and your rounds strike other peoples homes,businesses or cars then there is reckless endangernment involved,how much you want to bet the store owner bought a gun,and if he had a chl probably shot enough to pass the test and hasn't seen a gun range since

[TX-JB]

Deadly conduct is defined in Texas statues as:
Sec. 22.05. DEADLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.
(b) A person commits an offense if he knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of:
(1) one or more individuals; or
(2) a habitation, building, or vehicle and is reckless as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied.

Now, statues regarding Deadly force state:
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.

This one is simple. The store owner didn't have the right to use deadly force, by statute. The offense committed was theft, not robbery. If the story is correct, the man asked to look at the ring, then grabbed it out of his hand and ran...this is theft. For it to meet the definition of robbery, the suspect would have to, at least, threaten bodily injury. Since his actions were not covered by 9.42, he committed the offense of Deadly Conduct.