Convenience store clerk convicted for shooting beer thief

This is a discussion on Convenience store clerk convicted for shooting beer thief within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; I found this elsewhere: Prior to the jury’s decision Romero had chatted online with fellow gun-owners to asses when someone could use lethal force for ...

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 55 of 55

Thread: Convenience store clerk convicted for shooting beer thief

  1. #46
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    844
    I found this elsewhere: Prior to the jury’s decision Romero had chatted online with fellow gun-owners to asses when someone could use lethal force for the protection of property.

    and : Prosecutor-Rob Drummound says the jury's conviction sets the future of all gun violations in Travis County. Drummound says, "In Travis County, if a person is going to use deadly force they better be sure that it is in a situation that is reasonably necessary and if not they will be held accountable for murder".

    His warning to us all is that we'll be judged not on the rule of law and whether lethal force was reasonably necessary in order to recover our property, but rather on whether recovering the property is a reasonable value compared to a man's life. So what we need to know before we defend our property is how much money will a jury assign to a man's life? Let's keep in mind Texas prosecutors have a history of blatantly ignoring laws, not to mention our constitution, that protect gun owners.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #47
    mrm
    mrm is offline
    Member Array mrm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by gasmitty View Post
    The clerk was wrong, but pardon me if I fail to have any sympathy for the dead thief.
    This is the answer that best suites me +1
    "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
    - Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

  4. #48
    Member
    Array Coder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    446
    Quote Originally Posted by dldeuce View Post
    Prior to the jury’s decision Romero had chatted online with fellow gun-owners to asses when someone could use lethal force for the protection of property.
    I think this is an important point. Based on this and on his comments, he obviously believed that he acted within the law. I think that he did too and that he should not have been convicted of murder. Somebody on the jury didn't either but finally caved. Maybe in exchange for a light sentence?

    Apparently one can't rely on the law and one has to worry about how things "look". I guess that's reality...
    We're all in favor of reducing violent crime. It's just that pro-gunners have a method that is proven effective. Anti-gunners don't.
    ---
    John Moses Browning day is January 24th, 2011

  5. #49
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,745
    I myself think the only reason he was convicted of anything was that he destroyed evidence.
    If you reasonably believe you were justified why erase video, sweep up casings and then lie to the police?
    If the shooting was on camera and the BG still had the beers in his hands the video would show that the shooter still had not recovered the property and would support his claim of justification. If however it showed the BG dropped the beer before the shots were fired it would show that the shooter could no longer claim to be attempting to recover the property, and the shooting was murder.

    I have not seen enough evidence to say the guy should be behind bars for any length of time, but what I have seen leads me to believe that he should not be carrying a weapon. Of course I was not in the court room so I don't know all the evidence that was presented but from what I have read I have no problem with this outcome.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  6. #50
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    I myself think the only reason he was convicted of anything was that he destroyed evidence.
    If you reasonably believe you were justified why erase video, sweep up casings and then lie to the police?
    If the shooting was on camera and the BG still had the beers in his hands the video would show that the shooter still had not recovered the property and would support his claim of justification. If however it showed the BG dropped the beer before the shots were fired it would show that the shooter could no longer claim to be attempting to recover the property, and the shooting was murder.
    I agree, if the jury was hung up over whether the thief had the beer in his arms when he was shot, then the tampering would be a legitimate reason to doubt the credibility of the shooter. I don't think that's what the DA argued though. I didn't read that he argued about the beer possession one way or another, and his arguments, along with the ones we've seen here, don't change whether or not he was in possession or not.

    Prosecutor to the jury in the closing argument: ""Your verdict is about the importance of life, and if someone is going to take a life for property it better be something that is absolutely reasonable and necessary,” he said. “Your verdict is about the value of all our lives.”

    That argument doesn't have anything to do with whether the thief was running away with property at night and whether there was any other way to recover it. That argument nullifies the law, and if that's how jury's are going to decide, just like so many have done in this thread, we better take the prosecutor's words very seriously before we defend our property with a gun, despite what the law says.

    How much is a man's life worth? Apparently more than a 12-pack of beer. How about a used TV? How about few hundred dollars cash? How about a handful of diamond rings (I had a B.I.L that transported jewelry)? Btw, I suspect my anger level might go up exponentially with the value of the item stolen as well as my satisfaction after shooting the thug when I got it back. The jury heard an argument that asked them to nullify the law, and I suspect they considered it in handing down a murder conviction with no jail time.

    I have not seen enough evidence to say the guy should be behind bars for any length of time, but what I have seen leads me to believe that he should not be carrying a weapon. Of course I was not in the court room so I don't know all the evidence that was presented but from what I have read I have no problem with this outcome.
    The felony conviction will take care of that, err ... not. However, what bothers me more than him being convicted is that cases like this always have implications for everyone in the state.

  7. #51
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,745
    Only having the closing argument in print deprives us of the tone, inflection and emphasis. The way it is writtent leaves me feeling it is kind of ambiguous. The way I am reading it, he could be questioning the necessity of the shooting (and under the law we must reasonably believe it is necessary) more than the retail value of the stolen property. And do we place so low a value (not retail) on human life that will accept the word of a man who has destroyed evidence and lied to the police, that the shooting was justified. As in do we place so low a value on it that we will just take his word for it.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  8. #52
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by dldeuce View Post
    I found this elsewhere: Prior to the jury’s decision Romero had chatted online with fellow gun-owners to asses when someone could use lethal force for the protection of property.
    Snip
    Much like we do on this forum.

    Michael

  9. #53
    Senior Moderator
    Array MattInFla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    4,857
    Quote Originally Posted by dldeuce View Post
    I agree, if the jury was hung up over whether the thief had the beer in his arms when he was shot, then the tampering would be a legitimate reason to doubt the credibility of the shooter. I don't think that's what the DA argued though. I didn't read that he argued about the beer possession one way or another, and his arguments, along with the ones we've seen here, don't change whether or not he was in possession or not.

    Prosecutor to the jury in the closing argument: ""Your verdict is about the importance of life, and if someone is going to take a life for property it better be something that is absolutely reasonable and necessary,” he said. “Your verdict is about the value of all our lives.”

    That argument doesn't have anything to do with whether the thief was running away with property at night and whether there was any other way to recover it. That argument nullifies the law, and if that's how jury's are going to decide, just like so many have done in this thread, we better take the prosecutor's words very seriously before we defend our property with a gun, despite what the law says.

    How much is a man's life worth? Apparently more than a 12-pack of beer. How about a used TV? How about few hundred dollars cash? How about a handful of diamond rings (I had a B.I.L that transported jewelry)? Btw, I suspect my anger level might go up exponentially with the value of the item stolen as well as my satisfaction after shooting the thug when I got it back. The jury heard an argument that asked them to nullify the law, and I suspect they considered it in handing down a murder conviction with no jail time.



    The felony conviction will take care of that, err ... not. However, what bothers me more than him being convicted is that cases like this always have implications for everyone in the state.
    The take-away lesson from this case is that once you start tampering with evidence, anything else you say is going to be either highly suspect or dismissed as a self-serving lie.

    When you are mounting an affirmative defense, your credibility is crucial. Throwing it away by doing what this guy did = conviction.

    Matt
    Battle Plan (n) - a list of things that aren't going to happen if you are attacked.
    Blame it on Sixto - now that is a viable plan.

  10. #54
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    24,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Coder View Post
    Apparently one can't rely on the law and one has to worry about how things "look". I guess that's reality...
    Absolutely true, IMO. Unless one is seen by others (the accusers, judge and jury) as being the good guy, anything's possible.

    Of course, if a person's going to "police" the brass at a crime scene and attempt to blast the video record of the event, it's hard to expect anything but a conviction on the worst charges.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  11. #55
    Senior Moderator
    Array MattInFla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    4,857
    Quote Originally Posted by Coder View Post
    I think this is an important point. Based on this and on his comments, he obviously believed that he acted within the law. I think that he did too and that he should not have been convicted of murder. Somebody on the jury didn't either but finally caved. Maybe in exchange for a light sentence?

    Apparently one can't rely on the law and one has to worry about how things "look". I guess that's reality...
    When you attempt to destroy evidence and don't report the shooting, then most reasonable people will infer that you knew you had done something wrong. This guy worked hard to get himself convicted, IMHO.

    Matt
    Battle Plan (n) - a list of things that aren't going to happen if you are attacked.
    Blame it on Sixto - now that is a viable plan.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. North Carolina: Clerk kills robber at Monroe convenience store
    By ctsketch in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 9th, 2010, 05:57 PM
  2. Convenience store clerk saw my CFP tonight when he asked for my ID.
    By WhoWeBePart1 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: July 5th, 2010, 01:23 PM
  3. Clerk shoots armed suspect during convenience store robbery
    By jimtem in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: January 6th, 2010, 07:04 AM
  4. Convicted thief sues store he robbed
    By gasmitty in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: September 3rd, 2009, 12:05 PM
  5. Thief comes in shooting at a convenience store
    By paramedic70002 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: September 4th, 2007, 07:56 PM

Search tags for this page

austin clerk shoots beer thief
,

beer-thief killer shell station austin tx 2009

,
ben white shell beer gun
,
can you shoot a thief in the back?
,
convenience store austin shoot trial murder
,
conviction of clerk shoots robber for stealing beer austin texas
,
houston clerk shoots shoplifter
,

jorge vielma austin texas

,

jorge vielma shooting

,

jorge vielma shooting austin tx

,
man buys 12 pack in georgia from convenience store and kills 6 people
,

texas law on shooting shoplifter by convenience store owner

Click on a term to search for related topics.