Printable View
Just my dos centavos. I've got a problem with someone shooting a guy in the back (if press accounts true) who's running away with a 12 pack. Sure he's a thief, but this guy fires 12 rounds? I'm thinking about how he articulates he's in fear of his life?
Also, I couldn't/wouldn't blow some guy up over a 12 pack. If I was threatened, the 12 pack is no issue. But a guy running away from me...it's like he stole 4 candy bars.
Maybe it's just me.
He doesn't have to articulate. He doesn't have to be in fear of his life. It does not have to be "self defense". Texas law permits the use of deadly force (under certain circumstances) to protect property.
Why? Do you have a habit of shoplifting beer at 1:30 in the monring?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mardet65
Why would cleaning up the cases and erasing the video count for anything whatsoever if no underlying crime had happened? Suppose, because the theft happened at night and there was no other way for the clerk to get the property back (asking politely wouldn't work) the shooting was actually lawful--which it might be--- then what does the other stuff have to do with anything?
At most cleaning up and erasing just might mean only that he mistakenly thought he committed a crime and mistakenly got rid of "evidence" which actually wasn't evidence at all. Someone can think they did a crime, get rid of stuff to cover their trail, but if no crime happened, so what?
It all hinges as cwblanco wrote on that funky phrase that has no specific meaning, "reasonably believes."
Theft at night, and he reasonably believed there was no other way to recover the property. And that is a reasonable belief. Asking politely wouldn't work. Running up to them to take it back would likely have gotten the clerk beaten or worse.
Did he act wisely? No. Was a crime committed by the clerk? Only time and a couple of juries will tell.
I've said before that I don't ask when can I legally shoot; I ask when MUST I ABSOLUTELY have to shoot in order to save my life or that of another innocent person.
To kill someone merely to stop them from running off with your beer is to my way of thinking CRIMINAL!! I won't shed any tears for this guy if he fries.
This moron is a classic example for the anti's on why people should not be allowed to own guns. He did no favors for anyone.
Well said.Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulG
The Texas laws that allow people to murder thieves are immoral.
I wonder if it would change anyone's mind if someone was killed after paying for his beer because the clerk forgot the guy paid? Ooops! Innocent mistake!
When you allow citizens to be determiners of the law, judge, jury and executioner then you have anarchy. It is why I would never live in Texas nor even visit there. It is difficult enough to defend against bad guys but when morons with guns even THINK they have a 'right' to shoot someone, then it is time to avoid the situation completely. I'd rather walk the projects in Detroit than spend a minute in Texas.
Do you really believe this, or are you just spouting off? I think you have become obsessed with the Joe Horn case to the point you can hardly think straight. Texas (any part) is WAY safer than Detroit, any day of the week (at least for innocents).Quote:
Originally Posted by SelfDefense
I think the Horn case was instrumental in promulgating the mindset that it is fine to kill people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom Doc
Even in this thread we have people wondering if it was dusk so killing a shoplifter is justified under a perverted law.
I have never been to Detroit but I would not expect so called law abiding citizens to shoot me in the back.
Actually, I rather agree with you notwithstanding what I wrote in the post above your comment, to address the legal aspect. But then, the law is what it is. It is explicit that lethal force can be used to stop theft at night, to recover property that can't be recovered in any other way.Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulG
In a big way, this becomes a parallel argument/discussion to the one going on about carrying guns near high political office holders. There is a difference between what is legal and what is proper.
I was under the impression all shooting cases in Texas go to a Grand Jury for review. They can charge him if they want, but the grand jury gets to decide what goes forward.
Convenience stores are often robbed by dangerous people with guns. They are also often robbed by teens stealing beer.
Tampering with evidence is a big no no. We shall see the clerk pay for that.
Anywhere in Texas other than Austin/Travis County he'd have fair odds of walking.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcp1810
Every shooting in Austin/Travis County, even a clean self defense shooting, goes to a grand jury.
:urla9ub:
I thought that was pretty much a TX thing in general...Quote:
Originally Posted by P7fanatic
If that was an ill mannered attempt at humor it wasn't funny, just rude and totally uncalled for. If you want to disagree with me or something I said, feel free but let's not be insulting. Some people need to think before shooting, others need to think before commenting.Quote:
Originally Posted by phreddy
Agreed. That's why I hold myself to a higher moral standard than what the law requires.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopyard
I realize that according to the law, this guy might not have committed a crime by chasing down a shoplifter and shooting him in the back.
But it looks to me like the clerk was thinking, "Cool, I finally get to kill someone".
I will concede that if the law says what he did was ok, then his charge should be merely tampering with evidence (but I don't have to like it).
I think he is a sad excuse for a human being. Definitely not someone I would want to hang around with.
I'm glad we're having the discussion on what's legally permitted vs. morally acceptable. Obviously the criteria changes from state to state, but anyone who carries a gun has to reflect on what's their personal position.
As always, appreciate the give and take on issues that affect us all.