Jewelery store robbed.... owner arrested?? - Page 3

Bashful · November 1st, 2009, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TX-JB

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.

I agree...

TX-JB · November 1st, 2009, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grant48

However, I sympathize with the guy. It's an unfortunate situation, considering that he would have been totally within the law if the offense had happened a couple hours later, "theft during the nighttime".

I'm not so sure, that would be a consideration, inside a mall. The intent of the "theft at nighttime" clause, is to give the benefit of the doubt, to the property owner, in a low light situation, where the property owner may not be able to determine if the suspect is armed, or not.

rljohns · November 1st, 2009, 04:23 PM

I think anytime you take a shot even a cop wouldn't have taken your running a risk of being charged. If it was an on-duty policman, he would have suffered a similar charge due to the recklessness of the shot. Had the theif presented a weapon this would have been a very different story.

I think the distance of the shot makes a different. If the giy is say more than twenty feet in a mall, it would be reckless. There is not longer a clear and present danger, chances of hitting the theif is low, chances of hitting another is high.

like they say, a < 2 sec decision that will be discussed for months with lawyers on both sides playing and re-playing the video, senario analysis, and trial in the court of public opinion. The only good side is that he is in Texas, where public opinion may be on his side.

KevinDooley · November 1st, 2009, 04:43 PM

The store owner was in the wrong here - he lost his cool and now will have to face the consequences of it. He shot at a fleeing, unarmed man in a crowded mall (Town East Mall has been busy every time I've been in there anyway). It was reckless and stupid. I understand the frustration and anger over the lack of respect and contempt shown for his property, but as a responsible business owner he should have been insured and he therefore should have kept his cool.

JerryM · November 1st, 2009, 05:18 PM

Although I will attempt to obey the law, I sometimes think that the law zeros in on the wrong issue.
A basic right is the right to own property. In my view the right to protect it goes along with that right. I recognize that there must be a relationship between the value of the property and the value of a life. However, we fight wars and millions of people have died to protect the liberties we have, including the right to own property.

I have not read all the details of the robbery of the jewelry store. But if the thief robbed it and stole hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of merchandise, I would support deadly force to stop him and recover the loot. In some states deadly force is authorized if a felony is committed in your presence. Not sure if it would hold up in court.

But let's say that a big guy was stealing a battery out of my truck. If he is stronger than I am he can do it with impunity and leave before the police arrive. I am helpless to use deadly force.

I agree that a human life is worth more that a battery, but is it worth more than the right to own property and to protect it?
I won't argue further, but if the thief stole a lot of jewelry and ran the owner should be able to shoot him in the back in my view.

Regards,
Jerry

cl00bie · November 1st, 2009, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Condition1

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?

My guess is that he shot at a fleeing robber.

KevinDooley · November 1st, 2009, 05:56 PM

The problem isn't necessarily that he fired at a fleeing thief (though this specific instance wasn't legal according to Texas state law) - what he was charged with was due to his firing a weapon into a crowded shopping mall in a reckless manor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JerryM

Although I will attempt to obey the law, I sometimes think that the law zeros in on the wrong issue.
A basic right is the right to own property. In my view the right to protect it goes along with that right. I recognize that there must be a relationship between the value of the property and the value of a life. However, we fight wars and millions of people have died to protect the liberties we have, including the right to own property.

I have not read all the details of the robbery of the jewelry store. But if the thief robbed it and stole hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of merchandise, I would support deadly force to stop him and recover the loot. In some states deadly force is authorized if a felony is committed in your presence. Not sure if it would hold up in court.

But let's say that a big guy was stealing a battery out of my truck. If he is stronger than I am he can do it with impunity and leave before the police arrive. I am helpless to use deadly force.

I agree that a human life is worth more that a battery, but is it worth more than the right to own property and to protect it?
I won't argue further, but if the thief stole a lot of jewelry and ran the owner should be able to shoot him in the back in my view.

Regards,
Jerry

Stevew · November 1st, 2009, 05:58 PM

He was arrested for missing. LOL. Outcome will be interesting.

SleepingZ · November 1st, 2009, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JerryM

Although I will attempt to obey the law, I sometimes think that the law zeros in on the wrong issue.
A basic right is the right to own property. In my view the right to protect it goes along with that right. I recognize that there must be a relationship between the value of the property and the value of a life. However, we fight wars and millions of people have died to protect the liberties we have, including the right to own property.

I have not read all the details of the robbery of the jewelry store. But if the thief robbed it and stole hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of merchandise, I would support deadly force to stop him and recover the loot. In some states deadly force is authorized if a felony is committed in your presence. Not sure if it would hold up in court.

But let's say that a big guy was stealing a battery out of my truck. If he is stronger than I am he can do it with impunity and leave before the police arrive. I am helpless to use deadly force.

I agree that a human life is worth more that a battery, but is it worth more than the right to own property and to protect it?
I won't argue further, but if the thief stole a lot of jewelry and ran the owner should be able to shoot him in the back in my view.

Regards,
Jerry

But Jerry, you are not a criminal, so you have no rights.

Z

Sportsterguy · November 1st, 2009, 08:23 PM

Believe this gent lost his cool and is going to be fried big time for his actions. Attempting to shoot someone fleeing unarmed in a crowded mall is just plain dumb IMO.

November 1st, 2009, 04:43 PM	#24
KevinDooley Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Texas Posts: 567	The store owner was in the wrong here - he lost his cool and now will have to face the consequences of it. He shot at a fleeing, unarmed man in a crowded mall (Town East Mall has been busy every time I've been in there anyway). It was reckless and stupid. I understand the frustration and anger over the lack of respect and contempt shown for his property, but as a responsible business owner he should have been insured and he therefore should have kept his cool. __________________ Quis custodiet ipsos custodes The will to win is worthless if you do not have the will to prepare. -Thane Yost

November 1st, 2009, 05:58 PM	#28
Stevew Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Mississippi Posts: 335	He was arrested for missing. LOL. Outcome will be interesting. __________________ Glock 22, GP100, S&W mod 60, Colt Delta Elite, Colt Govt 380, Ruger Single Six, Ruger Bearcat, Colt New Police

November 1st, 2009, 08:23 PM	#30
Sportsterguy Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: On the River Posts: 980	Believe this gent lost his cool and is going to be fried big time for his actions. Attempting to shoot someone fleeing unarmed in a crowded mall is just plain dumb IMO. __________________ Sportsterguy Molon Labe! Join the NRA today, or don't complain when your guns are taken away!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

November 1st, 2009, 04:23 PM	#23
rljohns Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Colorado Posts: 630	I think anytime you take a shot even a cop wouldn't have taken your running a risk of being charged. If it was an on-duty policman, he would have suffered a similar charge due to the recklessness of the shot. Had the theif presented a weapon this would have been a very different story. I think the distance of the shot makes a different. If the giy is say more than twenty feet in a mall, it would be reckless. There is not longer a clear and present danger, chances of hitting the theif is low, chances of hitting another is high. like they say, a < 2 sec decision that will be discussed for months with lawyers on both sides playing and re-playing the video, senario analysis, and trial in the court of public opinion. The only good side is that he is in Texas, where public opinion may be on his side.

November 1st, 2009, 05:18 PM	#25
JerryM Distinguished Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,694	Although I will attempt to obey the law, I sometimes think that the law zeros in on the wrong issue. A basic right is the right to own property. In my view the right to protect it goes along with that right. I recognize that there must be a relationship between the value of the property and the value of a life. However, we fight wars and millions of people have died to protect the liberties we have, including the right to own property. I have not read all the details of the robbery of the jewelry store. But if the thief robbed it and stole hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of merchandise, I would support deadly force to stop him and recover the loot. In some states deadly force is authorized if a felony is committed in your presence. Not sure if it would hold up in court. But let's say that a big guy was stealing a battery out of my truck. If he is stronger than I am he can do it with impunity and leave before the police arrive. I am helpless to use deadly force. I agree that a human life is worth more that a battery, but is it worth more than the right to own property and to protect it? I won't argue further, but if the thief stole a lot of jewelry and ran the owner should be able to shoot him in the back in my view. Regards, Jerry