TX: man arrested after killing shoplifter fighting with store employees

[philip964]

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/loca ... 97627.html

Fort Worth. At night. Not sure if leaving with stolen merchandise. Says will be charged with murder.

[Tex1961]

Not enough information. I’ll be curious to see if he is LTC or not.

[carlson1]

This will be interesting to watch. They called the charge robbery to begin with. Can you use deadly force in Texas for a violent robbery?

The PIO said there was not a deadly situation at the time of the shooting. This will be worth etching.
https://www.wfaa.com/amp/article/news/c ... b9f8e5007f

The shooter told police he saw another man fighting with store employees and shot him because he was concerned for their safety. The shooter was arrested for murder.

[rtschl]

It sounds like the guy with the gun intended to be a good guy, but if the story is accurate, he could be in real trouble with the liberal DA in Dallas County. But I think it depends on how badly the guy was hurting the women and the question then boils down to: Was deadly force reasonable in this situation?

All sorts of thoughts go through my mind if it was me, because I couldn't just stand there and watch a woman (or two in this case) being beaten, but I also know that I cannot just shoot someone unless it's a reasonable use of deadly force. But I also would not want to try and physically intervene as that could get me hurt or killed, my gun stolen, and have my gun used on me or someone else later.

I think he could lose on at least two of the elements of defense: Proportionality and Reasonableness. Proportionality being the one that might be the biggest hurdle for him. Definitely going to be watching this one.

[srothstein]

This is going to be interesting. It is a legal shoot (IMO) because Texas allows deadly force to prevent a robbery or escape after a robbery. Shoplifting is theft. Using force at any time during the theft or attempting to flee from it makes it robbery. But the shooter may not have known it was a robbery and thought it was just a fight.

He could be justified for using deadly force just based on the fight alone, but that is not nearly as clear cut. The fact that the two employees had already used weapons that were not deadly force (a stick and mace) may help the shooter.

[Paladin]

I see Cruezot is still consistently following his policy of locking up the innocent and letting the guilty run free to destroy our city.

Would be very curious to see the prior arrest record of the robber.

[Paladin]

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 (Self-defense); 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.

https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._ ... ction_9.32

[rtschl]

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 (Self-defense); 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.

https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._ ... ction_9.32

But if the WFAA news article is correct, there was no robbery at the time of the shooting nor earlier for that matter as theft and robbery are not the same: The man briefly left the store, but came back inside and started cursing at the assistant store manager and began hitting her, the affidavit said

Since theft and stealing are not robbery, you can't use deadly force against a shoplifter in Texas. If he was robbing a person or aggravated robbery, then yes. I think that is why the PIO stated there was no deadly force threat at the time of the shooting. But it also looks like bad guy was fleeing: Surveillance footage showed the man striking the assistant manager and her fighting back with a stick, the affidavit said. The man was running toward the door and was being hit by both female employees immediately before he was shot, according to the affidavit. 

DA may try to argue the threat to the women was over when he fired because the bad guy was leaving at that point. I hope he has a good attorney.

[Paladin]

This is going to be interesting. It is a legal shoot (IMO) because Texas allows deadly force to prevent a robbery or escape after a robbery. Shoplifting is theft. Using force at any time during the theft or attempting to flee from it makes it robbery. But the shooter may not have known it was a robbery and thought it was just a fight.

He could be justified for using deadly force just based on the fight alone, but that is not nearly as clear cut. The fact that the two employees had already used weapons that were not deadly force (a stick and mace) may help the shooter.

I was never a LEO but srothstein was.

[rtschl]

This is going to be interesting. It is a legal shoot (IMO) because Texas allows deadly force to prevent a robbery or escape after a robbery. Shoplifting is theft. Using force at any time during the theft or attempting to flee from it makes it robbery. But the shooter may not have known it was a robbery and thought it was just a fight.

He could be justified for using deadly force just based on the fight alone, but that is not nearly as clear cut. The fact that the two employees had already used weapons that were not deadly force (a stick and mace) may help the shooter.

I was never a LEO but srothstein was.

This is where I think the video is going to clear or hang the shooter. I have no legal or LEO background, but I have been told in classes that theft and robbery are not the same. Doing a quick search last night seemed to confirm that. But checked some more and the following from a criminal defense lawyers website. Link is here: https://www.criminalattorneyfortworthtx ... ines-each/: Article is good reading, but just a lawyer's online opinion

The site starts with the question: Do you understand the legal distinctions between theft, robbery and burglary?

Skipping down to robbery...

Robbery is an offense committed in the course of committing theft. Robbery is also committed with the intent to obtain or maintain control of any property taken in the theft.

The charge of robbery applies if an individual causes bodily injury to another person, or if the individual places another person in fear of bodily injury or death while trying to steal from them. The individual must act with knowledge, intent, or recklessness for the charge to apply.

Aggravated robbery occurs when an individual causes serious bodily injury to another person or uses or shows a deadly weapon during the robbery. It is also an enhancement to robbery charges if the alleged victim is older than age 65 or mentally, physically, or developmentally disabled.

Robbery is a second degree felony offense, and aggravated robbery is a first degree felony offense. Emphasis mine.



Since the the bad guy came back after the shoplifting (theft), he was at that point, at a minimum, committing both assault and battery but not theft or robbery. So my question then, does it rise to the level of deadly force or even the threat of deadly force being allowed? If he was fleeing as suggested, I don't think so, because the threat is no longer happening. But that is assuming the details in the article are correct.

I do think some DA's would not charge, or would let grand jury decide whether to indict. But this is Dallas County with a liberal DA who is funded by George Soros.

[Paladin]

Robbery is not complete until the robber has left. I see how you could debate the point, but I believe the crime was still in progress.

[philip964]

So from the reading that was posted here plus some other reading, theft or shoplifting is taking something to keep that isn’t yours.

Robbery is taking something from a person.

So if you shoplift it’s theft until someone tries to stop you such as a clerk, then it becomes robbery, worse if some one is injured or a weapon is shown.

Does it help our shooter since it was at night?

It will be interesting to follow.

[Paladin]

Does it help our shooter since it was at night?

In Texas it does:

Sec. 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 (Protection of One’s Own Property); 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.

https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._ ... ction_9.42

As it was 7:42PM when this chain of events occurred, the DA is the one who should be arrested

[Soccerdad1995]

Does the theft at night concept apply if the stolen property belongs to another person, and you have not been asked to protect that property by that other person?

[Paladin]

This statute may also apply:

Sec. 9.43
Protection of Third Person’s Property
A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 (Protection of One’s Own Property) or 9.42 (Deadly Force to Protect Property) in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1)
the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2)
the actor reasonably believes that:
(A)
the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B)
he has a legal duty to protect the third person’s land or property; or
(C)
the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor’s spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor’s care.