So did this guy commit a crime?

[Odin]

I agree. I don't find a statute anywhere in the penal code that requires anyone to stick around after they commit any crime other than an accident or reporting a felony that they are aware of. I've never heard of a bank robber being charged with failing to report that he robbed the bank, so I don't think that statute is intended to require people to turn themselves in when they think they might have committed a crime.

Several things. He was probably justified in his actions; however, he did commit an aggravted assault and it must be investigated. Remember, deadly force is only a defense to prosecution and defense FROM prosecution.

You can bet the police will try to locate this guy, and since he fled, he will probably be indicted.

Oh, here's your penal code law;

Texas Penal Code
§38.171. Failure to report felony.

(a) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) observes the commission of a felony under circumstances
in which a reasonable person would believe that an offense had been
committed in which serious bodily injury or death may have resulted;
and

(2) fails to immediately report the commission of the offense
to a peace officer or law enforcement agency under circumstances in
which:

(A) a reasonable person would believe that the commission of
the offense had not been reported; and

(B) the person could immediately report the commission of the
offense without placing himself or herself in danger of suffering
serious bodily injury or death.

(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

That law required him to not only report the robbery, but his shooting of the robber.

Only if "a reasonable person would believe that the commission of the offense had not been reported". Since the shooter was aware that there were employees in the store who were not injured he could reasonably believe that the employees would report a robbery and shooting in their store. What reasonable person would believe that the entire store staff would fail to report a bleeding robbery suspect on their floor?

Also, every person who has ever committed a felony that was not witnessed by someone who the felon reasonably believed would report his felony could be charged with PC 38.171 if they failed to report themselves after committing their crimes. I doubt it would ever happen, but the way the law is written it is a chargeable offense.

I think the shooter in this case should have waited around for the police, and I think his actions after the shooting will, if he is ever identified, cause him more grief than sticking around would have. I suspect he has reasons other than "I got scared" to not talk to the police (maybe he's wanted, had an illegal weapon, was carrying contraband, had a history with the robber that would come up in the investigation, etc.). It's a strange deal.

[seamusTX]

Wouldn't requiring someone to report a possible crime that they committed be considered self-incrimination? Is this law ever used that way?

I don't doubt the detectives would like to talk to the shooter; but I don't think they'll look as hard for him as, oh, Bonnie and Clyde.

(My bet is that he was carrying illegally, possibly on probation or parole.)

- Jim

[txinvestigator]

I agree. I don't find a statute anywhere in the penal code that requires anyone to stick around after they commit any crime other than an accident or reporting a felony that they are aware of. I've never heard of a bank robber being charged with failing to report that he robbed the bank, so I don't think that statute is intended to require people to turn themselves in when they think they might have committed a crime.

Several things. He was probably justified in his actions; however, he did commit an aggravted assault and it must be investigated. Remember, deadly force is only a defense to prosecution and defense FROM prosecution.

You can bet the police will try to locate this guy, and since he fled, he will probably be indicted.

Oh, here's your penal code law;

Texas Penal Code
§38.171. Failure to report felony.

(a) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) observes the commission of a felony under circumstances
in which a reasonable person would believe that an offense had been
committed in which serious bodily injury or death may have resulted;
and

(2) fails to immediately report the commission of the offense
to a peace officer or law enforcement agency under circumstances in
which:

(A) a reasonable person would believe that the commission of
the offense had not been reported; and

(B) the person could immediately report the commission of the
offense without placing himself or herself in danger of suffering
serious bodily injury or death.

(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

That law required him to not only report the robbery, but his shooting of the robber.

Only if "a reasonable person would believe that the commission of the offense had not been reported". Since the shooter was aware that there were employees in the store who were not injured he could reasonably believe that the employees would report a robbery and shooting in their store. What reasonable person would believe that the entire store staff would fail to report a bleeding robbery suspect on their floor?

I don't believe for one second that'll fly.

[kauboy]

Only if "a reasonable person would believe that the commission of the offense had not been reported". Since the shooter was aware that there were employees in the store who were not injured he could reasonably believe that the employees would report a robbery and shooting in their store. What reasonable person would believe that the entire store staff would fail to report a bleeding robbery suspect on their floor?

Your forgetting part (2)(b) of that. Part (2)(a) ends in "and" which means part (2)(b) must be followed as well. The shooter did not follow (2)(b). Therefore, he is still guilty of failure to report.

[Odin]

Only if "a reasonable person would believe that the commission of the offense had not been reported". Since the shooter was aware that there were employees in the store who were not injured he could reasonably believe that the employees would report a robbery and shooting in their store. What reasonable person would believe that the entire store staff would fail to report a bleeding robbery suspect on their floor?

Your forgetting part (2)(b) of that. Part (2)(a) ends in "and" which means part (2)(b) must be followed as well. The shooter did not follow (2)(b). Therefore, he is still guilty of failure to report.

If (2)(A) is satisfied then action under (2)(B) is not required. If you and 10 other people observe a felony and you stand by and observe one of the other 10 people report the felony you are not also required to report the felony because at that point (2)(A) has been satisfied. As long as a reasonable person believes that the felony has been reported then they are not required to report it again.

(2)(B) is in there to allow a person to not report a felony if that person reasonably believes that reporting the felony would put them in immediate danger of suffering serious bodily injury or death.

[casselthief]

blah blah blah, he commited a crime by fleeing the scene.
they might track him down, 'specially if they have him on surveillance.

probably just another thug from a rival gang, or some such nonsense....

[Odin]

blah blah blah, he commited a crime by fleeing the scene....

I have yet to be convinced that he did commit a crime by fleeing the scene. It is very much open to contention if he is ever charged with such.

[HankB]

As has already been mentioned, I don't see any offense under 38.171 as he had no reason to believe the crime had not been reported.

Of course, IANAL, but I don't recall a real, no-question criminal EVER being charged with leaving the scene of their crime unless there was an LEO in hot pursuit, and then it's charges of "flight from an officer" or "evading an officer" or something of the sort, not "flight from the scene of the crime."

But if/when they catch up to the guy, the DA may try real hard to make something stick, even up to and including a grant of immunity to the original bad guy to get him to testify. (That's why the guys who tried to rob Bernie Goetz in NY were never prosecuted, even though they admitted to an attempted armed robbery under oath; the DA granted them immunity, since he wanted to get Goetz more than he wanted to get them.)

[stevie_d_64]

Ok,

For sake of argument, lets say I was the "shooter", who defended himself...

The machanics of the incident are obvious and evident, no need to hash that out...

I decide that my work is done, and I leave, just like this guy did...Technically, if I defended myself, and the shoot was determined to be just that, self-defense...Where really is the crime???

I've seen the posted statutes and understand what I have seen there...

Again, where is the real crime?

Realistically, I would not have left the scene, but if the situation after I had defended myself became volatile, where other people would have presented another un-healthy situation...

Why should a person (myself) hang around waiting on the law that would not guarantee my safety after the fact anyway...

Remember, a reasonable person in certain situations should remove themselves from a volatile environment, to avoid further aggravating the situation...

That would be the only reason I would consider leaving a defensive shooting situation I would have been involved with...

With the intent to contact the authorities as soon as I can to give my deposition...

Thats why I believe this guy in the story bolted...He wasn't a CCW holder, and is probably lawyering up and under that type of advise is waiting till they can come in and talk to the investigators to get this resolved...

We may, or may not hear, anything more on this if the media can't demonize the act anymore than it has been...

But thats just my opinion...

[kauboy]

For the officers or the lawyer of the group, would it be advised to stay or leave?
I should add a little to that question. If you had just shot someone like in this situation, where it appears to all involved to be justified, and you asked for the other patrons to contact the police, would any of you recommend that this person hang around, or go on about their business? This assumes that all witnesses saw what happened, and believe the right thing was done.

[barres]

For the officers or the lawyer of the group, would it be advised to stay or leave?
I should add a little to that question. If you had just shot someone like in this situation, where it appears to all involved to be justified, and you asked for the other patrons to contact the police, would any of you recommend that this person hang around, or go on about their business? This assumes that all witnesses saw what happened, and believe the right thing was done.

With that assumption, there would be no reason to flee. The reason to flee might come if the crowd of witnesses decides you are the bad guy since you have a gun in your hand. Then we're talking about a whole different ballgame.

I can't see myself leaving the scene until cleared to do so by the police, unless the crowd I arguably just saved decided I was a threat and obviously intended me harm. But I would have returned my gun to its holster when I determined that there were no additional threats (the perp didn't have any partners), so I would think that and the fact that I was calling the police myself on my cell would indicate to those around me that I am not a threat to them (the sheep).

[casselthief]

blah blah blah, he commited a crime by fleeing the scene....

I have yet to be convinced that he did commit a crime by fleeing the scene. It is very much open to contention if he is ever charged with such.

just cause you're not convinced don't mean it didn't happen.....

if nothing else, he illegally discharged a firearm. Illegally, you say? well, he can't prove it was legally, since the fireer fled the scene.
doesn't mean he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, or that he doesn't have a defense to prosecution, but it does mean you can't fire a gun in city limits, and well, he did.

besides, who's to say that the other patrons weren't illegals, or had warrants and they wouldn't/didn't flee.

[Odin]

blah blah blah, he commited a crime by fleeing the scene....

I have yet to be convinced that he did commit a crime by fleeing the scene. It is very much open to contention if he is ever charged with such.

just cause you're not convinced don't mean it didn't happen.....

if nothing else, he illegally discharged a firearm. Illegally, you say? well, he can't prove it was legally, since the fireer fled the scene.
doesn't mean he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, or that he doesn't have a defense to prosecution, but it does mean you can't fire a gun in city limits, and well, he did.

besides, who's to say that the other patrons weren't illegals, or had warrants and they wouldn't/didn't flee.

The shooter doesn't have to prove that he legally fired the gun, the state has to prove that the shooter (a) fired the gun and (b) did so illegally. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The shooter is presumed innocent of all charges unless and until he is charged, indicted, tried and convicted.

[HankB]

. . . if nothing else, he illegally discharged a firearm. Illegally, you say? well, he can't prove it was legally, since the fireer fled the scene.

Actually, he doesn't have to prove it was legal . . . it's up to the DA to prove it was done illegally. That might be a bit hard if the persons the (presumed) BG was threatening with the shotgun get to testify. But as I wrote earlier, the DA may equate flight with guilt and try really, really hard to pin something, ANYthing on the shooter. (Of course, he may try to do so even if the guy were to stick around.)

. . . besides, who's to say that the other patrons weren't illegals, or had warrants and they wouldn't/didn't flee.

If they WERE illegals, then the shooter had an excellent reason to flee, i.e., removing himself - for his own safety! - from the proximity of multiple foreign criminals of unknown intent and capability.

[Odin]

For the officers or the lawyer of the group, would it be advised to stay or leave?
I should add a little to that question. If you had just shot someone like in this situation, where it appears to all involved to be justified, and you asked for the other patrons to contact the police, would any of you recommend that this person hang around, or go on about their business? This assumes that all witnesses saw what happened, and believe the right thing was done.

I can tell you that I would stay on the scene unless I felt that I was in danger by doing so. And even then I would contact the police as soon as reasoably possible.

I would also contact an attorney, even before the police arrived and say nothing to the police except the most basic facts - that I was in fear for my life, that I fired at the suspect, and that I would like to speak with my attorney.

Leaving the scene will usually cause people to assume that you are somehow guilty of something, regardless of whether or not you really are. Perception can become reality, and your actions could influence the police, the DA and the jury. I wouldn't do anything that would negatively influence the ones who will be deciding my legal fate if I could help it.