TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/Mall-Shopper ... 33727.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Shoppers at Town East Mall in Mesquite were forced to take cover when a store owner shot at a jewelry thief.

Investigators say the owner of Classique Jewelry in the mall had just pulled a ring out of a display case to show it to the suspect when the individual ran off with the merchandise.

The store owner, Louis Fuentes, grabbed a gun and shot at the thief. No one was hit and the man got away.

Police later arrested Fuentes for deadly conduct. Signs near the mall entrance tell patrons that guns are not allowed inside the mall.

Crime scene investigators found the bullet near a display rack inside a nearby JC Penney's store.

Mesquite police are hoping surveillance video will give them a better look at the suspected thief.

"If something is caught on video, obviously it speaks a thousand words. Much more so than a picture." Lt Doug Yates with the Mesquite police said.

Police reports show the crook got away with a ring valued at $10,000.

Typical sloppy news story and lack of facts.

Is the posting actually legal? Did the store owner have a permit?

Just a few questions of many....

If someone's shooting near me when I'm wandering the mall it would not matter if its posted or if he's licensed. I imagine his actions will be the focus when he gets in front of the law.

Zee wrote:If someone's shooting near me when I'm wandering the mall it would not matter if its posted or if he's licensed. I imagine his actions will be the focus when he gets in front of the law.

Yepper, you don't even see this stuff in the movies.

Assuming for a moment that the mall was not properly posted and the shooter was duly licensed, you still ain't supposed to shoot a thief in the back...are you? (not that the thief doesn't deserve it)

Oldgringo wrote:

Zee wrote:If someone's shooting near me when I'm wandering the mall it would not matter if its posted or if he's licensed. I imagine his actions will be the focus when he gets in front of the law.

Yepper, you don't even see this stuff in the movies.

Assuming for a moment that the mall was not properly posted and the shooter was duly licensed, you still ain't supposed to shoot a thief in the back...are you? (not that the thief doesn't deserve it)

I never assume a BG getting shot in the back was because he was running away.
Also, the law doesn't make moral judgements generally (imo). So, if you are justified in shooting, it doesn't matter that the BG was turning away, moving to cover, etc. He could be twisted , firing over his shoulder, and presenting a view of his back when he received the wound.

The problem here is, it was a simple theft, in daylight. From the current info it appears shooting was not justified.

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means"

I don't know of any reference in shooting someone in the back.

Bashful wrote:"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means"

I don't know of any reference in shooting someone in the back.

The plaintiff's attorney will make the charge and the jury will make the decision as to whether the shooting was justified or not. BTW, wouldn't a prudent and responsible merchant seek recovery of his loss through his insurance?

I believe a 10,000.00 theft would be a Felony.
It is justified to shoot day or night to stop a Felony in progress. Front, back, sideways, upside down or any other way to stop the Felon.

As I was hearing this on the news yesterday I was thinking that the store owner/shooter was going to be in trouble. I was just thinking that it was going to be for the recklessness of his actions. I wasn't sure if there was going to any issue with the legitimacy of the shooting itself.

This was a robbery, no? Or is a smash and grab considered theft?

I also thought that people are allowed to carry a firearm (openly too!) in their business should they choose to. But pursuing and shooting at a fleeing felon outside of his store like that probably wasn't a good idea. I'm sure having 10K worth of property stolen really stinks but unless the owner's life was in danger shooting at the crook just to stop his flight isn't very smart. I haven't heard anything yet about whether the felon brandished a weapon during his flight, so I don't have the whole story. The prudent thing would have been to chase him a a distance and try to get either the direction of flight, the plates on his vehicle or wherever he fled to. Or if the store Then call the cops or hopefully one of the people back in the store would have called by then. Even that might not be necessary, I've never been to that mall but I know most are well covered with surveilance cameras.

I think this is plain ole theft.
Robbery includes taking someone's property by use of violence or intimidation.
From the brief description there is no indication that the thief used violence or intimidation.

I believe the value of the ring makes it a felony.

But regardless of monetary value, I'd be very reluctant to let off a round in the mall. Was he absolutely sure of what was beyond his target?

There are several interesting points to the story that may help the owner. First, the JC Penney security camera shows it happened at 8:30 p.m. It looks pretty bright out through the door, but shooting to stop a fleeing thief with the property is legal at night. The key point is going to be what time the official sunset is recorded as for Mesquite.

I believe the offense is going to be theft, PC 31.03, from the story. It would be classified for punishment purposes as Theft from person, same as a pick pocket would be. I don't see enough force being used to make it up to robbery charges, but we don't have the whole thing. For example, if the suspect had knocked someone down or pushed them while he was running away, it is now a robbery instead of a theft. Sometimes the fin legal points can make a big difference and the media doesn't report them accurately.

One of my complaints with the story is the mention of the no guns signs. these are totally irelevant to the story since he is a tenant and not a shopper. They can be seen as irrelevant since the police did not mention them as charges either. This is just an example of bias from the reporter.

There are some slightly different details in this article.
http://www.txcn.com/sharedcontent/dws/n ... 321f5.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When Steve was saying that according to the J.C. Penny's camera it was around 8:30 p.m. I knew something was wrong. I had seen this on the 6:00 o'clock news and it was daylight when all the police cars were at the mall in the footage.

So they guy was being shown the ring when he just grabbed it and ran. According to this article, unless the shooter owned Penny's, I don't think it was a Penny's. Everything I've seen so far says the shooter was the owner of the jewelry store. Talk about a media outlet getting facts wrong. One of them is wrong.

After seeing this "Deadly Conduct" charge twice now it made me wonder. So, I looked it up.

Sec. 22.05. DEADLY CONDUCT.
(a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.
(b) A person commits an offense if he knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of:
(1) one or more individuals; or
(2) a habitation, building, or vehicle and is reckless as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied.
(c) Recklessness and danger are presumed if the actor knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded.
(d) For purposes of this section, "building," "habitation," and "vehicle" have the meanings assigned those terms by Section 30.01.
(e) An offense under Subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor. An offense under Subsection (b) is a felony of the third degree.

Wow. Talk about being responsible for every bullet that leaves our gun! This can get real nasty. Even if I hit what I'm aiming at, but one bullet goes somewhere else, but doesn't hurt anyone, I'm wondering if I'd be charged with this.