Texas Gun Talk


Go Back   Texas Gun Talk > OFF-TOPIC > News Articles


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 11-02-2009, 03:12 PM
okie556's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Longview, TX
Feedback: (0)
Posts: 350
Default

Originally Posted by Texas42 View Post
Would it be a legal shoot if he hit the bad guy? I mean, the guy is a thief, not a robber.
I would say no.........hence his arrest. Besides the issue of the mall surroundings the store clerk had no reason to fear for his well being and no reason for deadly force.
__________________
Okie556
Proud Viet Nam Vet
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-02-2009, 03:17 PM
Acetone's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: El Paso
Feedback: (0)
Posts: 327
Default

What about this?

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; 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.
__________________
Hold my beer, and watch this!

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-02-2009, 03:24 PM
okie556's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Longview, TX
Feedback: (0)
Posts: 350
Default

Originally Posted by Acetone View Post
What about this?
I knew as soon as I hit that Submit Reply button someone would dig into this and find the law from the penal code. I stand corrected but think the guy was Bozo for firing a weapon in this particular case.
__________________
Okie556
Proud Viet Nam Vet
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-02-2009, 03:43 PM
Acetone's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: El Paso
Feedback: (0)
Posts: 327
Default

Originally Posted by okie556 View Post
I knew as soon as I hit that Submit Reply button someone would dig into this and find the law from the penal code. I stand corrected but think the guy was Bozo for firing a weapon in this particular case.
Well, I would hate to actually do some work at work.
__________________
Hold my beer, and watch this!

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-02-2009, 04:15 PM
ZX9RCAM's Avatar
TGT Supporter
Forum Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Spring (The Woodlands) Tx.
Feedback: (0)
Posts: 713
Default

Well, it was not at night & that is the only time one can shoot at a "fleeing" thief (I think).
__________________
If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went.
-Will Rogers
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-02-2009, 05:00 PM
Texas42's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: San Antonio
Feedback: (0)
Posts: 1,321
Default

I guess the question was this a theft or a robbery.
__________________
Chris
MSII

Go Browncoats!

"I have always supported measures and principles and not men. "
Davy Crockett
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-02-2009, 05:11 PM
Acetone's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: El Paso
Feedback: (0)
Posts: 327
Default

Sec. 29.02. ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if, in the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.




Sec. 29.03. AGGRAVATED ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if he commits robbery as defined in Section 29.02, and he:
(1) causes serious bodily injury to another;
(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon; or
(3) causes bodily injury to another person or threatens or places another person in fear of imminent bodily injury or death, if the other person is:
(A) 65 years of age or older; or
(B) a disabled person.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.
(c) In this section, "disabled person" means an individual with a mental, physical, or developmental disability who is substantially unable to protect himself from harm.
Sec. 30.02. BURGLARY. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, the person:
(1) enters a habitation, or a building (or any portion of a building) not then open to the public, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault; or
(2) remains concealed, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault, in a building or habitation; or
(3) enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit a felony, theft, or an assault.
(b) For purposes of this section, "enter" means to intrude:
(1) any part of the body; or
(2) any physical object connected with the body.
(c) Except as provided in Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a:
(1) state jail felony if committed in a building other than a habitation; or
(2) felony of the second degree if committed in a habitation.
(d) An offense under this section is a felony of the first degree if:
(1) the premises are a habitation; and
(2) any party to the offense entered the habitation with intent to commit a felony other than felony theft or committed or attempted to commit a felony other than felony theft.



Sec. 31.03. THEFT. (a) A person commits an offense if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property.
(b) Appropriation of property is unlawful if:
(1) it is without the owner's effective consent;
(2) the property is stolen and the actor appropriates the property knowing it was stolen by another; or
(3) property in the custody of any law enforcement agency was explicitly represented by any law enforcement agent to the actor as being stolen and the actor appropriates the property believing it was stolen by another...................
I don't really think any of these apply, which is why he is being charged.

EDIT: Well, it is theft, but not at night as the Penal Code states.
__________________
Hold my beer, and watch this!

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-02-2009, 07:16 PM
Hawghauler's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Idaho
Feedback: (0)
Posts: 207
Default

Some states do allow you to protect your property with force. I think NH is such a state. Property did include automobile. I like NH. Live free or Die!
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-02-2009, 08:08 PM
txinvestigator's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: DFW
Feedback: (0)
Posts: 1,213
Default

It was not a justified shoot. It was not a robbery, it was a theft. It was not at night.

Even if it had been, I don't think the shoot would have met the standard of reasonableness.
__________________
Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.

"Speed is fine, but accuracy is final"-Bill Jordan
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-03-2009, 07:56 AM
Hawghauler's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Idaho
Feedback: (0)
Posts: 207
Default

The shot would not be considered reasonable to most and certainly not to our courts. Personally I have no problem with the man being shot to death. He was stealing the livlihood of a private citizen in America. The shooter needs a class on marksmanship and a world class asswhoopin for his choice to shoot in a mall. It is a sign of the times and sad commentary when a thief is not considered a "real" criminal anymore. Personally I think a crook that would commit a crime like this in broad daylight in front of witnesses and cameras has no fear of our laws and is very very dangerous.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0