Thoughts on this? Man shoot an unarmed robber gets arrested.

[candcallen]

Don't never speak to them, cops have questions they need confirmed or negated to understand if a crime was committed.

Know why and what you did well enough to not say something stupid, especially if you did something stupid.

I really don't think its the talking to cops thats the issue, but its idiots that get caught AND say idiot things that lock them into a crime. I talk to cops all the time and have yet to be arrested.

Надіслано з дому вашої мами за допомогою Tapatalk

Having done hundreds of interviews, you probably many many tines that, you know as well as I that people will say stupid shit if they have never been in that kind of situation before. I've had people admit to stuff they never did and I know they never did or relay information in a less than flattering way just to try to sound smart or otherwise impress me. I don't know why they do it but they do.

Then the whole thing where cops can lie or insinuate legal threats that don't exist where the interviewees are expected to be truthful and are, again, inexperienced and panic.

So it's different when the playing field isn't level and why you tell your family not to talk to police especially after such incidents.

Being a reporting victim of a crime is one thing. In the middle of an investigation where you don't know the facts is another. After a traumatic event is another all together. The first, go ahead and talk to police. Be wary on the second and absolutely shut up on the 3rd untill you recover clear cognitive thought.

Agree with that?

 

[candcallen]

No it is wasn't. It was about two women (presumably somebody's wives), getting attacked by a thug in the commission of another crime and whether or not an armed grown man is going to do anything about it or walk on by.

The facts seem to say they were attacking him as he was trying to leave. Their right to do so as employees is not what I'm talking about.

Just making a point not rooting for a side. That point is you better be clear on the situation, the law and legalities of your actions.

A slight difference in facts, that you may not even know, changes the crime thus the legal responses available to you.

 

[Darkpriest667]

Don't never speak to them, cops have questions they need confirmed or negated to understand if a crime was committed.

Know why and what you did well enough to not say something stupid, especially if you did something stupid.

I really don't think its the talking to cops thats the issue, but its idiots that get caught AND say idiot things that lock them into a crime. I talk to cops all the time and have yet to be arrested.

Надіслано з дому вашої мами за допомогою Tapatalk

I said never, I meant never. They can gather their own evidence. I'm not going to give them anything unless I am given a legal notice by the DA to testify.

you say the wrong thing even as a witness you can end up in jail real quick.

 

[cycleguy2300]

Look where pulling a gun got him. That's the point nothing else. He fuckd up. End of story!

I'm not convinced its that cut and dried.

Надіслано з дому вашої мами за допомогою Tapatalk

 

[GeauxLSU]

Look where pulling a gun got him. That's the point nothing else. He fuckd up. End of story!

Hopefully not. If it goes to trail hopefully jury members will do the right thing. I'm more happy about where it got the perp. Chance of recividism? 0%. .

 

[GeauxLSU]

The facts seem to say they were attacking him as he was trying to leave. Their right to do so as employees is not what I'm talking about.

Just making a point not rooting for a side. That point is you better be clear on the situation, the law and legalities of your actions.

A slight difference in facts, that you may not even know, changes the crime thus the legal responses available to you.

There are no "facts", only reporting. I agree in principle but also understand that in the same situation, the vast majority of the people won't have "legality" anywhere in their calculus. Fight, flight or freeze. That's generally it. I hope first and foremost I'm never in that situation, but if I am, I seriously hope I don't say "good luck ladies" and continue on my merry way.

 

[toddnjoyce]

I'm not convinced its that cut and dried….

Agree, lots of gray area in this case. Based on the available information and sticking to a strict interpretation of the elements of TPC 9 Subchapter C, I can see it going either way.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

I just read the article again.
I missed the fact that it was at "night".

In Texas it's legal to shoot someone that has stolen something and is running away "at night".

Does that possibly hold up in this instance??

 

[Kar98]

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.

That's the issue right there.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

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.

That's the issue right there.

That's what I posted in post #3.

Now I'm wondering if the fact is was at night makes a difference.

 

[toddnjoyce]

I just read the article again.
I missed the fact that it was at "night".

In Texas it's legal to shoot someone that has stolen something and is running away "at night".

Does that possibly hold up in this instance??

Maybe, maybe not.

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 or 9.42 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.

 

[candcallen]

There are no "facts", only reporting. I agree in principle but also understand that in the same situation, the vast majority of the people won't have "legality" anywhere in their calculus. Fight, flight or freeze. That's generally it. I hope first and foremost I'm never in that situation, but if I am, I seriously hope I don't say "good luck ladies" and continue on my merry way.

There is a huge part of the continuum of force between good luck ladies and step aside so I can shoot the fleeing shoplifter or possible/probable robber.

Also when we discuss "facts" it's always as reported info.

 

[rotor]

I just read the article again.
I missed the fact that it was at "night".

In Texas it's legal to shoot someone that has stolen something and is running away "at night".

Does that possibly hold up in this instance??

No. Just being "night" does not justify shooting.

 

[Havok1]

He was not defending himself, and he wasn’t defending anyone else. Wouldn’t doubt if he told the cops he wasn’t trying to kill him or was just trying to stop him from running or something like that. He’s going to prison for a long time.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Is the following correct?
I'm not sure which crime he committed.


"Generally, a person may use force, but not deadly force, to protect property. There are, however, some important exceptions. Under Penal Code 9.42, deadly force may be used to protect land or property when a person reasonably believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to: prevent arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft at night, or criminal mischief during nighttime; prevent someone fleeing with property after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime."

 

[popper]

Most likely a bad shooting and Dallas DA is going to make him pay.

 

[toddnjoyce]

Is the following correct?
I'm not sure which crime he committed.


"Generally, a person may use force, but not deadly force, to protect property. There are, however, some important exceptions. Under Penal Code 9.42, deadly force may be used to protect land or property when a person reasonably believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to: prevent arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft at night, or criminal mischief during nighttime; prevent someone fleeing with property after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime."

TPC9.42 is conditional upon TPC9.41 being fulfilled. 9.41 references one’s own personal property.

9.43 covers property of a third person. It says if 9.41 or 9.42 are met AND
Either The “good guy” needed to reasonable believe a theft has occurred OR
The good guy was asked to help, had a legal duty to help, or the land/proprety was under his care

THEN good guy had legal justification to use force or deadly force to protect someone else’s land or property.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

He didn’t prevent any of those crimes.

The employees had the items Betts was trying to steal in their possession and were chasing him out of the store.

Thanks.
I didn't see where they got everything back.


ETA: Looks like a post was deleted.

 

[Havok1]

Thanks.
I didn't see where they got everything back.


ETA: Looks like a post was deleted.

I deleted it because I think I was wrong about that. i thought the items were in his backpack but it looks like they may have been in his coat. I still don’t think it’ll buff out though.

 

[GeauxLSU]

"No weapons were found on Betts, but police confirm stolen goods were on him."

Article states he left, then came BACK in the store to assault the women.
Guess he won't be doing that again.