TexasCHLforum.com

seamusTX wrote:Shoplifting is theft, not robbery. Robbery requires the element of force or threat of force.

As I recall, the video showed the guy taking the sunglasses from a display while he was walking out the door. It also looked like it was day time.

But as you say, even if it had been an armed robbery, the clerk was liable for injuring a third party who was not involved in the crime.

- Jim

good point clarifying theft versus robbery. With that clarification, it does look like the clerk can be sued by both members (or their families is the one member who stole the sunglasses died).

Hmm, let's talk legalities. PC 9.42, (2)(b) says tha deadly force is justified against the other if

to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the night time from escaping with the property

So if I interpret that law, the clerk had legal justification to shoot the person who stole the sunglasses, but not to Vela who did not committ any offense. The law is pretty clear that if you hit any innocent bystanders in the act of shooting a criminal, you do not have legal protections for your actions.

Now we can get debate all day long if shooting someone over sunglasses was the right/wrong thing to do, but as I read the law, the clerk was within the legal limits of the law. Or am I simply reading it wrong?