Texas store owner arrested after killing robber at night

[baldeagle]

This story says the guy was shot in the head. http://www.kiiitv.com/story/23557902/br ... a-shooting" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Maybe that's why they charged the store owner with murder.

Maybe he's just a good shot.

Unless the perp was shot in the back of the head, what possible difference should it make if he was shot in the head or the elbow? He got shot during the commission of a crime.

Shooting someone in the head is sometimes considered an intent to kill rather than stop someone, because head shots are frequently fatal. Deliberately killing someone is locked upon differently by the legal community than shooting to stop someone who later dies from the wounds.

[garodrig1]

This story says the guy was shot in the head. http://www.kiiitv.com/story/23557902/br ... a-shooting" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Maybe that's why they charged the store owner with murder.

Maybe he's just a good shot.

Unless the perp was shot in the back of the head, what possible difference should it make if he was shot in the head or the elbow? He got shot during the commission of a crime.

Shooting someone in the head is sometimes considered an intent to kill rather than stop someone, because head shots are frequently fatal. Deliberately killing someone is locked upon differently by the legal community than shooting to stop someone who later dies from the wounds.

Where or who considers a head shot intent to kill?
Sure shooting someone in the head is going to kill, likely. But in legal terms?
I mean, is there legal wording in the Texas code that indicates that or is it something that was said in conversation?
So for example, if a criminal breaks into a residence, and the home owner shoots the intruder, but hits him in the head. Would that intent to kill be there? Or just in vague cases like the one present above?

[MoJo]

This story says the guy was shot in the head. http://www.kiiitv.com/story/23557902/br ... a-shooting" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Maybe that's why they charged the store owner with murder.

Maybe he's just a good shot.

Unless the perp was shot in the back of the head, what possible difference should it make if he was shot in the head or the elbow? He got shot during the commission of a crime.

Shooting someone in the head is sometimes considered an intent to kill rather than stop someone, because head shots are frequently fatal. Deliberately killing someone is locked upon differently by the legal community than shooting to stop someone who later dies from the wounds.

Where or who considers a head shot intent to kill?
Sure shooting someone in the head is going to kill, likely. But in legal terms?
I mean, is there legal wording in the Texas code that indicates that or is it something that was said in conversation?
So for example, if a criminal breaks into a residence, and the home owner shoots the intruder, but hits him in the head. Would that intent to kill be there? Or just in vague cases like the one present above?

The police may not have gathered all the evidence in this matter, maybe they aren't putting all of it out to protect the integrity of the case.

[philip964]

Uh, I don't think a robbery was committed. Sounds like shoplifting to me.

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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 357, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

This was theft during the night time. I seem to remember a teen, who was shot in the back by a store owner, who was outside the store leaving with a pack of gum, he had stolen. If I remember, because it was at night, the store owner was not arrested and was no billed.

[cb1000rider]

$35000 bond. So that is $3500 he will lose if he goes to a bail bondsman. Not a real big bond for murder.

The legal system is on crack. $35000 bail for murder. $500000 bail for a kid that makes "threats" on facebook. Seriously?

I'm unclear on why he was charged at all. It just goes to show that you that you can have what appears to be the most black and white legal justification in the world, but it can still cost you your liberty and a good deal of money...

[Keith B]

$35000 bond. So that is $3500 he will lose if he goes to a bail bondsman. Not a real big bond for murder.

The legal system is on crack. $35000 bail for murder. $500000 bail for a kid that makes "threats" on facebook. Seriously?

I'm unclear on why he was charged at all. It just goes to show that you that you can have what appears to be the most black and white legal justification in the world, but it can still cost you your liberty and a good deal of money...

This is not a black and white case. I will bet there is a lot more to this that the little bit the press has put out.

[JP171]

there probably is much that hasn't been released by the police, the story saying that the owner shot the suspect in the head and not saying that several shots were fired indicates to me that one shot was fired and it was intentionally in the head. One shot to the head is under almost any states indicative understanding of the law prima facie evidence of intent to kill therefore MURDER a person, not to stop the commission of a crime, had the suspect had a bullet resistant vest on then the charge most likely would not have happened.

Also as I understand and instructors can correct me if I am wrong, but DPS teaches instructors that head shot on the target are automatic fails

[cb1000rider]

I understand that a head shot could be used as "intent" - but anyone have a reference to where someone was prosecuted in an otherwise justifiable event due to that fact?
I thought you aimed for the center of mass as that way you're most likely to hit something?

Again, I'd love to know the LEO justification for arrest here versus other incidents of similar nature in Texas?

[WildBill]

Maybe the robber had been there before:

The station reports Corpus Christi police said a known gang member came into Duve's store on Saturday night, grabbed a couple of packs of beer and tried to walk out without paying.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162- ... ling-beer/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[texanjoker]

Uh, I don't think a robbery was committed. Sounds like shoplifting to me.

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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 357, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

As I posted one can easily turn a shoplifting into a robbery by force or fear. This happens all the time. You can see that element in the robbery section you posted

[texanjoker]

I understand that a head shot could be used as "intent" - but anyone have a reference to where someone was prosecuted in an otherwise justifiable event due to that fact?
I thought you aimed for the center of mass as that way you're most likely to hit something?

Again, I'd love to know the LEO justification for arrest here versus other incidents of similar nature in Texas?

We need a lot more info on this.I would like to read the arrest affidavit. A head shot in itself is not a guaranteed sign of anything. Many people including leo's miss the target. He may have been actually aiming for center mass and that is what he hit.

[bizarrenormality]

Photo of store owner. No photo of victim yet.

The store owner might be the victim. I don't think there's enough information to say yet.

[MasterOfNone]

Also as I understand and instructors can correct me if I am wrong, but DPS teaches instructors that head shot on the target are automatic fails

Head shots are three points each.

[bizarrenormality]

Head shots are three points each.

That makes sense. It's not a vital organ for some people.

[cb1000rider]

I think I get it now, after reading a bit more:
The title indicates robbery, but the details are that of a theft.
If it was theft and only theft, the thief was shot in the store.
If the owner stopped a thief before that thief had left the store, I understand the charges...

Still it's a really low bond.. So not sure what the real deal is.