Austin: Clerk charged with murder after shooting shoplifter

[A-R]

This is one of those great discussions that makes his whole forum so worthwhile. Wonderful to discuss the details of the various laws in context of a specific event (though, obviously a tragic event for both the thief and the clerk).

This and other similar stories always make me want to ask the question .... "What property WOULD you shoot to recover from a fleeing suspect? ... a car, a stereo/TV, a computer (with perhaps important/private documents on it), cash in a certain amount, a beloved animal like a horse, jewelry, antiques, art/paintings, anything of sentimental value, firearms?

Mr. 72 brings up the valid argument that there is no statutory "limit" to how valuable property must be for us to protect said property with force/deadly force in the right scenario (theft at night, etc). So what would it be for y'all? How much "value" would someone have to steal from you for you to shoot them over it? (and of course this assumes there is no other legal justificaion such as fending off an attack etc)

[mr.72]

This and other similar stories always make me want to ask the question .... "What property WOULD you shoot to recover from a fleeing suspect? ... a car, a stereo/TV, a computer (with perhaps important/private documents on it), cash in a certain amount, a beloved animal like a horse, jewelry, antiques, art/paintings, anything of sentimental value, firearms?

I can think of a few things I would shoot someone to protect.

[seamusTX]

Mostly I don't like the precedent or the double-standard imposed by trying this guy for murder while someone like Joe Horn gets no-billed.

There is no double standard. Every case is handled based on the details of the case.

There are qualitative differences between this case and Joe Horn's.

Mr. Horn called 911 about a burglary in progress. He may have been threatened by the burglars (that is what he said). He was one elderly man confronted by two young adult burglars who were advancing on a man with a shotgun. The burglars had stolen thousands of dollars' worth of cash and jewelry (though, of course, he could not have known that -- probably the grand jury did).

Grand juries have a great deal of latitude to rule as they see fit. Maybe half the grand jurors in this case will hate thieves and bums, and this guy will skate. Maybe they will think that a $10 case of beer is not worth a human life, however despicable. Is that a bet that anyone wants to make?

BTW, I agree with you that insurance is not a factor in the recovery of stolen property. Insurance never makes you whole. There is always a deductible (which in the case of my homeowner insurance is about $1,200), and it pays only the depreciated cost of the lost property.

Insurance does not cover cash or the emotional value of property (your late mother's silver, for example).

"What property WOULD you shoot to recover from a fleeing suspect?

This is a moral or ethical question, and everyone will have a personal answer. Mennonites would probably never use force to prevent theft or recover stolen property. Some people would kill over a pack of chewing gum.

Animals are a unique issue. Stolen animals usually come to bad ends. In the case of horses and other livestock, they are sold for slaughter. Small animals are often used for bait in dog-fighting, or just plain cruelty. In those cases, the animal's owner is as concerned with the suffering of the animal as the loss of property

- Jim

[frazzled]

This and other similar stories always make me want to ask the question .... "What property WOULD you shoot to recover from a fleeing suspect? ... a car, a stereo/TV, a computer (with perhaps important/private documents on it), cash in a certain amount, a beloved animal like a horse, jewelry, antiques, art/paintings, anything of sentimental value, firearms?

Am I the only person who immediately thinks of their TV remote control?
"

[A-R]

This and other similar stories always make me want to ask the question .... "What property WOULD you shoot to recover from a fleeing suspect? ... a car, a stereo/TV, a computer (with perhaps important/private documents on it), cash in a certain amount, a beloved animal like a horse, jewelry, antiques, art/paintings, anything of sentimental value, firearms?

Am I the only person who immediately thinks of their TV remote control?
"

I don't care who ya are, that's funny right thare

Reminds me of the story my aunt loves to tell about my uncle. She comes home on a Saturday afternoon, he's watching TV and flipping the channels as usual - though a bitter faster than normal - she yells at him to knock it off. No response. She checks closer, he had fallen asleep with the remote in his hand and his thumb on the channel button and the TV had been just flipping channel to channel for who knows how long.

Sorta like "you can pry it out of my cold dead hands" but different.

[cling]

Theft during the night time. I hope the grand jury doesn't waste tax money on an indictment.

Ted said it best. I don't like repeat offenders. I like dead offenders.

[boomerang]

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

does "recovered by any other means" include insurance claims? in this case, I doubt a quick stop store would file insurance claim over a 12-pack, but what if someone is stealing your TV and you have homeowner's insurance?

Do you have medical insurance? Does that disqualify you from using force to defend yourself against injury?

[Oldgringo]

...shot a fleeing shoplifter...

Guys, it ain't cool to shoot anybody in the back, is it? The operative word, IMO, appears to be "fleeing".

[KD5NRH]

does "recovered by any other means" include insurance claims? in this case, I doubt a quick stop store would file insurance claim over a 12-pack, but what if someone is stealing your TV and you have homeowner's insurance?

1) Replaced is not the same as recovered. I'm pretty sure the legislature knew that, and used recovered for a reason.
2) If they had said replaced, then the statute would be moot: any inanimate object can be replaced somehow, whether it's insured or not, and thus there would never be a situation where it could apply.

[A-R]

Thanks all for the explanations of "insurance" not being same as "recovered" .... makes sense

[Gearheart]

I'm not a legal scholar and I don't know how I would vote if I were on the jury, but this does remind me of a story.

I went to high school with a guy whose dad worked as a convenience store clerk. One night, some kids entered the store shuffled around for a while, and then snatched a 12 pack and sprinted out the door. This worked out so well for them that they came back every few days and did it again and again. One night the clerk watched them come in, and as they were shuffling over to the beer section, the clerk quietly locked the front door and called the cops. The kids grabbed the beer, took off running, and slammed into the door. Then they beat the clerk so badly that he couldn't work for a while.

[flb_78]

I hope the fella gets no-billed. If more thieves were shot, then I bet theft would go down.

The statement was made "every person needs to look within himself and determine if a human life is worth the price of a $12.99 12 pack of beer especially when he wasn't threatened himself", I would say, you need to ask the guy that getting ready to rip someone off, "Is your life worth $12.99?"

[A-R]

I don't like to talk in absolutes, but I can't imagine a situation where I would shoot someone in the back over nothing more than $13 worth of property. If my life is not in danger, no one else's life is in danger, and all that is stolen from me is $13 worth ... let 'em have it.

There is a part of me that agrees with the "shoot 'em all and they'll all stop stealing" crowd. And I definitely agree with the idea that it is the THIEVES and not the VICTIM who should be making the "is a life worth $13" assessment. But I still can't get past my own moral dilema to justify shooting someone for petty theft.

In the situation described above where repeated thefts led to the clerk being beaten, that's a different story. I would not lock the door on thieves unless I had a gun or some other very powerful means of protecting myself. Once the teen-age punks started attacking that clerk, then let the bullets fly and drop them to the ground ... that is aggravated assault and potentially fatal.

I have found this entire thread very interesting to see into and understand somewhat the thought process of others. I do not judge anyone else's opinion on this matter, though my opinion may differ from yours.

As for what I might do if on a grand jury looking into this mess? If it were not for the "covering up" nonsense by the clerk, I might at least be open to a no-bill argument (still not sure if I vote to no-bill). But with the covering up, I think this needs to go to a jury to sort out all the facts. If I was on that jury, and the covering up could be explained, and the law does state that you can shoot anyone commiting theft at night, then I might be convinced to acquit based on a strict interpretation of the law.

[seamusTX]

"shoot 'em all and they'll all stop stealing"

In Europe, up to the 18th century, thieves were hanged for the theft of things worth a few dollars in modern terms. The hangman was never idle. Thieves had their hand amputated in Muslim countries, and it was not a deterrent.

These are people with no impulse control, who were dropped on their heads as babies.

If thieves knew that all store clerks were armed and would shoot, the thieves would become robbers and shoot first.

There is no question in my mind about the morality of shooting home invasion robbers. Half the homes in Texas have firearms, and robbers are shot about once a week. It doesn't seem to slow them down. If they are not complete idiots, they will improve their technique. I've already seen cases where the robbers lure a resident outdoors before springing the robbery.

- Jim

[LedJedi]

Even if the shooter is no-billed, there are many things which are legal to do but are stupid to do.

This would be one of those.

Well I'll agree that he could rightfully be found guilty of being stupid.

But not guilty of the charge for which he is being held: murder.

I think any time we find someone guilty who, according to the letter of the law, was likely justifiably using deadly force, just because we find the value of the property being protected below some emotional threshold, we are chipping away at our own rights to self defense as well as the meaning of the rule of law. The law is the law. You don't have to feel good about it. Some people think you should be convicted of a crime for owning a gun, or for carrying one, etc. Those are emotional arguments no different than the argument "a twelve-pack of beer is not worth shooting someone over". That's an imaginary line, an imaginary crime that has been committed.

+1 Couldn't have said it better 72.

12 pack
stick of gum
100,000 car...
theft is theft.

*edit...
I thought I should qualify the above a bit.
While on some level I do feel the absurdity of shooting someone over a 12 pack of beer or for the sake of argument, a stick of gum, it's the principle of the matter that becomes the defining line for me. It's that imaginary line as 72 said. That line will be different for almost everyone reading this thread. Some people will shoot over a stick of gum, some over a 12 pack, some not unless it's a car, or a piece of equipment used to provide for your family (welding rig) and yet others won't shoot unless it's a home invasion or car jacking and still others won't shoot unless their or another's life is directly threatened.

To moan about someone using deadly force to defend X amount of dollars in property is to imply that the law should be changed to not allow that which would deprive you and others of the choice of what is worth defending. That would be a mistake imo. We each should be able to choose for ourselves what amount of property is worth defending, or not to consider the monetary value of the property at all if we so choose. I believe that's probably why the law is written the way it currently is, so that we, as the defenders have the choice. To whine about the value of the property being defended is a slap in the face of that personal choice imo.

I respect everyone for their choices and their logic in the above. The point is they have a choice the way the law is currently written. Theft is theft whether it's a stick of gum or 100,000 car. If the law were to be changed to say "theft of items valued at $50 or more" then we'd start quibbling over the value of the item. It becomes a very slippery slope from there. We cannot allow ourselves to look at theft as an issue of the amount of money being taken. That's not really what it's about. It's about a a fundamental right to protect what is yours whether it's a stick of gum, a car or your home or your life.

One can always argue "a human life isn't worth a stick of gum" and I completely agree that my life is worth more than a stick of gum. That is why I will never steal a stick of gum. I know that's theft and what I'm risking by doing that. If I choose to put my life on the line to steal a 12 pack of beer then that's my choice. I must not value my life all that much. That's me making that choice and me devaluing myself, not the person defending their property. They're simply defending their property. I'm the thief that decided my life was worth risking for a 12 pack the moment I tried to run off with it. If you're going to place blame, place it where it belongs, not on the person defending their property.

We do have some built in safeguards in the system if you stop to think about it though. Even if the shooting is justified that will be the most expensive bullet you EVER fire, guaranteed both in terms of money and possibly in terms of emotional anguish. The real question for isn't "is that 12 pack worth a person's life? " Because I didn't make that determination. The thief did. The real question for me is, " is that 12 pack worth the lawyer's bill, the grand jury, etc."

Your mileage may vary.