TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.khou.com/news/local/houstonm ... 870ad.html

As I read this story, in 2006, Robert Vela was in a convenience store with a friend when a clerk accused the friend of shoplifting sunglasses. The clerk produced a handgun and chased them. They ran to Vela's car. The clerk shot into the car, and Robert drove over the clerk.

In the video, Vela had already left the store and had his back turned when the friend grabbed a pair of sunglasses on the way out.

Now here's the confusing part: The written story says "the passenger" was struck by a bullet. The video says that no one was hit. It seems to me that Vela must have been hit to be in a position to sue. (I can't find any other versions of this story).

Vela and the other man were initially charged with aggravated robbery, but the DA dropped the charges.

Vela subsequently sued the convenience store and was awarded $1.2 million in a jury trial last week.

- Jim

A Couple Observations/Opinions:

Assuming the story is true and accurate, and this is a HUGE assumption considering the source....

Shooting someone over a pair of cheap sunglasses that probably cost the store $.05 is just wrong.

Had someone ran out of the store shooting at me, I would probably use my car as a weapon as well.

I know many will disagree but that clerk is a moron.

TDDude wrote:A Couple Observations/Opinions:

Assuming the story is true and accurate, and this is a HUGE assumption considering the source....

Shooting someone over a pair of cheap sunglasses that probably cost the store $.05 is just wrong.

Had someone ran out of the store shooting at me, I would probably use my car as a weapon as well.

I know many will disagree but that clerk is a moron.

maybe the clerk only shot AFTER they tried to run him over once...but yea, still stupid to run after someone for that. Its not like they were HIS glasses.
but maybe he was told under the table that if thefts didnt get reduced, he would lose his job. There's some motivation. I know companies do that to clerks.

Glock 23 wrote:maybe the clerk only shot AFTER they tried to run him over once...but yea, still stupid to run after someone for that. Its not like they were HIS glasses.
but maybe he was told under the table that if thefts didnt get reduced, he would lose his job. There's some motivation. I know companies do that to clerks.

That's possible. Like I said, one must consider the source of these stories.

When my wife worked nights at a local CVS, she had people all the time run in, grab up a bunch of junk and take off. The stuff taken ranged from sunglasses, to condoms. She would just watch them and make a report to management. If the items taken were large enough in value, they would pull the video and file a police report but usually the management never bothered. It literally would cost more to prosecute some shoplifter than it was worth so nothing ever happened. And since she only made a little over $8/hr, there is no way she was going to try and stop anyone. I think there was one time that someone jumped the counter to get at the cigarettes but since they were mostly locked up, they didn't get much and it was at a time when both clerks were on the floor stocking shelves.

I just don't see any reason for anyone to use deadly force to protect any of the junk that is sold in any convenience store.

Now, if they were going for the cash register and putting the clerk in danger, then all bets are off.

TDDude wrote:A Couple Observations/Opinions:

Assuming the story is true and accurate, and this is a HUGE assumption considering the source....

Shooting someone over a pair of cheap sunglasses that probably cost the store $.05 is just wrong.

Had someone ran out of the store shooting at me, I would probably use my car as a weapon as well.

I know many will disagree but that clerk is a moron.

...and there again, assuming that the story is accurate, why would anyone chase someone out of the store and shoot at them anyway? ...over a pair of cheap sunglasses!
From what we know, I don't think the clerk was in fear for his life.

Guess someone took the song too literally.

"...go get yourself some cheap sunglasses..."



(My apologies to ZZ Top)

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?

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

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).

Well, the clerk probably got fired the day of the incident for violating the company weapons policy. He would not have anything worth suing for. I'm actually surprised he wasn't prosecuted. Maybe they figured that being run over was punishment enough.

The company's insurance company got hit where it hurts.

- Jim

TDDude wrote:A Couple Observations/Opinions:

Assuming the story is true and accurate, and this is a HUGE assumption considering the source....
snip

Good point! KHOU is a CBS affiliate.

In a recent CHL renewal class the instructor related an incident that happened in Ft. Worth in which a CHL intervened in an shooting in which a police officer had been shot in the head, and was about to be shot again. The CHl shot the perp four times and called for help using the officers squad car radio resulting in a helicopter getting the officer to the hospital. The instructor said he monitored all local TV stations looking for a report and the CHL was only mentioned on one broadcast by one station. The rest completely omitted the "good news" portion.
On reflection, it is only unusual in that one station did mention it.