TexasCHLforum.com

But, there is an easy way to show that Texas sees it a little differently than you do. Under 31.03, the penalty for theft is automatically upgraded to a state jail felony if the item is stolen from a person or corpse.

I guess that pretty much shows that my simplistic little framework is wrong. I'm not too big to admit a mistake

I still think that the fear element in the robbery definition is important to CHL holders. Just because someone doesn't harm you or make an explicit threat while taking your possessions, their actions and demeanor can cause a reasonable person to fear injury. In that case, I believe we would be dealing with a robbery. And robbery is one of the offenses that justifies deadly force.

At any rate, I didn't mean to hijack the thread. I just think it's an interesting conversation and I believe that it pertains to the original post as to what actions would be justified in the situation described. Personally, I think the situation was handled well. Laser Tex took action which prevented him from becoming a victim and allowed everyone to walk away from the incident unharmed. That's a good outcome.

boomerang wrote:I think shoplifting a candy bar is generally considered theft even if the storekeeper is present.

You're right. I was careless in my wording. I should have said, "aware" vs "present."

Shoplifting is attempting to take something without being spotted. If is not using intimidation to take the item.


Take a bank robbery for example. Guy walks in, hands the teller a note saying "fill the bag up with money." He never spoke a word. There is no threat written in the note. Did he commit robbery or theft?

ELB wrote:

Sangiovese wrote:Regarding theft vs robbery...

Your mileage may vary, but a very smart guy explained the difference to me this way:
etc....

sounds good, but I don't think it is legally correct, at least in Texas. The law is quoted a few posts back. Reading what is there, essentially, theft is unlawfully taking someone else's property. The victim may or may not be present. Robbery is theft, with the addition of committing or threatening bodily harm or death. If I simply take your wallet or purse and walk off, I am committing theft. If I threaten to beat the stuffings out of you if you don't hand it over, or I club you over the head and take your wallet, I am robbing you.

Or so I read it.

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.

The way I read it... you wouldn't let him take your wallet unless you were afraid he would hurt you if you tried to stop him. Therefore he has "placed you in fear of imminent bodily injury."

Regarding theft vs robbery...

Your mileage may vary, but a very smart guy explained the difference to me this way:

Taking something from another person who is present is generally considered robbery. Even if force was not actually used, there is a very real implied threat of force. (i.e. if you were not afraid, you would not let them take your stuff)

Theft would only apply when the owner is not present.

It is a framework that works for me.