TexasCHLforum.com

I don't see how they can make the credit card abuse charge stick just based on the theft. It requires proof that he intended to use the stolen card, which would be hard without his admission. But even though the theft was from the shopping card, it should still have been a robbery because of his fighting with the people trying to restrain him. All it takes is to show someone received a bodily injury, which is as simple as getting one of the helpers to say they felt pain. I could get that robbery conviction easier than the credit card abuse.

But the fact that the woman was carrying without a license really hurts her case. I agree with WTR that this is a great example of the problems with constitutional carry. She really needs training to understand when she can or cannot shoot. I still support constitutional carry but this is a problem with it.

surferdaddy wrote:I have no formal legal training, but as I understand it, theft is taking someone else's property while robbery is taking property FROM someone.

Surfer

Not quite right for Texas. Texas has a crime of theft from person to include situations such as pickpockets and some purse snatchings. The difference is if there is force or the threat of force involved in the theft or fleeing from it. That would make it robbery over theft.

Some examples include grabbing a purse from a woman who does not resist and just let's go. That would be theft. Grabbing a purse from the woman next to her who grabs back and pulls it back towards her would make it robbery.

Normally, taking merchandise from a store shelf is theft (shoplifting). I had one case where the shoplifter was observed by the manager. When she went to question him, he ran and knocked her down. That made it robbery instead of theft.

And this is why what actually happened at the scene is so critical to the shooting case.

I think it might be easier to justify than some think. The purse snatching might very well be classified as a theft or as a robbery. The difference would be the amount of force used to get the purse. If the purse was just grabbed, it is theft from a person but if the owner put up any resistance, then it become a robbery. Deadly force can be used to prevent the fleeing after the robbery.

And you could always try the stretch part. It might also be justified as preventing an escape after a lawful arrest. The purse snatching was a felony and all citizens have the legal authority to make an arrest in that case. The men trying to hold him down show that force was necessary. When he breaks free from them, it is technically an escape from a lawful arrest and the fact that the suspect did break free from multiple people holding him could lend credence to a claim that less than deadly force was not working so deadly force was needed.

Having said all that, I agree that I would not have shot in that case and think the woman was wrong. And, I think she also thought she was wrong. You can see her standing there after the shot with the two guys who were just watching. Police sirens are heard and she starts walking towards the front of the camera-woman's car and is not seen again. From what I can see on her face, I am guessing she was not happy that the police were coming that quickly and was more than a little worried about her shooting so she decided to leave. To me, her leaving says a lot.