TexasCHLforum.com

I think I know why he was convicted.

A police officer testified that when he responded to a call of shots fired at the convenience store, Romero said nothing had happened. When police arrived at Romero's house later to interview him again, he gave them his 9 mm semiautomatic Smith & Wesson pistol and told detectives that he had fired 16 shots. He also said he knew he had hit Vielma because he saw blood on the pavement after Vielma fled in a car.

Romero told detectives that he did not call police because police had done little in response to past complaints about thefts at the store. His interview with police was played to the jury.

You don't shoot someone and then not call the police. When the police come anyway (because someone is going to hear the shots and call 911), you don't tell them nothing happened when you've shot someone. You don't tell the police how many shots you fired. Let them figure that out. And you don't tell the police you know you hit the bad guy, because that tells them that everything you said previously was a coverup.

What this guy did was within the law, but everything he did subsequently got him convicted of murder. He made himself look guilty. Now, when an armed robber comes into his store, he will be defenseless. Stupid.

The comments of the family of the deceased are disgusting.

Vielma's father, Jorge Vielma, said after the trial that the jury should have sentenced Romero to prison.

"I don't think it's right," he said. "He killed my son for no reason."

No, he killed your son because he was a thief.

Vielma's stepmother, Sherry Vielma, said her stepson should have been prosecuted for a Class C misdemeanor and "not executed and shot in the back." Romero did not testify during the trial.

And wouldn't it be nice if the police would actually investigate the crimes and charge her son with a Class C misdemeanor? He was shot, in part, because the Austin police could care less if a store is being constantly shoplifted.

Jorge Vielma wanted to have children and was always asking her what their names should be, Faxon wrote in the letter.

"He was always joking and his smile lit up his face," the letter said. "Jorge did not have a mean bone in his body and never held a grudge. I cry for him everyday."

No mean bones, just a thieving nature. Spare us the tripe about your son's character. He was a criminal, plain and simple.

Right now, after eleven hours of deliberation, the jury is hung. I found this interesting:

However, prosecutors argue Romero committed murder because Vielma ran away, dropped the beer, and did not have a weapon.

The law reads:

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

So the prosecutors are arguing that he followed the law and therefore should be found guilty of murder? I can see why the jury is deadlocked. Some jurors are saying, "The law says....and therefore he's not guilty" and other jurors are saying, "But he didn't have to use deadly force...."

austinrealtor wrote:Here's story from today's paper, paints him even more as a vigilante in the eyes of many I'm sure.

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/def ... 79576.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think he's certainly guilty and will be punished for non-shooting aspects - tampering with evidence, etc. Whether he's guilty of something more for actually taking the shots will likely depend on a technical aspects of justification under Penal Code and the leanings of the jury.

Also, for what it's worth (not much in my opinion) the Statesman's reporter is blogging live from the courtroom today

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/ ... stin_legal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The story reads:

"Guy walked off with a 12-pack," Romero said in the interview, which was recorded on video and played in court Tuesday. "I saw him. \u2026 Shot one warning shot. He didn't drop it, so I shot him. That's it."

So where does the destroying the video tape charge come from? He cleaned up the spilt beer and empty cartridges and didn't call the police. That's strange behavior, for sure, but I don't see how they can convict him of murder unless they ignore the law. You can shoot a thief at night for stealing property, and that's exactly what he did. He claims he didn't call the police because they never respond to theft calls, but it's hard to believe that he wouldn't realize that if he shot a man he should call the police. Despite that behavior, though, he acted within the law with regard to the shooting.

EDIT: After reading the blog post, they have video that shows the man stealing the beer and shows the defendant running out of the store after him. The defendant claims to have fired sixteen times, but the dead man was hit once. Then his "friend" and fellow criminal drove the car to East Austin and abandoned the car with him in it instead of taking him to the hospital. I think the "friend" is guilty of the murder, and the defendant is guilty, at the most, of tampering with evidence. But I wouldn't even find him guilty of that charge.

BTin wrote:I don't understand how he violated the statute? Does anybody know what the prosecutions actual case is? Covering up evidence does NOT mean he violated deadly force statutes. It might mean he impeded an investigation.

Erasing the video tape indicates that he thought there was something wrong with what he did. That will work against him in the trial.

The way the penal code reads:

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

I think the question of his guilt or innocence will hang on whether or not he reasonably believed that the use of force other than deadly force would have exposed him to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. The DA will probably argue that he could have used other than deadly force to stop the theft. Unfortunately for him, he's already proven that on video tape by brandishing the weapon without firing it and the actor left without the property. What made this incident different that he felt compelled to fire? Another question is, if the guy dropped the beer, why did he pursue him out of the store firing at him?

I think the case is questionable, and it's quite possible he will be convicted. From the brief facts presented in the article it appears that he escalated the violence by first showing the gun, the firing warning shots and finally decided to shoot someone.

That's a problem.