TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle wrote:

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.