TX: Cleck charged with murder for killing vandal at Austin gas station at night

[philip964]

https://news.yahoo.com/austin-gas-stati ... 11725.html

A man brandishing a knife, trashed a convenience store ( breaking glass, ripping cash register off counter) at family owned gas station at 11 pm. The clerk followed the man out of the store with a gun and shot the vandal through the car window, while the vandal was sitting in his car.

I guess it will hinge on whether the vandal was stealing something.

Never a good idea in Austin.

[K.Mooneyham]

Seems like they're going to be able to successfully prosecute the clerk because he followed the assailant outside. Sort of like the Star Wars thing where fear leads to anger, etc. Except that we're all real human beings and not magical movie characters. The patrons of the store that were interviewed seem to like the clerk. And, of course, there is the final paragraph in the story that is very telling, too. Incidents like this one leave you pretty upset that it had to happen in the first place. "Defund the police" really has worked out great, hasn't it?

Austin has struggled with violent crime since the city council voted to slash the police department's funding by about one-third in August 2020. That funding has since been restored, but scores of APD officers left in the wake of that funding cut, plus a perceived lack of support from the mayor and city council at the time. Response times to 9-11 calls have reportedly soared since that 2020 funding vote.

[Paladin]

https://news.yahoo.com/austin-gas-stati ... 11725.html

A man brandishing a knife, trashed a convenience store ( breaking glass, ripping cash register off counter) at family owned gas station at 11 pm. The clerk followed the man out of the store with a gun and shot the vandal through the car window, while the vandal was sitting in his car.

I guess it will hinge on whether the vandal was stealing something.

Never a good idea in Austin.

It might, but the Texas statute for criminal mischief in the night-time also very broad.

Then this also happened:

Texas Penal Code Sec. 22.02 Aggravated Assault:
uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the commission of the assault

It is truly a shame that the Travis County DA is more supportive of violent criminals than the citizens who are protecting themselves, their communities, and their property.

[RoyGBiv]

IANAL... Just my OPINION.
If the BG stole anything or could reasonably be assumed to have stolen anything, the shoot is justified.

Knife = Aggravated

Emphasis mine...

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Sec. 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.

Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY.
A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

[Tex1961]

IANAL... Just my OPINION.
If the BG stole anything or could reasonably be assumed to have stolen anything, the shoot is justified.

Knife = Aggravated

Emphasis mine...

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Sec. 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.

Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY.
A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

I think you pretty much have the right of it. Statues are pretty clear on the subject. Unfortunately the article doesn’t mention if anything was taken.

[puma guy]

I'll leave it to the court system and jury of his peers for determination of his fate, but $1,000,000 bond! Ridiculous! This guy is no flight risk and is a first time offender I assume. Capital murder suspect in Houston was release on $100 bail per a presentation by my local PD that I attended late last year. Police removed the entire surveillance recording system leaving the store with no ability to have a record of any subsequent crimes. They are definitely vulnerable to retaliatory attacks.

[Paladin]

I'll leave it to the court system and jury of his peers for determination of his fate, but $1,000,000 bond! Ridiculous! This guy is no flight risk and is a first time offender I assume. Capital murder suspect in Houston was release on $100 bail per a presentation by my local PD that I attended late last year. Police removed the entire surveillance recording system leaving the store with no ability to have a record of any subsequent crimes. They are definitely vulnerable to retaliatory attacks.

Agree. The situation is appalling