San Antonio: Convenience Store Customer Shoots Robber

[longhorn86]

SAN ANTONIO -- A customer at a gas station foiled a robbery attempt late Sunday night when he shot the suspect once in the buttocks, police said.

A man tried to steal synthetic marijuana known as K2 from a Shell gas station on the 10100 block of Culebra, police said.

According to police, the man, identified as 35-year-old Dustin Darsp, was carrying a small hammer when he grabbed a box of K-2 and left the store.

Police said the customer followed Darsp outside the store and confronted him. The customer then opened fire and wounded Darsp in the rear-end.

Investigators said the customer is a licensed handgun owner and will not face charges because he was protected under a law that allows the use of deadly force to prevent a robbery.

Darsp was taken to University Hospital with a non-life-threatening wound. Police have not said what charges he will face.


http://www.ksat.com/news/29011879/detail.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Teamless]

Why did the customer shoot the thief.
If this was a CHL who did this, unless he was faced with Deadly force he had no business shooting the thief, and really, should not have followed him our or confronted him.
This "customer" will probably face severe charges up-to and including attempted murder

[Keith B]

Why did the customer shoot the thief.
If this was a CHL who did this, unless he was faced with Deadly force he had no business shooting the thief, and really, should not have followed him our or confronted him.
This "customer" will probably face severe charges up-to and including attempted murder

While I agree in theory he probably shouldn't have followed him, we really don't know why he did. Maybe the CHL'er was trying to get a better description of the guy, or a license number from a car and the BG turned around and came toward him with the hammer? Unless we were there, then we don't know.

I am sure all of the evidence will be looked at and the video security tape will show what really happened. Then the prosecutors can make up their minds to refer it to a Grand Jury or not.

[AEA]

Why is that stuff even allowed in Texas? Many States have already banned it from public sale.

[Beiruty]

There are attempts to ban it state wide

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

Why did the customer shoot the thief.
If this was a CHL who did this, unless he was faced with Deadly force he had no business shooting the thief, and really, should not have followed him our or confronted him.
This "customer" will probably face severe charges up-to and including attempted murder

I believe the portion of TPC 9.31 highlighted in red is what the officer was talking about. However, if you notice the blue portion it states that the actor cannot provoke the person against whom the force was used. This is what I think could get him hung up.

Obviously, I was not there and do not know the details. The story states that the customer followed the thief outside and confronted him. This could be seen as a provocation on the customer's part and has the potential to get him in trouble.

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used::
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

[longhorn86]

Here's another story with a little more detail:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_ ... 145481.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A robbery suspect at a Shell gas station on the city's Northwest Side wound up being shot in the buttock Sunday night by a customer who was a licensed hand gun owner.

The suspect, 35-year-old Dustin Darsp, entered the station store in the 10100 block of Culebra Road with what appeared to be a handgun, San Antonio police Det. Roberto Bernal said. Really, it was a hammer no more than 6 inches long, draped in a black cloth or sock.

“He carried it as if it was a gun and pointed it at the clerk and the customer, who was a licensed handgun owner,” Bernal said. “He wanted them to believe that what he had was a gun.”

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

Here's another story with a little more detail:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_ ... 145481.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A robbery suspect at a Shell gas station on the city's Northwest Side wound up being shot in the buttock Sunday night by a customer who was a licensed hand gun owner.

The suspect, 35-year-old Dustin Darsp, entered the station store in the 10100 block of Culebra Road with what appeared to be a handgun, San Antonio police Det. Roberto Bernal said. Really, it was a hammer no more than 6 inches long, draped in a black cloth or sock.

“He carried it as if it was a gun and pointed it at the clerk and the customer, who was a licensed handgun owner,” Bernal said. “He wanted them to believe that what he had was a gun.”

Thanks for the details. This sounds a lot better for the customer.

[philip964]

It was also at night.

[speedsix]

... Teamless, you might want to read the post again...he will NOT face charges...nor should he...and he wasn't a thief...he was an armed robber...

..."unless he was faced with Deadly force..." you been hit in the head with a hammer lately??? acting as though it were a gun only increases the likelihood of his being shot...the "customer" did nothing wrong...oughta get free slurpees for a month...he didn't provoke the perp to pull an armed robbery...he was just reacting to his having done so...like a good Texan...

[Reloader]

BULLSEYE!!!

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

I read it as the Police are not charging him. That does not mean that the DA won't want to charge him with a crime.

I also understand that the thief had a hammer. From the OP the story sounded as if the customer could have been in the wrong as he provoked the thief outside. If that were the case then he was not legal in his use of force much less deadly force.

This is why I thanked longhorn86 for posting another story with more details in it.

The second story gave us better insight to what happened. It can easily be believed that the customer honestly thought that the thief had a gun while in the store and therefore did not draw inside since the gun was being pointed at both him and the clerk. If that is the case it makes more sense as to why the customer followed the thief outside (once the thief was leaving the customer could safely draw his weapon).

If this is what happened then the customer was legal in what he did according to TPC 9.31 as he thought that the thief had a gun and was threatening the use of force and deadly force to prevent a robbery.

[Beiruty]

Legal aside issues, no one should be bothered to retrieve a box of K2. However, I think there is more to the story.

[speedsix]

I read it as the Police are not charging him. That does not mean that the DA won't want to charge him with a crime.

I also understand that the thief had a hammer. From the OP the story sounded as if the customer could have been in the wrong as he provoked the thief outside. If that were the case then he was not legal in his use of force much less deadly force.

This is why I thanked longhorn86 for posting another story with more details in it.

The second story gave us better insight to what happened. It can easily be believed that the customer honestly thought that the thief had a gun while in the store and therefore did not draw inside since the gun was being pointed at both him and the clerk. If that is the case it makes more sense as to why the customer followed the thief outside (once the thief was leaving the customer could safely draw his weapon).

If this is what happened then the customer was legal in what he did according to TPC 9.31 as he thought that the thief had a gun and was threatening the use of force and deadly force to prevent a robbery.

...he didn't commit any crime...the law is clear on that...
...you don't "provoke" an armed robber, which he was, even if all he had in his hand was clearly a small hammer...he was not a thief...he was legally and practically an armed robber...and deadly force was authorized by law...even with only the details first provided...the second post makes it even more damning, since he threatened the CHLer and the clerk with what he wanted them to believe was a gun...but with either story...the CHLer was justified...and to be commended...

[speedsix]

Legal aside issues, no one should be bothered to retrieve a box of K2. However, I think there is more to the story.

...the law is not concerned with what the armed robber took or was attempting to take...when he threatened the two with a weapon, he went to felony...if it was a package of safety pins, makes no difference...he threatened their lives with a weapon in the commission of a robbery...THAT'S what got him shot...given the facts in the two stories posted...and the CHLer did no wrong...