TexasCHLforum.com

https://www.click2houston.com/news/food ... police-say

At night. Robber running away when shot. Food delivery man called 911 and reported shooting.

A lot of information missing:

Leaving with delivery mans money?
Robber armed?
Why running away?
Why not driving away in his black pickup truck?

https://abc13.com/delivery-driver-shoot ... t/5398585/

ABC does a better job. Robber had a gun.
Leaving with the mans wallet and the food, robbers got to eat.
DA will review the case.

My view he will not be charged as it was at night and the robber was leaving with his stuff and unlikely he would be able to recover it without deadly force.

This incident brings up several points worthy of discussion. Justification seems to me to be a big one. The link below offers a little more information.
https://abc13.com/delivery-driver-shoot ... t/5398585/

Based on the limit information in the news article, this could be a problem for the delivery driver. Both the assault and the aggravated robbery were over. The driver started a new fight and could be charged with attempted murder.
Texas law allows for deadly force in self defense against the commission or imminent commission of aggravated robbery.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/SOTW ... m/PE.9.htm
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
TPC 9.32 does not allow for retribution.

Since the aggravated robbery took place at night (10pm), TPC 9.42 (2) (B) & (3) may apply and make the use of deadly force by the delivery drive justified. I hope he gets a good lawyer.
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.

LDP wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:25 am

oljames3 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 10:08 am Based on the limit information in the news article, this could be a problem for the delivery driver. Both the assault and the aggravated robbery were over. The driver started a new fight and could be charged with attempted murder.

Agreed, the mugging was over and the robber was running away.
And the shooter also failed to put him down, he hit his leg. So any potential legal defense "but he still had a gun and was a threat" might use that against him because he failed to neutralize the threat, he only injured the perp who could still shoot back.

This one sure will be interesting to see whether the DA will be bored enough to pursue any criminal charges. Hard to tell nowadays with anti-gun leftist Acevedo in charge of HPD.

If he had the man's wallet then he most likely had his I.D. which would give the BG the man's home address, if your wife and kids are home alone then now they are in harm's way! That would be my thought!

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from

In that line, the ""during the nighttime" only qualifies "theft". The other crimes are good for deadly force, day or night.

RSX11 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:46 pm

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from

In that line, the ""during the nighttime" only qualifies "theft". The other crimes are good for deadly force, day or night.

Good point in reference to the use of commas. However, it seems to me that this is a form of squares and rectangles. All robberies are theft, but not all thefts are robberies.

I am not a lawyer, so I would defer to mine if this were my circumstance. The Colsby Law Firm sees to agree:
https://www.texascriminallawyers.net/20 ... -in-texas/

This is another instance that shows we cannot rely only on a plain-English reading of the law, but need to consult a competent attorney.

Good point in reference to the use of commas. However, it seems to me that this is a form of squares and rectangles. All robberies are theft, but not all thefts are robberies.

So, are you asserting that you can only legally use deadly force to recover property from an armed robbery during the night, because by your logic, an armed robbery is a theft? Because that's pretty much wrong.

RSX11 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:19 pm

Good point in reference to the use of commas. However, it seems to me that this is a form of squares and rectangles. All robberies are theft, but not all thefts are robberies.

So, are you asserting that you can only legally use deadly force to recover property from an armed robbery during the night, because by your logic, an armed robbery is a theft? Because that's pretty much wrong.

No, I am asserting that the law can be easily misinterpreted by non-lawyers or that we can not understand the application of the law to our detriment. The point is, when we take on responsibility for our own defense and choose a handgun as our tool, we must understand the law of self defense and how it is applied in our local. Shooting at a fleeing assailant is fraught with danger for the self defender.

Attorney Andrew Branca explains it much better than I. https://lawofselfdefense.com/