Employee shoots shoplifter - facing aggravated assault?

[Plato]

I hope the grand jury no bills her.

In my opinion, if you decide to steal something, you deserve to be shot. Period, end of story.

I tend to agree.

I've always thought it would be hard for most women to stop most male shoplifters -without deadly force.

I also think the whole "night time" issue regarding theft should be dropped from the law. Let people who are caught stealing know they could get legally shot day or night and it will make that a less likely crime IMO, much like "rioters/looters will be shot" puts a nice quick stop to that as well.

[KD5NRH]

The cop stated correctly that you cannot legally use deadly force to prevent simple theft in the day time.

Remember, though, that it doesn't take much to turn a simple theft where the victim (or in this case, a representative of the victim, responsible for the safety of the property) is present into a robbery.

29.02. ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if, in the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with
intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.

Given the layout of a lot of stores, it's entirely possible that he had to push past her to get out the door, or that he said something that would cause her to fear that he would fight to maintain control of the stolen property.

[seamusTX]

You are right. Almost any physical contact, verbal threat, or display of what might be a weapon turns theft into robbery.

However, that is not what the thief was initially charged with, and the police spokesman made a point of calling the crime theft.

Most retail stores have video cameras and recorders, so I would expect investigators to press the most serious charge that they can.

The following is pure speculation, but I can imagine the clerk digging a hole for herself something like this:

Police: What happened?
Clerk: He came into the store and looked around. I saw him grab a bottle of Hennessey from the floor display and run out the door.
P: How close did he come to you?
C: About 10 feet.
P: Did he assault you or touch you in any way?
C: No.
P: Did he say anything to you?
C: No.
P: Did he display a weapon?
C: No.
P: Why did you shoot him?
C: He needed shootin'.

- Jim

[texagun]

So, what was the outcome in this case? Have they decided to prosecute/not prosecute the shooter?

[seamusTX]

It happened Tuesday and the DA's office only had three days to think about it. Google News shows nothing new.

I would expect it to take a month for the police report to be wrapped up, and then if the DA wants to prosecute as a felony, at least another month to get an indictment. That would be quick compared to some cases that I have followed.

Unless someone here lives in Terrell and keeps his ear to the ground, we will probably never know what happens.

- Jim

[texagun]

Thanks Jim. If you get any updates please let us know. I think a lot of guys are unaware that it is illegal to shoot a fleeing robber during the daytime. I am wondering how the Grand Jury will treat this. They will probably have to go by "the letter of the law" and prosecute. Then it will be in the hands of the jury.

[seamusTX]

As I said earlier, my guess is that they will offer a misdemeanor plea bargain as a warning.

DAs have to balance the prosecution of publicly known crimes with their own caseload and budget, and the overall interest of justice.

- Jim

[ninemm]

From attorney Robert Guest's blog concerning Kaufman County.

"The grand jury is a board of citizens chosen by the DA to rubber stamp cases. They will always choose to indict a case if asked."

http://www.dallascriminaldefenselawyerb ... an_county/

[seamusTX]

Since a defense attorney's job is to get his client's case dropped at every step in the process, he could be excused for thinking that.

You would have to find some case where the evidence against the defendant did not meet the standard of probable cause, but the grand jury indicted anyway.

False accusations are usually not the fault of the grand jury. They are the fault of contaminated or falsified evidence or withholding exculpatory evidence. Usually the police or an assistant prosecutor is at fault there.

- Jim

[ninemm]

I guess you can tell that I am extremely cynical of the Grand Jury process (at least state Grand Juries in counties).

Actually, I served on a Federal Grand Jury for 18 months (2 days per month all but once - 3 days one time) four years ago and it was a great experience.

But my cynicism is based on a personal experience that happened many, many years ago.

Many years ago about 10 months after my divorce, my ex-wife was really mad because she thought I had screwed her out of money from the proceeds of the sale of the house we had. It seems she was expecting half the value of the house rather than half of the equity we had in the house. The difference was about $100,000. She contacted her boyfriend, who happened to have been her attorney for the divorce, who also happened to be married and who also happened to now be the DA in that county (I no longer live in that county). Basically, they (my ex-wife and her married boyfriend/DA) conspired to have me arrested and charged with a felony to get back at me. The DA/boyfriend was trying to keep her happy and quiet (so she wouldn't tell his wife) and perhaps show off his power to her. I was indicted without an opportunity to go before the Grand Jury (a violation of my civil rights). Fortunately, my attorney figured out what was going on (not from me - I didn't realize at the time of the relationship going on between my ex and the DA). After it was all over (officially dismissed), I had spent about $7500 on bail and attorney fees for an alleged incident that never occurred (I was 80 miles away with three witnesses - one of whom was a LEO). I wanted to file a civil rights lawsuit but my attorney talked me out of it. He explained that it was worth more to him having this infomation and asked what it would take to "settle this". I said it would take $7500 at the very least. Two days later he brought me an envelope with $10,000 and made me swear never to talk about it. Well, the attorney is deceased and the DA is out of office and not practicing law anymore, so what the heck.

[seamusTX]

That's a terrible experience. IMHO, the DA should have gone to prison for corruption.

I guess that's how things were many years ago. The flip side, back then, was that guilty people were no-billed because of their political connections or racial aspects of the case.

My gut feeling is that there is more "daylight" now and less opportunity for prosecutors to pack grand juries. The courts have ruled that grand juries must represent a cross-section of the community.

However, do you disagree that the grand jury is pretty much limited to the evidence that the prosecutor presents? If the prosecutor or police are willing to sign false affidavits and perjure themselves, how can the grand jury members know? There is no defense attorney at that stage.

Here's a case where the grand jury no-billed a guy who seemed at first to be guilty:
http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... 16#p265828" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

[ninemm]

However, do you disagree that the grand jury is pretty much limited to the evidence that the prosecutor presents? If the prosecutor or police are willing to sign false affidavits and perjure themselves, how can the grand jury members know? There is no defense attorney at that stage.

I absolutely agree.

I'm not sure in my case that the sheriff's department deputies signed false affidavits. They just made a report based on what my ex told them. They didn't witness anything because there wasn't anything to witness. I understand that the deputies were pressured to submit their reports before they spoke to the people who could vouch for my whereabouts at the time of the alleged incident. I'm sure my ex supplied a very convincing story, one that had probably been coached by the DA. I found out after the fact that an accused person has the right to go before the grand jury and also have those who can vouch for his whereabouts testify. In this case, the DA slipped the case in after having given my attorney less than an hour's notice that he was going to do so. I learned more of the details of my case 5 or 6 years after it was dismissed when the assistant DA who presented the case against me who had gone into private practice became my neighbor. She told me that she had protested about the timing of the presentation to the GJ but the DA told her to "Get an indictment." It also turns out the she (and just about everybody else in county government - including the state district court judge) knew of the DA's relationship with my ex and what he had put me through. Two members of the GJ later apolgized to me (I did not know them previously-my children went to school with their children) and explained that, with what was presented, they had no choice to indict. It's not so much as what evidence is presented as it is what is conveniently omitted.

You are right about a defense attorney’s involvement in the grand jury process. An attorney can advise his client but the attorney cannot go into the grand jury at any time. Even if the deputies had affidavits from my witnesses, they could only answer direct questions from the ADA.

[seamusTX]

I guess my point is that like all systems, our legal system is not perfect. However, the grand jury system ensures that the evidence is examined by disinterested citizens twice.

In most countries, when the prosecutor files charges, the defendant goes straight to a trial. In many countries, there's no jury at all, or only for the most serious crimes.

- Jim

[03Lightningrocks]

The following is pure speculation, but I can imagine the clerk digging a hole for herself something like this:

Police: What happened?
Clerk: He came into the store and looked around. I saw him grab a bottle of Hennessey from the floor display and run out the door.
P: How close did he come to you?
C: About 10 feet.
P: Did he assault you or touch you in any way?
C: No.
P: Did he say anything to you?
C: No.
P: Did he display a weapon?
C: No.
P: Why did you shoot him?
C: He needed shootin'.

- Jim