TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article ... cmpid=hpbn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Said in the evening. Said the man was stealing beer. Said it was Texas. Said the store owner was arrested.

Is Corpus Christi not in Texas any more?

Other news stories say he was arrested for murder, not littering or something like that.

Is there something I am missing?

Is Corpus Christi trying to avoid some race angle (I am unaware of anything racial about this) and will release him after he is no billed.

I think it's too early to speculate. Definitely something is missing in the report that would justify a murder charge. Gotta be more to it.

Seems a bit much, but others have been no-billed or acquitted for the same unless there was something else that occurred like trying to cover it up. Or it could have just been a preemptive arrest to avoid riots and go through all the motions by the book.

This story says the guy was shot in the head. http://www.kiiitv.com/story/23557902/br ... a-shooting" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Maybe that's why they charged the store owner with murder.

baldeagle wrote:This story says the guy was shot in the head. http://www.kiiitv.com/story/23557902/br ... a-shooting" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Maybe that's why they charged the store owner with murder.

Maybe he's just a good shot.

Unless the perp was shot in the back of the head, what possible difference should it make if he was shot in the head or the elbow? He got shot during the commission of a crime.

Viewing video with the scene it appears the blood is inside the store. Maybe because the perp never left the premises the justification changes. ???

This guy didn't place a lot of value on his life. Maybe he assumed he was entitled to free things.

puma guy wrote:Viewing video with the scene it appears the blood is inside the store. Maybe because the perp never left the premises the justification changes. ???

That may be a part of it. At what point is the guy stealing the beer? Unless he showed some intent (maybe "Hey, I'm stealing this beer" or grabbing it and running toward the door), how does the store owner have a reasonable belief he was stealing it?

I would guess that the store was open at the time. Does that make a difference in the statutes on the crime and whether it qualifies for justification? I know burglary and theft at night, but not sure if there is a distinction whether that is private property or if shoplifting fits the bill.

If the store was open, as i understand, it would not be theft unless he left the store with the merchandise. I may be wrong but that is how I remember it.

RPBrown wrote:If the store was open, as i understand, it would not be theft unless he left the store with the merchandise. I may be wrong but that is how I remember it.

That is what I remember from my old retail days regarding shoplifters, so I assume theft would be the same. As I read it Texas laws allow someone to use force to recover stolen property if no other avenue is available to get it back.

There are too many questions here. This is the statute:

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.

The highlighted sections above are going to be the question. Did he just immediately go to guns on this guy to stop him? Did he believe the use of deadly force was immediately necessary? Did he try to stop the guy with force, only to be driven to deadly force, or did he reasonably believe trying to stop the guy with just force would expose him or another to substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury?

Without being able to see the video surveillance or know what transpired, we don't know. I personally would not even draw on some dude taking a 12 pack, legal or not. That loss of $10 worth of property is gonna cost you thousands in bail and legal fees.

http://www.kiiitv.com/story/23561519/bo ... ry-suspect" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

$35000 bond. So that is $3500 he will lose if he goes to a bail bondsman. Not a real big bond for murder.

Photo of store owner. No photo of victim yet.

One news story said victim was "unarmed" Zimmerman creep in the news.

Lots of questions, but few answers.

The article itself doesn't provide enough info. Was the guy simply stealing beer OR was it a robbery? IMO there is no need to shoot somebody that is simply doing a beer run aka stealing some beer unless he then turns it into a robbery by force or fear. We need more facts to know what really happened before we can form a factual opinion. They will do the investigation and the media may or may not share that info.

Uh, I don't think a robbery was committed. Sounds like shoplifting to me.

Sec. 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.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Sec. 29.03. AGGRAVATED ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if he commits robbery as defined in Section 29.02, and he:
(1) causes serious bodily injury to another;
(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon; or
(3) causes bodily injury to another person or threatens or places another person in fear of imminent bodily injury or death, if the other person is:
(A) 65 years of age or older; or
(B) a disabled person.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.
(c) In this section, "disabled person" means an individual with a mental, physical, or developmental disability who is substantially unable to protect himself from harm.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 357, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.