TexasCHLforum.com

A man walked out of a Shell station in Lakeland, Florida, without paying for beer he was carrying. The store owner chased him down and shot him. The owner is now under arrest for attempted second-degree murder.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/bre ... tory.html

I don't recall defense of beer being one of the justifications for use of deadly force.

I don't know why the paper used the term "cheap" beer as if that gives the BG a pass. This store owner is in big trouble but I don't feel sorry for the BG. These stores get robbed so often I can see where the owners reach a tipping point and don't think rationally. If I were on the jury I can tell you now that the store owner would NOT go to jail.

This story reminds me of a paragraph or two by Hunter S. Thompson, who once pointed out that bad guys could save themselves a lot of trouble if they would just take the time to consider if a place they want to rob is personally owned and operated (and thus more likely to be defended vigorously) or owned by a large company (so the employees have no personal stake in preventing the robbery, and are probably instructed not to do anything if a robbery occurs).

RSX11 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:37 pm This story reminds me of a paragraph or two by Hunter S. Thompson, who once pointed out that bad guys could save themselves a lot of trouble if they would just take the time to consider if a place they want to rob is personally owned and operated (and thus more likely to be defended vigorously) or owned by a large company (so the employees have no personal stake in preventing the robbery, and are probably instructed not to do anything if a robbery occurs).

Good point.

I think I've been to that Shell station in Lakeland, FL when I was working there last year.

This reminds me of something that happened to my older brother. He was in the Army at the time, but being a soldier far from the front line, he had a set schedule, and was stationed in Virginia Beach. He was moonlighting as a cashier at a convenience store and was working a night shift with a female coworker. A rather large, dark skinned fella filled his car with gas at the pump, then came into the store and went straight to the beer cooler where he grabbed a 24 pack of beer in each hand and headed straight for the door.

Now this guy was about twice the size of my brother, who was unarmed, and my bro had no idea of whether this gentleman might be armed, or might have a penchant for violence. Oh, and the store had a clear policy that employees were not to make any attempt whatsoever to stop robberies. Just call the cops and be a good witness. So as my bro was calmly watching the guy leave, his petite female co-worker piped up with "hey, what are you doing?". The guy stopped, and looked in my brother's direction, then said, "I'm leaving with this beer, you got a problem with that." My brother said "no". After the guy left he asked his co-worker to please not ever do that again, explaining that she wasn't the one at risk of getting pummeled over an attempt to save the corporation's beer and gas.

He ended up marrying that girl, so I guess he wasn't too mad at her.

I'm guessing this was not the first time that convenience store had been thieved like that.

Theft in the nighttime? (Texas law question)

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.

RoyGBiv wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 3:20 pm Theft in the nighttime? (Texas law question)

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.

That is Texas Law, this was in Florida.

And don't ever let anyone try to convince you that our stand your ground laws and property protection laws don't reduce crime... I am certain they do.

ELB wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 3:04 pm I'm guessing this was not the first time that convenience store had been thieved like that.

That happens at a lot of convient stores i bet

If this man is convicted, all that will do is increase robberies like this because no other store owner will shoot to protect their property. I hope he's not convicted if it goes to trial.

rotor wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:35 pm I don't know why the paper used the term "cheap" beer as if that gives the BG a pass. This store owner is in big trouble but I don't feel sorry for the BG. These stores get robbed so often I can see where the owners reach a tipping point and don't think rationally. If I were on the jury I can tell you now that the store owner would NOT go to jail.

If the system doesn't want crime victims to shoot crooks, maybe they should lock up the crooks.

I'm glad no one shot me when I was a stupid teenager stealing beer from beer trucks in parking lots. I would never shoot anyone over stolen property, period. Just me.

RoyGBiv wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 3:20 pm Theft in the nighttime? (Texas law question)

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.

I am an instructor. While I would never advise to shoot over property, especially over some beer, I believe in Texas, it would eventually be found a legal shoot.

It was theft, during the night time. He is attempting to keep said person from escaping with the property, and I believe that the risk of being hurt or killed by stopping the guy, who is in a 4,000 lb vehicle, presents the risk of serious body injury or death.

Any other instructors or legal experts want to chime in on the legality of this shoot in Texas? I have been debating folks on the KHOU houston facebook post for this video for a while today.
And does anyone understand what "the... property cannot be...recovered by any other means" actually means? The fact that it says "or" is usually why I can justify the legality of shooting over property is legal (but definitely not a good idea).

locke_n_load wrote: ↑Sat Jul 21, 2018 2:39 pm And does anyone understand what "the... property cannot be...recovered by any other means" actually means? The fact that it says "or" is usually why I can justify the legality of shooting over property is legal (but definitely not a good idea).

I don't think there's a bright line but here's an example. Your neighbor's son rides off on your son's bicycle without permission in the evening. You know who took it and they're not much of a flight risk. You could call the cops and have a pretty good chance of recovering the bicycle undamaged. Depending on your relationship with the neighbor, you might even choose to have a talk with him about his son's behavior. e.g. you're friendly and you know he would disapprove of his kid "borrowing" other people's property without permission.

An example on the other end of the spectrum is masked men stealing prescription drugs from a pharmacy or gold from a jewelry store. The thieves are unknown. The stolen property is easily convertible. If they get away with the property, it's very unlikely the cops will recover it.

I understand some people say they would never shoot over property and they are entitled to their opinion. However, they should recognize it's not a universally held opinion in America. Even people opposed to concealed carry laws have historically accepted armed guards at banks to protect property, etc.