Thief gets shot in the back

[Steve5115]

Rolex watch sale goes wrong at Humble bank, and thief gets shot in the back by gun-toting stranger.

Officers are currently looking for the man who was shot.

The stranger who shot him has been detained by officials.

https://abc13.com/buyer-turned-thief-sh ... g/4576474/

[Jusme]

Dangerous game. Someone runs up to you and says a guy stole from me, you pull out your gun and shoot him in the back. How do you know he is a thief? Is he a threat to you? Was it your property? WE ARE NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT!!!

What if guy you shot was running from a potential theif? What if he was undercover LEO, in pursuit of bad guys? How can you justify shooting anyone in the back, running away, with only someone telling you what happened?
I hope the story is true, and good guys prevail, but if I was BG lawyer, I would have a field day in civil court. JMHO

[flechero]

Poor fella... just trying to make a living in the horrific economy with no jobs available, and gets a bullet in the back for his effort to put food on the table.

sarcasm off.

He was destined to get killed or arrested in his line of work. looks like he'll get a retirement package instead.

[G26ster]

I'm no attorney, but wouldn't the shooter be covered by:

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.

[OneGun]

I'm no attorney, but wouldn't the shooter be covered by:

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.

It wasn't nighttime.

[RoyGBiv]

I'm no attorney, but wouldn't the shooter be covered by:

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.

It wasn't nighttime.

I believe "during the night time" only applies to "theft".
Just my opinion. Not legal advice.

[Jusme]

I'm no attorney, but wouldn't the shooter be covered by:

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.

It wasn't nighttime.

I believe "during the night time" only applies to "theft".
Just my opinion. Not legal advice.

Theft is what occurred, at least according to the report. There was no robbery or aggravated robbery. And it was not at night. Also, while the person reporting the theft, may have been legitimate, there are too many things that could go wrong, not the least of which, is the possibility, that shooter, missed his target, and hit an innocent bystander. While I hate a theif this, in my opinion, puts the shooter, in a very bad circumstance. It is akin, to shooting at fleeing shoplifters, at a store, because an employee, told you they had stolen something. I realize Rolex watches, are more valuable, than a 12 pack of beer, but the circumstances are the same. JMHO

[RoyGBiv]

I'm no attorney, but wouldn't the shooter be covered by:

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.

It wasn't nighttime.

I believe "during the night time" only applies to "theft".
Just my opinion. Not legal advice.

Theft is what occurred, at least according to the report. There was no robbery or aggravated robbery. And it was not at night. Also, while the person reporting the theft, may have been legitimate, there are too many things that could go wrong, not the least of which, is the possibility, that shooter, missed his target, and hit an innocent bystander. While I hate a theif this, in my opinion, puts the shooter, in a very bad circumstance. It is akin, to shooting at fleeing shoplifters, at a store, because an employee, told you they had stolen something. I realize Rolex watches, are more valuable, than a 12 pack of beer, but the circumstances are the same. JMHO

I believe you are correct...
The difference between Theft and Robbery being "bodily injury" or a "fear of imminent bodily injury or death" by the victim.

Caveat** : We don't know the details of the encounter between the shooter and the perp. What's been briefly reported in the OP is likely not all the facts.

Again, IANAL. Just my opinion.

PC 29.02: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs ... /PE.29.htm

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.

[Mike S]

There's lots of excellent points already brought up on this thread.

I'd offer the opinon that TPC 9.42 would have applied if the person robbed/stolen from (unclear from the article what actually transpired) had shot the perpetrator.

Since it was another bystander who shot the perpetrator, TPC 9.43 would be the relevant statute. TPC 9.43 references 9.42, but the standard is "Under the circumstances as (you) reasonably believed them to be" (or close to that wording). So, if the shooter had a reasonable belief that robbery had occurred, he might be found justified under 9.43. It would boil down to what he knew at the time, & what factors he weighed in the moment.

[Jusme]

Has there been any follow up to this story? It's strange, that if someone was shot, that there has been no one seeking medical treatment, or a body found. Was there any verifiable evidence that the thief was shot, besides the statement by the shooter? It's possible, that he missed, and the thief got away.

[flechero]

no body, no bullet? No charges for the shooter??

[RoyGBiv]

There's lots of excellent points already brought up on this thread.

I'd offer the opinon that TPC 9.42 would have applied if the person robbed/stolen from (unclear from the article what actually transpired) had shot the perpetrator.

Since it was another bystander who shot the perpetrator, TPC 9.43 would be the relevant statute. TPC 9.43 references 9.42, but the standard is "Under the circumstances as (you) reasonably believed them to be" (or close to that wording). So, if the shooter had a reasonable belief that robbery had occurred, he might be found justified under 9.43. It would boil down to what he knew at the time, & what factors he weighed in the moment.

The point Jusme was making, I believe, is that it was not "Robbery", it was "Theft". They require clearly different legal standards. Unless the shooter can reasonably claim "(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", then it was not "Robbery". It muddies the waters further than the shooter went in pursuit of the perp. It's unclear from the OP article whether there were any circumstances immediately prior to shots fired that would meet either the legal definition of "Robbery" or some other circumstance that would provide justification for use of deadly force. "Theft" is insufficient unless it's in the nighttime.

Again... Just my opinion. Worth what you paid for it.

[ELB]

Maybe the thief was not actually shot.

[Abraham]

Listen to Jusme.

If a thief gets shot in the back by an LTCer presumably protecting a banks property, that's just way, way off base.

LTCer's aren't L.E.'s unless of course they have an LTC badge...then of course, they're jr. poh-leece-men or women, especially if they sport said badge on their belt. Yes, I'm being sarcastic for you that would like to believe you're some sort of auxiliary L.E...you aren't.

P.S. Carrying a gun comes with a lot of responsibility for you and your families lives, not to prevent a thief from stealing a watch that belongs to some other party...

[03Lightningrocks]

Listen to Jusme.

If a thief gets shot in the back by an LTCer presumably protecting a banks property, that's just way, way off base.

LTCer's aren't L.E.'s unless of course they have an LTC badge...then of course, they're jr. poh-leece-men or women, especially if they sport said badge on their belt. Yes, I'm being sarcastic for you that would like to believe you're some sort of auxiliary L.E...you aren't.

P.S. Carrying a gun comes with a lot of responsibility for you and your families lives, not to prevent a thief from stealing a watch that belongs to some other party...