Customer opens fire on would-be beer thieves

[Frankie]

Thought about posting this in Never Again but here it is:

SAN ANTONIO - A man with a concealed handgun permit opened fire on a couple of would-be beer thieves on the Northeast Side Sunday afternoon

http://www.ksat.com/news/Customer-opens ... index.html

[Purplehood]

I need to put the Picard/Riker headshake photo here.

[Scott in Houston]

No charges filed against him? wow.

[texanjoker]

They didn't even get the beer, it is 4 PM and he opens fire as they are driving away ?

[Redneck_Buddha]

Not something I would personally do, but looks like he got away with it.

[RoyGBiv]

I need to put the Picard/Riker headshake photo here.

Happy to help

[johncanfield]

We get the San Antonio local TV stations, when the wifey and I saw that story on channel 12 we couldn't believe what the guy did - what an idiot . Dear wife's reaction was to "suspend his CHL.."

[jmra]

Maybe the old saying "guns and alcohol don't mix" applies here? Would hate to see what the guy would have done had he been drinking.

This guy doesn't need alcohol to "get stupid".

[texanjoker]

Not something I would personally do, but looks like he got away with it.

For now..they may file charges later when the DA reads about the case and takes it to a grand jury.

[baldeagle]

They didn't even get the beer, it is 4 PM and he opens fire as they are driving away ?

Was this an attempted theft? Or attempted robbery?

Sec. 29.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:

(1) "In the course of committing theft" means conduct that occurs in an attempt to commit, during the commission, or in immediate flight after the attempt or commission of theft.

(2) "Property" means:

(A) tangible or intangible personal property including anything severed from land; or

(B) a document, including money, that represents or embodies anything of value.

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. 29.02. 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.

So a robbery is theft that includes either bodily injury or the threat of bodily injury or death.

If it was a robbery, deadly force was justified.

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

The article doesn't say anything about the actors' actions, so it's hard to know whether this man was justified or not. The police apparently think he was, so they must know something we don't know.

[JALLEN]

How was the "attempted theft" perpetrated?

Did the "robbers" if that is the proper term, saunder in and ask to borrow some beer, or take a couple six-packs and sneak out unnoticed or did they actually "rob" using force or threat?

[Maxwell]

I need to put the Picard/Riker headshake photo here.

Happy to help

[ Image ]

OK, seriously now... There must be more to this if the SAPD is not expecting charges to be filed. Sounds like the media is not telling us everything... Surprise...

[texanjoker]

They didn't even get the beer, it is 4 PM and he opens fire as they are driving away ?

Was this an attempted theft? Or attempted robbery?

Sec. 29.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:

(1) "In the course of committing theft" means conduct that occurs in an attempt to commit, during the commission, or in immediate flight after the attempt or commission of theft.

(2) "Property" means:

(A) tangible or intangible personal property including anything severed from land; or

(B) a document, including money, that represents or embodies anything of value.

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. 29.02. 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.

So a robbery is theft that includes either bodily injury or the threat of bodily injury or death.

If it was a robbery, deadly force was justified.

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

The article doesn't say anything about the actors' actions, so it's hard to know whether this man was justified or not. The police apparently think he was, so they must know something we don't know.

Shoplifting incidents turn into robberies all the time. I've seen them all as a 1st responder. The suspects push the clerk, threaten them, sometimes shoots or stabs them, ect. The limited article didn't mention the suspects being armed or trying to run over the shooter. *They didn't make it out with the beer so something probably happened inside the store. *The customer reportedly followed the pair out of the store and shot at their truck as they drove away.**But hey, if he wanted to stick his neck out by shooting at some guys driving away from a failed beer run, that's up to him. When they are driving away, what risk are they to his safety? Can he articulate they were fleeing dangerous felons? Personally I would not want to be in his shoes. Just because the police didn't file charges at the time, that doesn't mean they won't later. It is normal in the course of an investigation that you don't arrest the guy the same day for many reasons ranging from wanting to go to the grand jury, not wanting to deal with Miranda issues, wanting to consult with the DA after the fact, needing more time to build the case, ect. Once you make the arrest, the court clock starts.

[VMI77]

Come on you guys, we've been subjected to a non-stop barrage of media lies and anti-gun propaganda....why is anyone taking anything in the "news" media at face value --especially when it concerns something like a CHL holder and a gun? My current default position is that any such "news" is either a outright lie, or a lie of omission --until proven otherwise.

[Keith B]

Shoplifting incidents turn into robberies all the time. I've seen them all as a 1st responder.

Had one that turned into an assault case. Store theft prevetion folks chased the shoplifter out to a wooded area near the store. When they confronted the individual he pulled a knife on them. They talked him into dropping the knife (small pocket knife) and coming back the to the store. When I arrived the indivdual was sitting in the office. I got the story and found out he was only taking abou $8 worth of stuff, but I arrested him on 3rd degree assault since he had pulled the knife.