Right Thinking From The Left Coast
If everything seems under control, you're not going fast enough. - Mario Andretti

Steal Steal Bang Bang
by Lee

God bless Texas.

Dallas police say a would-be robber is dead after being shot by a store clerk.

Investigators told NBC 5 that the shooting occurred at a Shell station at Interstate 30 and Winslow Road.

The robber was trying to steal two 20-packs of beer when he was shot while trying to get away, police said.

The robber, whose name has not been released, was transported to Baylor Medical Center, where he later died.

Note to criminals:  Texas is not a state where you can expect citizens to remain compliant victims, even over something like two cases of beer.  Happy New Year.

Posted by Lee on 12/28/05 at 08:45 AM (Discuss this in the forums)

Comments


Posted by on 12/28/05 at 10:06 AM from United States

So, how long before someone screams that his “civil rights” were violated?

Posted by on 12/28/05 at 10:31 AM from United States

You know, I think beer IS a civil right.

Posted by on 12/28/05 at 11:48 AM from United States

Then what do you do to New York Times reporters who commit treason?

Posted by Ed Kline on 12/28/05 at 12:24 PM from United States

I live in Texas, and I love it here, but I got to admit, as long as he hadnt done anything threatening during the robbery ( like brandishing a gun) I would not have shot him while trying to leave. My favorite Texas law is that I can shoot people who are sneaking around on my property at night without having to ask any questions or give a warning. “Texas, where its still America!”

Posted by InsipiD on 12/28/05 at 01:02 PM from United States

Guys, we might need to start raising money for this guy’s civil defense fund.  He’ll be in big trouble.  I was robbed at knifepoint when I worked at a convenience store in 2002, and I’m glad that I didn’t have a gun on me.  I know I would’ve emptied the clip into him, reloaded, and done it again, and I’m sure that I would be in jail.  Though I don’t have a problem with shooting threatening suspects, I agree that someone who is leaving is no longer a threat and should be allowed to leave.

Posted by on 12/28/05 at 01:51 PM from United States

Yeah, once someone enters your residence illegally all bets are off.  I honestly don’t care what the laws in my state are.  I’ll defend myself in manner that maximizes my rate of survival.  If I later have to go to trial to determine if what I did in self defense was legal, well I’d be happy to go to bat for the right of home defense any day.

This shooting in the back over two cases of beer is a bit tragic and perhaps a bit much, but if the shop owner has no recourse then what’s to stop anyone from stealing two cases of beer a night (well except if it was done that regularly I think the cops would get them eventually).

Posted by on 12/28/05 at 01:56 PM from United States

InsipiD I agree, this guy is in big trouble.  At the same time, how can you let someone walk into your store, steal something and leave.  If you set that kind of precedent, people are going to rob from you until you’re out of business and starving.  I think we should have a legal right to defend our property against thieves.  In the case of a leaving thief that doesn’t appear to pose any other threat, perhaps the owner should be limited to a single bullet… that includes a miss.  That way crooks always know they might get shot when trying to commit a robbery… even if they don’t threaten anyone.

The bottom line is that the likelihood of police catching a minor thief like that once he’s left the SoC is slim to none.  The rate at which we catch criminals in this country is abominably low.  We should have “vigilante” laws that allow limited retribution against theives as long as you catch them in the act and they’re still on your property with the merchandise as was clearly the case in this instance.

Posted by on 12/28/05 at 02:54 PM from United States

That’s a nice touch where they identify which Shell station, but refuse to identify the thug caught stealing 40 beers.

Posted by on 12/28/05 at 03:21 PM from United States

I agree that someone who is leaving is no longer a threat and should be allowed to leave.


I respectfully disagree. If you commit a crime there are consequences(sp) to your actions. Stealing is stealing and it shouldn’t be tolerated.

If you don’t want to get shot, don’t steal.

Posted by on 12/28/05 at 04:22 PM from United States

One can fire in self-defense, defense of another or in defense of one’s home (provided the intruder is within the house).  A fleeing shoplifter who poses no threat other than the lose of a few bucks does not necessitate use of deadly force.  The defense is wholly disproportionate to the offense involved.  Further, one runs the risk of killing an innocent bystander should the bullet miss its mark.

Posted by on 12/28/05 at 04:25 PM from United States

Had the criminal actually attempted to rob the store, i.e., steal the beer by force or threat of physical harm--then by all means let it rip.

Posted by Lee on 12/28/05 at 04:27 PM from United States

One can fire in self-defense, defense of another or in defense of one’s home (provided the intruder is within the house).  A fleeing shoplifter who poses no threat other than the lose of a few bucks does not necessitate use of deadly force.

Maybe elsewhere, but this is Texas.

“A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means.”

“A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)”

I report, you decide.

Posted by HARLEY on 12/28/05 at 04:27 PM from United States

The shooting in the back thing is not good, however one MUST take into account distance too.
Was this thug 5 10 feet away at the time he was hit or 25 yeards?

Other wise i see this as a litigate shooting.
the bastered wont be stealing from anyone again, and given that this thug resorts to violence to do his deeds, killing him now may have saved a innocent life down the road.

Posted by Lee on 12/28/05 at 04:32 PM from United States

From the same site:

“A person acts recklessly when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk with respect to the circumstances surrounding his conduct or the results of his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation of the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise, viewed from the person’s standpoint under all the circumstances existing at the time.”

Was it reasonable to shoot the guy over two cases of beer?  That’s going to be up to prosecutors.  Will they be able to secure a conviction in a law and order state like Texas?  Probably not.  It would take a hell of a lot for me to get worked up over some criminal getting shot during the commission of a crime, no matter how trivial the crime being committed.  In other words, the only reason the guy got shot in the first place was because he was stealing.  It’s not like he was stealing bread to feed his children, he was stealing two cases of beer.  Boo fucking hoo.

Posted by on 12/28/05 at 04:33 PM from United States

Texas, apparently, employs a truncated version of the criminal justice system.

Posted by on 12/28/05 at 04:46 PM from United States

Just curious, what did he shoot the thief with?

.22 pistol?

12 Guage Coachgun(double barrel)?

Posted by on 12/28/05 at 04:58 PM from United States

In most modern states, the commission of a petit larceny would have a maximum punishment of a year in jail.  This is not by mistake.  Its called Justice.  The punishment fitting the crime. 

It is the cowboy hat wearing yahoo, islamic fundamentalist and Lee that maintain the absurd notion that stealing a couple of six packs deserves a load of lead in the back.

Posted by InsipiD on 12/28/05 at 05:41 PM from United States

Ultimately, from a shoplifting standpoint, you aren’t defending your own stuff, but that which belongs to the store and its owners.  If someone’s in retreat and just stole beer from the store, let them have it.  It’s not worth going to jail to protect the store’s beer.  Further, what kind of civil lawsuit is this turd’s family going to file?  It won’t matter what his rapsheet is like, they’ll make him out to be a loving father, hard worker, thoughtful person who assembled bikes for poor kids at Christmas and so on.

Posted by on 12/28/05 at 05:47 PM from United States

Killing someone for stealing beer is not justified. 
The clerk should have forced the guy to drink all the beer and then shot him for public intoxication.
Seriously though, in most places a property crime does not justify deadly force, no matter how much the bastard deserves it.

Posted by Lee on 12/28/05 at 06:17 PM from United States

Just to put things in context, when I was in high school here in Texas I was caught by two Harris County sheriffs as I ran out of a gas station after stealing two 12-packs of Miller Genuine Draft.

Posted by Lee on 12/28/05 at 06:25 PM from United States

It is the cowboy hat wearing yahoo, islamic fundamentalist and Lee that maintain the absurd notion that stealing a couple of six packs deserves a load of lead in the back.

Uh, no, that’s not what I said.  I specifically posted the law so we could discuss this knowing what the rules are in Texas, a state which permits private citizens to use deadly force to protect property. 

You seem ti be incapable of discerning the distinction between my own personal biases and the law.  Was this legal?  Probably not.  Was it moral?  Again, probably not.  If I were sitting on a jury I’d probably find the clerk guilty of something.  I’d like to think that if the situation were reversed I wouldn’t shoot someone over two cases of beer.

However, in these types of cases we have to put ourselves in the mind of the clerk.  Did the criminal threaten his life?  Did he claim to have a gun in his pocket, for example?  Did he say something like “If you call the cops I’ll come back and kill you!” as he left the store?  We don’t know all the details.

In a case like this, where there are a million variables, there is one thing that is absolutely indisputable: if the guy hadn’t decided to go into a store and steal two cases of beer he’d still be alive today.  The obvious moral lesson here is that, in Texas, if you want to avoid getting shot, don’t steal.

I don’t think that a death sentence is an appropriate punishment for petty larceny.  However, I’m not talking about empowering the state to enact this degree of punishment.  On the one hand you’re talking about punishment for a crime, and in the other you have a clerk who could very well have feared for his life, and who acted impulsively when placed into a terrifying situation not of his doing.  The brunt of the responsibility for the shooting should fall on the shoulders of the criminal, not on those of the clerk who responded, albeit unwisely, to a situation created by the criminal himself.

Posted by HARLEY on 12/28/05 at 07:41 PM from United States

oh sorry, i was under the impression taht this crime was commited with aid of a weapon or the threat of force.
IF this was jsut a snach and grab.. the Clerk is in a LOT of hot water.

Posted by Kilroy on 12/28/05 at 07:44 PM from United States

This is all about intimation, person walks in and takes some beer and walks by the clerk.  Without even saying a word the thief is saying, “You don’t matter bitch.” Then people on this thread are saying, “Let him take the beer, it is only a couple cases.” Fuck that! Why should I have to pay for beer and the thief doesn’t?  If you think about it I am paying for the thief’s beer.  To you think the owner is going to pay for the beer?  No, it will be passed on to us in higher beer prices. 

You take you’re chances when you steal, and one of those chances is getting shot by people who are feed up with this kinda shit. 

“Call it a job hazard.”

Posted by Kilroy on 12/28/05 at 07:46 PM from United States

IF this was just a snatch and grab. the Clerk is in a LOT of hot water.

Why? can I snatch and grab in your house?

Posted by on 12/28/05 at 07:46 PM from United States

Very well put Lee.

I’m often surprised by the disparity in state laws regarding the use of deadly force. I think this guy did what he thought he had to do.

MGD Lee? I don’t drink, but I thought everyone in Texas drank Bud or Coors(pronounced kerrs).

Posted by on 12/28/05 at 07:49 PM from United States

I would have shot him in the ass, or perhaps just shot the engine block of his car.

Posted by HARLEY on 12/28/05 at 08:33 PM from United States

Kilroy generally i agree with ya.
how ever i believe that in Texas they go by what is called “castle doctrine” Thia applys to a persons home and auto, i do not know if this can be applied to a commercial facility. Legally, shooting a unarmed man in the back at range is a big no no. Lee, gave us the Texas Criminal coed on this, they do allow a lot of leeway,however such incidents can easily go to jury,a we all know how they can be stacked.

Now don’t think ol’ Harley has gone all pussy on ya, SO, remark about shooting in the ass or disabling the mans car is probably the most reasoned response with firearm.

Criminals know that their line of work is dangerous, they know that any act they commit could draw a wide range of reaction from their victims, from abject fear to out right lethal reaction. criminals operate with the express implication that if you do not corporate with them , that you might passably be harmed. Most of the time this is enough to get the victim to succumb to them and let them carry out their crime, there people are called libelers. heh, sorry Sheep. Those that react and take the risk to subdue the criminal are called Shepard’s, they protect the sheep, from the criminals/wolves.
there is too little information this case to draw a firm conclusion, regardless, if we let criminals get away with their crimes, they will continue to commit more and more crime. .......well you all know the rest.

Lee, so what happened with your petty theft case, the cop bust your ass hard? spend any time in the pokeie?

honestly i never stole any beer, never have too, but yes i did engage in some petty theft when i was younger, i felt like shit a time afterwords, did i deserve to be shot… dunno..
but i never did it agian…

your life aint worth 12 pack of beer or a couple of books.......
or x amount of cash…

Posted by on 12/28/05 at 11:00 PM from United States

A personal gun is appropriate for self-defense or it is not. Outlawing guns means people must defend themselves with sticks, spitting, throwing rocks, punching, scratching and running away. If this is what the police ask us to do, police should defend themselves that way too.
Policeman Kills Transient Wielding Screwdriver

Posted by on 12/28/05 at 11:53 PM from United States

Can we at least agree that it’s ok to shoot people who post links with greater than 50 characters and hose the whole fucking thread?

Posted by InsipiD on 12/29/05 at 05:47 AM from United States

I would have shot him in the ass…

One of the funniest parts of “A Christmas Story"…

Posted by on 12/29/05 at 10:17 AM from United States

So, how long before someone screams that his “civil rights” were violated?

I’ll do it right now.  His civil rights were violated.  What kind of asshole shoots someone stealing beer who is in the act of leaving?!  Tell me how this is self-defense, go ahead, I dare you.  Try and pull that “self-defense” crap out and I’ll call you a bullshit artist who doesn’t know shit from shinola.

This dumbass clerk saw someone running away with beer and decided it would be a good idea to shoot and kill him - over beer!!  This clerk should be brought up on charges of murder.  Dumb fuck.

Defend yourself all you want, I’m a big believer in self-defense - even in the use of lethal force to defend your life.  This asshole was just playing cowboy.  His life wasn’t in danger - not in the slightest.

I’ll say God bless Texas when Texas puts this asshole in jail for a long, long time.

Posted by on 12/29/05 at 10:21 AM from United States

You take you’re chances when you steal, and one of those chances is getting shot by people who are feed up with this kinda shit.

“Call it a job hazard.”

Call it fucking stupid.  That is the dumbest damn reason for shooting someone who is not physically threatening you I’ve ever heard.  Have you ever heard of calling “911”?  I’m sure Texas has police officers.  That’s what should have been done, not shooting a presumably unarmed man (at the least he was not brandishing any weapon) in the back as he is walking away.  Screw jail time, put a needle in that dumbass clerk’s arm.  He committed First Degree.

Posted by on 12/29/05 at 10:39 AM from United States

Lee said he stole some beer when he was a kid.  Many young kids do stupid stuff on the way to growing up.  You really think that society will tolerate killing someone over stolen beer? Way too mad max for me.

Posted by on 12/29/05 at 11:02 AM from United States

Um, did anyone read the law that Lee posted?

Posted by on 12/29/05 at 11:06 AM from United States

Here’s a snippet

“A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime

Yes, deadly force to protect property.

Whose property was it?

Was it after dark?

Look, I’m not saying he should have done this. But it appears IMHO that he was within his rights to do so.

Posted by on 12/29/05 at 03:17 PM from United States

If the law is on your side, I say you should use it. You never know when your right to do so might disappear.

Posted by InsipiD on 12/29/05 at 04:52 PM from United States

Screw jail time, put a needle in that dumbass clerk’s arm.  He committed First Degree.

Not hardly.  He would’ve shot sooner if he had the chance.  You can’t rule out that the thief was armed.  The article was very incomplete when it came to details.  I wouldn’t miss any sleep over this guy being released.  He’s not threatening, he just overreacted to the situation and used some poor judgement.  First degree murder would’ve required deliberation that he didn’t have time for.  Get off your high horse.

Try and pull that “self-defense” crap out and I’ll call you a bullshit artist who doesn’t know shit from shinola.

I know enough about it to know that whatever is on your shoes is really getting to me.  And it’s spelled with a capital S.

Posted by on 12/30/05 at 02:22 PM from United States

Unless the criminal was from out of state, he should have known he could have been shot trying to steal.  I’m all for shooting the loser.  It saves us the cost of a trial.  It saves us the cost of his incarceration. And it saves us from the jerk from every doing it again, rinse, repeat.

If I was on the jury, I’d thank the clerk for his efforts.

Next entry: Snow Snow Bang Bang

Previous entry: Old School Gaming

<< Back to main