So female Family Dollar employee suspects a serial shoplifter is stealing again, confronts the man, the man fights back against her and another female employee. A male customer witnesses the physical altercation and uses his CCW to fatally shoot the shoplifter. DPD arrest the shooter on murder charges.

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/crime/dallas-family-dollar-shooting-man-arrested/287-a2f514f4-bb99-4415-a6bb-c6b9f8e5007f

The story makes sure to point out that at the moment the shots are fired the shoplifter is heading for the door…insinuating he was trying to get out of the altercation and not an aggressor.

Nevermind, you edited it out

I fully expect the DA to pursue this as much as he can, but hope Dallas jurors do the right thing.

No good deed...

This would be in interesting case for Andrew Branca. When is someone that is unarmed able to be shot?

we live in a F'd world that favors the criminals.

Never get involved in an altercation in public it will end up bad for a good Samaritan.

Quote:

---

The man was running toward the door and was being hit by both female employees immediately before he was shot, according to the affidavit.

---

Quote:

---

Police took Jackson to department headquarters for questioning, where he told police he saw the fight and became concerned for the safety of the two women working at the store.

---

That will be a tough hurdle to jump in my opinion.

lobopride said:

---

This would be in interesting case for Andrew Branca. When is someone that is unarmed able to be shot?

---

The issue here is the man was trying to leave the scene while being beat by the women at the time he was shot. At that point he's probably no longer a threat.

Nothing in that store worth getting killed over…

Sounds like a good deed done for society. However…

"… The man was running toward the door and was being hit by both female employees immediately before he was shot, according to the affidavit. "

If we was truly running away he may be SOL.

This is why you don't get involved without knowing all the facts.

My priority is to protect my family, then myself. If I am absolutely sure that a stranger is a victim of a crime, and I feel they could die, I'll consider protecting them with lethal force.

I don't think the shooter should be charged with any but a trivial charge. But it seems to be poor judgement. Sounds like the women were handling the situation with a stick.

Will need more info before I can rightfully say. If robber was pounding the women with haymakers that is one thing. If he was running and not attacking that is another.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the thief got a bullet but it's probably not a good shoot. Definitely not one I'd take.

zephyr88 said:

---

Nothing in that store worth getting killed over…

---

Then he shouldn't be shoplifting.

If the article has the facts correct (and that's a big if) he may not have met the legal justification for shooting someone.

He also agreed to give a police interview without an attorney. Not a smart decision.

Unless the shoplifter was about to deliver bodily harm to someone, you can't shoot him. Unfortunate situation.

For someone without extensive training, I'm sure this was all happening very fast, but if the article (and seemingly the police affidavit) is correct, then this is murkier than is being discussed here. The first employee was hitting him with some kind of stick and the second had already deployed mace. This is definitely the key sentence though:

" The man was running toward the door and was being hit by both female employees immediately before he was shot, according to the affidavit."

Not going to shed a tear for a dead thief but what a dumb decision by the shooter. No way I'm pulling my gun to stop just a shoplifter.

Teslag said:

---

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the thief got a bullet but it's probably not a good shoot. Definitely not one I'd take.

---

Agreed. A buddy of mine is a deputy and he always reminds people that you have the right to defend yourself, but you also will be held accountable if your actions weren't warranted and end up being unlawful, regardless of your intentions.

If the thief was not a threat and running away, then things aren't going to look good for the guy who shot him.

This should be a good lesson or thinking exercise for everybody who carries. Know ahead of time what your thresholds are involving pulling your gun and shooting somebody.

Yep, same situation and the guy has her by the throat and beating the ever living **** out of her I might draw and warn. Possibly shoot if he charges me or becomes aggressive

Rockdoc said:

---

Unless the shoplifter was about to deliver bodily harm to someone, you can't shoot him. Unfortunate situation.

---

(All of this assumes the facts as presented are correct, which we know is frequently not the case from until reports)

I think it's more than that to justify deadly force. It has to be in defense of imminent severe bodily injury or death.

I don't think pushing and shoving or even a punch or two being thrown is going to support this dude's use of deadly force.

And that doesn't even begin to address the bigger issue, which is that the perp apparently had broken off the attack, which means there no longer was any imminent threat.

Just based on the written description without more, and we all know enough to know there could be more details that could change the analysis, the shooter is likely in some deep crap, and justifiably so.

If you're going to carry, your mindset has to be to only draw it when there are no other options. Once you draw in an adrenalized situation, it's too easy to overreact to something and squeeze that trigger unless you're extremely disciplined.

And then after drawing you only shoot when it's unavoidable and you're sure that your shot isn't placing others at unreasonable risk of harm. In this situation, not only do the reported facts indicate the use of force was disproportional to the risk posed by the perp, but it sounds like two innocents were also in the line of fire. You can't take a shot like that unless it's the only option to keep someone from getting severely hurt or killed.

Yeah, the shoplifter and the customer are both idiots. The customer should be charged with murder, but he should get a lenient sentence (like ten years or less).

"He said he was going to his car to get a gun"

If that's the case, the customer shouldn't have been charged, since he would be reasonably defending himself and the other people in that store against an imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death.

Rockdoc said:

---

This should be a good lesson or thinking exercise for everybody who carries. Know ahead of time what your thresholds are involving pulling your gun and shooting somebody.

---

I would emphasize the "pulling your gun" part here. Even for those who've had training and experienced life or death situations involving firearms, it takes strong discipline to exercise sound judgment on the trigger pull in a highly charged situation. It's a lot harder to overreact or misjudge and make a fatal, split-second mistake in a situation like that if you are more judicious about even drawing your pistol in the first place.

This is one of the issues with constitutional carry (I'm not against it by any means)

But people who are able to just pull their gun from their safe and carry and didn't take a CHL course miss critical instruction on when not to shoot. The best life lessons are taught in those classes if you have a good instructor

Ours always told folks "you gotta think, quickly, is shooting this person worth potentially spending the rest of my life in prison?"

In this case, it was 100% not. Bad shoot. He is screwed.

Teslag said:

---

lobopride said:

---

This would be in interesting case for Andrew Branca. When is someone that is unarmed able to be shot?

---

The issue here is the man was trying to leave the scene while being beat by the women at the time he was shot. At that point he's probably no longer a threat.

---

I wish I could be on that jury.

Birdman said that the shoplifter said he was going to his car to get a gun and started leaving. Is that not true?

Dallas Family Dollar shooting in 2002

I was involved in this case from 2002 where a security guard chased shoplifters at a FDS in Dallas. The slowest of the shoplifters was shot and killed by an armed security guard who was chasing them (the decedent was slowed by having to hold his pants up as he ran). The guard, who was a deacon in his church, was convicted of manslaughter.

AstroAggie15 said:

---

This is one of the issues with constitutional carry (I'm not against it by any means)

But people who are able to just pull their gun from their safe and carry and didn't take a CHL course miss critical instruction on when not to shoot. The best life lessons are taught in those classes if you have a good instructor

Ours always told folks "you gotta think, quickly, is shooting this person worth potentially spending the rest of my life in prison?"

In this case, it was 100% not. Bad shoot. He is screwed.

---

He shouldn't be screwed but he probably is - especially given the Democrat Dallas Co. venue.

I could not, in good conscience, find this many guilty of murder. Simple manslaughter at best.

Aggie Jurist said:

---

Dallas Family Dollar shooting in 2002

I was involved in this case from 2002 where a security guard chased shoplifters at a FDS in Dallas. The slowest of the shoplifters was shot and killed by an armed security guard who was chasing them (the decedent was slowed by having to hold his pants up as he ran). The guard, who was a deacon in his church, was convicted of manslaughter.

---

I think I remember this - and think that is a reasonable verdict.

What was the sentence?

You could convict him of murder and give him a lenient sentence (if the jury was deciding the sentence), since manslaughter is for unintentional deaths.

That guy got twenty years, which is the maximum sentence for manslaughter in Texas. The jury decided his sentence and he's not in prison anymore.