I did a quick scan, and didn't see anything about the race of anyone involved. Any objective discussion about the future outcome should start by establishing those facts.

As a side note…how come we can get video evidence of this in short order, but only the Pelosis have seen the body cams from Paul's date night?

Shouldn't the females be arrested for assault and battery than too? They were beating on him with a stick when he was shot and "retreating" out the door. Seems three people all legitimately still considered him a threat.

If the shooter was the owner of the store, would you say it was justified, since it was his property that was being stolen? Also, some people in this thread are saying that he should die for being a thief, even if he wasn't violent. I wasn't trying to trample on people's gun rights with my example, I was just wondering what FJB's definition of robber is (some people mean actual robbers who commit robbery and some people mean thieves in general), since he said if someone robs a store, they take the risk of getting killed. This comment was supposed to be to WaltonAg18.

lethalninja said:

---

Did the robber have a gun?

---

No, in one robbery he did not show a weapon. The cashier hit him in the forehead with a telephone (desk phone) lol, put a huge knot on his forehead. The one where he got shot in the back he had a knife. She gave him some money and he ran out the front and was about 30 yards away running when he got shot in the back.

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.

---

An instructor told me "don't do anything just because you have a gun that you wouldn't do without one".

Would you do something physically to protect your life or your family's life? Yes. Probably okay to use a gun.

Would you go physically assault someone breaking into your neighbor's shed? Probably not. Probably not a good idea to use a gun.

In this case, would the shooter have been willing to get physically involved absent the fact he was carrying the gun?

Too many rabbit holes to go down for various scenarios, but I've always remembered that.

lethalninja said:

---

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).

---

LOL. 10 years is a brutal sentence for most murder convictions now a days. There is a reason most defense attorneys now leave sentencing to the judges in urban courts.

Ten years is uncommon for murder convictions in Texas, cause the range is 5 to 99 years or life. I would also be fine with the shooter getting ten years probation and a felony conviction for manslaughter instead of going to prison.

Always carry a drop piece.

WaltonAg18 said:

---

You have the right to protect yourself and your property, the shooter here was doing neither.

No reason for this shot other than an attempt to play the hero. Bad shots like this lead to liberals trampling on gun rights by saying "see! They're all trigger happy and if they think you're shoplifting a bag of chips you should pay with your life" and other emotional appeals.


Responsible gun ownership and consequences for its abused are key to ensuring that there are few excuses for removing my right to carry from me. Which they'll never do, but I'd rather not have to fight that fight.

---

You have no understanding of the law in Texas.

Duckhook said:

---

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.

---

An instructor told me "don't do anything just because you have a gun that you wouldn't do without one".

Would you do something physically to protect your life or your family's life? Yes. Probably okay to use a gun.

Would you go physically assault someone breaking into your neighbor's shed? Probably not. Probably not a good idea to use a gun.

In this case, would the shooter have been willing to get physically involved absent the fact he was carrying the gun?

Too many rabbit holes to go down for various scenarios, but I've always remembered that.

---

A CHL will not define how people react in difficult situations. There many police, fire and military peeps that freeze at the wrong time. I not say CHL course wont help but you never know how people will react under tense situations.

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-41.html

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-42/

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-43/

Laws relating to the use of force and deadly force to protect property in Texas

I'm sure the Samaritan was afraid the guy was running out of the store to grab a weapon from his vehicle. He had already shown violence, who knows how far he would have taken it if he had reached his vehicle.

At least that's what I would tell the police.

lethalninja said:

---

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-41.html

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-42/

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-43/

Laws relating to the use of force and deadly force to protect property in Texas

---

And people

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-34/

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-32/

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-33/

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-31/

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-29-03.html

After reading 9.31 (a)(1)(c), I'm pretty sure he's actually good.

Sec. 9.44. USE OF DEVICE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. The justification afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to the use of a device to protect land or tangible, movable property if:

(1) the device is not designed to cause, or known by the actor to create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury; and

(2) use of the device is reasonable under all the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be when he installs the device.

This one is also about defense of property, but it's not relevant to this case (it's still interesting).

Wasn't he fleeing after committing robbery when the deadly force was used instead of committing robbery? Also, Section 9.31 is about force, not deadly force.

Correct sorry, what about 9.32 a2b..

lethalninja said:

---

Sec. 9.44. USE OF DEVICE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. The justification afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to the use of a device to protect land or tangible, movable property if:

(1) the device is not designed to cause, or known by the actor to create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury; and

(2) use of the device is reasonable under all the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be when he installs the device.

This one is also about defense of property, but it's not relevant to this case (it's still interesting).

---

That's boobytrap law. A no-no in Texas.

He was fleeing, so he wasn't in the commission of robbery.

Thats where the debate will come in.

Detmersdislocatedshoulder said:

---

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

---

Where Democrats are in charge anyway.

AggieLostinDallas said:

---

After reading 9.31 (a)(1)(c), I'm pretty sure he's actually good.

---

This is not aggravated robbery. Not even remotely close

Yeah, it's non-aggravated robbery, since he didn't use or exhibit a deadly weapon or cause serious bodily injury, and none of the victims were 65 or older or disabled. The statute he mentioned also refers to non-aggravated robbery (it's just called robbery), but that's the statute for use of force, not use of deadly force.

Would not matter. The thief was still unarmed at the time and what if no weapon is found in the car.

Keller6Ag91 said:

---

Enviroag02 said:

---

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.

---

CCL classes emphasis the legal threshold of only firing if you have a direct and imminent threat. This doesn't read well for the shooter.

---

My first CCL instructor in Arlington in 2005 told us we had the right to shoot if a crime was being committed. I wonder if this guy had the same instructor.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

zephyr88 said:

---

Nothing in that store worth getting killed over…

---

Then he shouldn't be shoplifting.

---

It ain't worth shooting people over stuff, especially other people's stuff.

Detmersdislocatedshoulder said:

---

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

---

Just stay out of blue cities.

Can we not pass a law that says "a person injured during the committing of a felony or in the timeframe immediately before or after have no grounds to pursue charges against parties that may be involved in those injuries"

Layman's terms if you're effing up and get hurt or killed, sucks to be you.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

zephyr88 said:

---

Nothing in that store worth getting killed over…

---

Then he shouldn't be shoplifting.

---

It ain't worth shooting people over stuff, especially other people's stuff.

---

1) Depends on the stuff

2) Depends if stealing stuff is all the perp is doing or going to do

3) The shooter here said he was protecting the clerks, not the stuff.

And as to #3, I stated earlier, that I'd have to be damn sure who was in the wrong before getting in the middle of someone else's fight.

Would that apply to all felonies or just violent felonies?

Probably all felonies

If they are describing this event as non violent because they are not charging him with assault and robbery?

I'm open to hear hypotheticals.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

zephyr88 said:

---

Nothing in that store worth getting killed over…

---

Then he shouldn't be shoplifting.

---

It ain't worth shooting people over stuff, especially other people's stuff.

---

1) Depends on the stuff

2) Depends if stealing stuff is all the perp is doing or going to do

3) The shooter here said he was protecting the clerks, not the stuff.

And as to #3, I stated earlier, that I'd have to be damn sure who was in the wrong before getting in the middle of someone else's fight.

---

Shooting someone who is running away after stealing from a Dollar Tree isn't worth it.

Spitting on a cop is a felony in Texas, so under your law, would a cop be allowed to shoot someone for spitting on them?

Is there aids in the spit?

Edit: if you spit on a cop and you get punched or something, I'm gonna say you had it coming, whoever punched you gets shielded from prosecution.

No, it's just regular spit and they don't claim to have any diseases, like telling the cop they have HIV or AIDS.