You can use deadly force to stop a violent felony in Texas. Robbery is a violent felony. Assaulting someone during the commission of a theft is robbery. Unless the guy was shot in the back while attempting to flee the store, I don't see how a grand jury indicts for murder.

Bocephus said:

---

You can use deadly force to stop a violent felony in Texas. Robbery is a violent felony. Assaulting someone during the commission of a theft is robbery. Unless the guy was shot in the back while attempting to flee the store, I don't see how a grand jury indicts for murder.

---

I believe there was already a thread on this. I think he was shot in the back while running away

Long thread on it on Reddit.

Looks like exactly that. He was trying to flee and store employees attacked him and that is when customer stepped in and fired.

This one is definitely going to be grey area and a coin flip I think. Shooter said he did it for employees safety and intended to wound. Rural counties I can see it going away as justified. This is Dallas though….

i bet this dude doesn't get shot if he wasn't trying to rob a store. if i am on the jury he is innocent. don't care he was supposedly fleeing.we need more people willing to stop the bad guys. they are winning in case anyone hasn't been paying attention.

something something something play stupid games win stupid prizes.

Detmersdislocatedshoulder said:

---

i bet this dude doesn't get shot if he wasn't trying to rob a store. if i am on the jury he is innocent. don't care he was supposedly fleeing.we need more people willing to stop the bad guys. they are winning in case anyone hasn't been paying attention.

something something something play stupid games win stupid prizes.

---

My opinion is that I really don't care that the repeat robber is dead. However I think a jury should convict solely based upon the facts of the case and what the law states. If he was not entitled to shoot him based upon the law, then he should go to prison. We don't need judges and jurors using their opinions to make judgements that aren't solely based upon the facts and the law. If you don't like the law then take it up with politicians, etc.

IDaggie06 said:

---

Detmersdislocatedshoulder said:

---

i bet this dude doesn't get shot if he wasn't trying to rob a store. if i am on the jury he is innocent. don't care he was supposedly fleeing.we need more people willing to stop the bad guys. they are winning in case anyone hasn't been paying attention.

something something something play stupid games win stupid prizes.

---

My opinion is that I really don't care that the repeat robber is dead. However I think a jury should convict solely based upon the facts of the case and what the law states. If he was not entitled to shoot him based upon the law, then he should go to prison. We don't need judges and jurors using their opinions to make judgements that aren't solely based upon the facts and the law. If you don't like the law then take it up with politicians, etc.

---

your opinion isn't wrong in fact is more correct than mine but i still don't care. we have moved passed the letter of the law based on violent criminals being released because of liberal judges. like i said your not wrong but the law is very gray these days and i am not sending this dude to jail. probably good i won't be on the jury.

Can someone here who practices law or who is prosecutor please explain this situation?

IDaggie06 said:

---

Detmersdislocatedshoulder said:

---

i bet this dude doesn't get shot if he wasn't trying to rob a store. if i am on the jury he is innocent. don't care he was supposedly fleeing.we need more people willing to stop the bad guys. they are winning in case anyone hasn't been paying attention.

something something something play stupid games win stupid prizes.

---

My opinion is that I really don't care that the repeat robber is dead. However I think a jury should convict solely based upon the facts of the case and what the law states. If he was not entitled to shoot him based upon the law, then he should go to prison. We don't need judges and jurors using their opinions to make judgements that aren't solely based upon the facts and the law. If you don't like the law then take it up with politicians, etc.

---

That ship has sailed, amigo.

2012heisman said:

---

Can someone here who practices law or who is prosecutor please explain this situation?

---

This was a robbery, so in order for deadly force to be justified, it must be immediately necessary to protect against unlawful force from being used or to prevent the commission of the robbery.

If he as shot in the back while leaving, then it will be hard to show it was justified.

Eliminatus said:

---

Long thread on it on Reddit.

Looks like exactly that. He was trying to flee and store employees attacked him and that is when customer stepped in and fired.

This one is definitely going to be grey area and a coin flip I think. Shooter said he did it for employees safety and intended to wound. Rural counties I can see it going away as justified. This is Dallas though….

---

If he's saying he did it intending to wound, he is not helping his case.

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3346316

IDaggie06 said:

---

Detmersdislocatedshoulder said:

---

i bet this dude doesn't get shot if he wasn't trying to rob a store. if i am on the jury he is innocent. don't care he was supposedly fleeing.we need more people willing to stop the bad guys. they are winning in case anyone hasn't been paying attention.

something something something play stupid games win stupid prizes.

---

My opinion is that I really don't care that the repeat robber is dead. However I think a jury should convict solely based upon the facts of the case and what the law states. If he was not entitled to shoot him based upon the law, then he should go to prison. We don't need judges and jurors using their opinions to make judgements that aren't solely based upon the facts and the law. If you don't like the law then take it up with politicians, etc.

---

Two separate phases. The trial to see if he's guilty, based on the law, which the jury will have instructions, and although they can choose to nullify, the judge has some influence.

Then the sentencing, for which there are guidelines. There is more discretion in the sentencing phase and a judge or juries opinions have a valid place.

InfantryAg said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

Long thread on it on Reddit.

Looks like exactly that. He was trying to flee and store employees attacked him and that is when customer stepped in and fired.

This one is definitely going to be grey area and a coin flip I think. Shooter said he did it for employees safety and intended to wound. Rural counties I can see it going away as justified. This is Dallas though….

---

If he's saying he did it intending to wound, he is not helping his case.

---

Agreed. From everything I have read so far, it honestly does sound like a bad shoot. At least according to law. I get the sentiment of wanting him to be shot and killed. Trust me I do. If it were up to me, I would visit unspeakable horrors and in public upon all caught thieves. But this is reality. I think he knew he messed up and was trying to make it sound like it was a good thing to wound.

We can speculate all day but ultimately we all have to wait till video is released. But on paper, doesn't sound good for the shooter to me. Way too easy for a semi competent lawyer to send him away for a while.

IDaggie06 said:

---

Detmersdislocatedshoulder said:

---

i bet this dude doesn't get shot if he wasn't trying to rob a store. if i am on the jury he is innocent. don't care he was supposedly fleeing.we need more people willing to stop the bad guys. they are winning in case anyone hasn't been paying attention.

something something something play stupid games win stupid prizes.

---

My opinion is that I really don't care that the repeat robber is dead. However I think a jury should convict solely based upon the facts of the case and what the law states. If he was not entitled to shoot him based upon the law, then he should go to prison. We don't need judges and jurors using their opinions to make judgements that aren't solely based upon the facts and the law. If you don't like the law then take it up with politicians, etc.

---

Politicians create so many laws that it is near impossible to go a single day without breaking a law. As nefarious as it sounds, I will always believe that is the intent until I see politicians start to abide by equality of application of the law with public vs gov employee vs elite.

If politicians cared about freedom and holding everyone to the same standards (justice is supposed to be blind right) then we should see more politicians in jail, more judges removed, and more prosecutions of law enforcement that over reaches.

Until then, I agree that people that play stupid games have forfeited their rights and any reasonable action from public in the vicinity is acceptable. Politicians won't fix the laws, then juries are the last place the public can look out for each other. I wish it was not the case.

There is no trust that:
police will arrive in time,
if they do they will actually arrest,
and if they actually arrest the AG will prosecute,
then if they prosecute the judge will not throw out or severely reduce the sentence.

Detmersdislocatedshoulder said:

---

i bet this dude doesn't get shot if he wasn't trying to rob a store. if i am on the jury he is innocent. don't care he was supposedly fleeing.we need more people willing to stop the bad guys. they are winning in case anyone hasn't been paying attention.

something something something play stupid games win stupid prizes.

---

You likely wouldn't ever be picked for the jury. They'd uncover your bias in voir dire. The purpose of the jury is to only make decisions based on the facts presented. You cannot bring your own experience or biases into play. It's how our court system works toward a fair and impartial trial.

It's just tough to claim that you were fearful for someone's (or your self's) life when you shoot someone in the back when they were fleeing. I would argue that robber's need their a$$es handed to them of course, but the eyes of the law don't look favorably upon what happened here - or at least what has so far been reported in this case.

I'd no-bill.

The guy played stupid games. He won a stupid prize.

He effed around. He found out.

He is not costing taxpayers to house in jail/prison.

Perp left the store once after committing a crime then returned and physically engaged the employees. 100% reasonable to believe he wasn't done just because he was heading for the exit while still physically engaged with the clercks. No-bill the charge and buy Mr. Jackson a steak dinner to apologize for the inconvenience

Cruezot is going to try to **** this guy

Don't shoot someone trying to run away.

If you're concealed or open carrying, you have to be smart about these situations.

It's murder. The guy may have been a dirtbag. But imminent threat was not there.

Justin2010 said:

---

Don't shoot someone trying to run away.

If you're concealed or open carrying, you have to be smart about these situations.

It's murder. The guy may have been a dirtbag. But imminent threat was not there.

---

This is a bad take

No bill.
Guy deserves a medal for protecting innocent life and stopping theft.

BigRobSA said:

---

I'd no-bill.

---

Yeah me too but I think the shooter is an idiot for firing a gun at someone intending to injure them. Deadly force, people...

"The man said he was going to get his gun and kill us all. I feared for my life and the lives of the employees."

Bocephus said:

---

You can use deadly force to stop a violent felony in Texas. Robbery is a violent felony. Assaulting someone during the commission of a theft is robbery. Unless the guy was shot in the back while attempting to flee the store, I don't see how a grand jury indicts for murder.

---

Creuzot will charge this guy with murder but not Wesley Mathews, the POS who murdered 3 year old Sherin Mathews.

FIDO*98* said:

---

Perp left the store once after committing a crime then returned and physically engaged the employees. 100% reasonable to believe he wasn't done just because he was heading for the exit while still physically engaged with the clercks. No-bill the charge and buy Mr. Jackson a steak dinner to apologize for the inconvenience

---

This. How many times do these punks get loose just to secure a weapon and return fighting again. Very rarely does someone intervene to help the clerk who is doing their job. Working and not stealing.

But our state legislature needs to solve the legal debate. Make it completely legal to kill a thief or robber.
Just like if you come out of a restaurant and a thief is stealing the catalytic converters or attempting to steal your vehicle. Should be completely legal to kill him even if he's running away. So often these thieves shoot innocent victims to get away. Need legal protection for victims, not for the crooks and bad guys.

This case is going to come down to the testimonies of the two employees and what they heard the perp say as he was running away "im going to go get my gun" if thats true and if they felt their lives were in danger/ threatened.

I think this may be the only chance the shooter has in my opinion. I am no lawyer, but I would build the case around those circumstances with the shooter neutralizing the threat.

Jury nullification

I would no bill him. You give up your rights when you start robbing *****

The only problem in this case is if what the reporters say is true, he told the two employees to move aside before he shot at him. That shows pre-meditation. A prosecutor is going to argue that shows he could have let him flee and was not in any danger, therefore this qualifies as murder.

I hope they immediately took pictures of the two employees he was fighting with. He came back into the store and started physically assaulting two women. The defense should argue he escalated from mere shoplifting to premeditated assault. If there are pictures of battered employees, show them. Then point out he was going outside again to get who knows what to escalate more and kill everyone. So the shooter, aiming to maim, simply eliminated a rapidly escalating situation and saved three lives that day - the two employees and his own.

IDaggie06 said:

---

Detmersdislocatedshoulder said:

---

i bet this dude doesn't get shot if he wasn't trying to rob a store. if i am on the jury he is innocent. don't care he was supposedly fleeing.we need more people willing to stop the bad guys. they are winning in case anyone hasn't been paying attention.

something something something play stupid games win stupid prizes.

---

My opinion is that I really don't care that the repeat robber is dead. However I think a jury should convict solely based upon the facts of the case and what the law states. If he was not entitled to shoot him based upon the law, then he should go to prison. We don't need judges and jurors using their opinions to make judgements that aren't solely based upon the facts and the law. If you don't like the law then take it up with politicians, etc.

---

We absolutely need jurors to nullify stupid laws. It's the reason we have jurors. Otherwise, the state would just convict whenever they felt like it.

Being very pro Texan, and small government, I appreciate the fact that early Texas juries would release someone if they just promise not to do it again, because I did not like the idea of the government holding so much power over its citizens.

I further appreciated that juries could just decide that "someone needed killing" and justify the shooting of someone.

I leave no tears for a dead thief. None at all. I'd no bill the guy as well..

But I'm not a store's defacto security or loss prevention just because I walk through their doors and I have a license and a loaded pistol.

But I am MY security against the clientele they may attract.

If Family Dollar thought so much of their stores, merchandise, employees, and customers, they'd have their own security solution. There is no good assumption that I'm a security agent for them.

If they are actively being robbed then my response is to find safety where I can and be a good witness. If those options aren't possible then I'm looking for a deadly force solution.

Now this poor ******* is going to be laying out **** tons of cash defending himself on a murder charge. Time and time again it is the shot in the back of a fleeing feral that gets everyone jammed up --both cops and armed citizens.

IDaggie06 said:

---

Detmersdislocatedshoulder said:

---

i bet this dude doesn't get shot if he wasn't trying to rob a store. if i am on the jury he is innocent. don't care he was supposedly fleeing.we need more people willing to stop the bad guys. they are winning in case anyone hasn't been paying attention.

something something something play stupid games win stupid prizes.

---

My opinion is that I really don't care that the repeat robber is dead. However I think a jury should convict solely based upon the facts of the case and what the law states. If he was not entitled to shoot him based upon the law, then he should go to prison.

---

What? Get out of here with that nonsense. /Sarcasm

Seriously, though, if juries disregard the facts and the law, regardless of they perceive the law as good or bad, then we don't really have a representative democracy. Same thing withe the government. If the executive choose to ignore the law or favor enforcement of some laws over other, what's the point of the legislature?

Like how they term an essential part of the crime as "trying to flee"

Ridiculous; we are not children playing a game; there is no 'base' you reach to be "safe" committing a crime.