Fishers gas clerk arrested for intimidation, PD says pulled gun on theft suspect

[ArcadiaGP]

I agree. Most people think a gunfight/using deadly force is one fight. There are actually two more fights you will have to handle. Number 2 is the legal fight and number 3 is the emotional fight. You have to win all three and you should consider all three before you start fight number 1.

Ehhhh...

Do you really want these thoughts clouding your decision-making when it comes to a split-second decision of saving your life or someone else's?

When it comes to apprehending someone that's trying to get away... sure, I can see the thought process being there. Best to let them go, and assist the police with video evidence, etc...

When it comes to personal safety and self-defense... I think it's best to not think about those other things. Could cause a bad outcome.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I agree. Most people think a gunfight/using deadly force is one fight. There are actually two more fights you will have to handle. Number 2 is the legal fight and number 3 is the emotional fight. You have to win all three and you should consider all three before you start fight number 1.

Yes, and I swim in #2 and #3. I get to hear, through the chicken wire reinforced glass, about how "it wasn't loaded", or "I didn't mean to shoot HIM, I was just shooting", or a dozen other rationalizations of stupidity.

You are not in fear of death or serious bodily injury from Ronnie, Jr. running away with a can of Pringles. Let him go. Write it off as to shrinkage, check the video. Issue a trespass warning.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Ehhhh...

Do you really want these thoughts clouding your decision-making when it comes to a split-second decision of saving your life or someone else's?

No, but that's why one trains. To avoid the problem. The best indicia of training is never having to use it.

One does not train to fight, but so that one does not fight.

"He is running away with Pringles. Stop, drop and call the police."

 

[gregkl]

No, but that's why one trains. To avoid the problem. The best indicia of training is never having to use it.

One does not train to fight, but so that one does not fight.

"He is running away with Pringles. Stop, drop and call the police."

 

[Thegeek]

An alleged crime.

You cannot point guns at people when not acting in self-defense. It's like someone has several rules on this or something, maybe Four of them.

According to Mr. Relford's class, you can use deadly force to prevent a forcible felony (like any of us know in the moment what is, or is not). So if you walk outside your home and someone is in your vehicle and you BELIEVE them to be attempting to steal it, you can lawfully draw on them.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Sheesh.

In my day the line of demarcation between solid citizens and aholes was a bright one. No cop of my generation would have arrested this clerk.

But the law enforcement profession in which I served no longer exists.

 

[Alamo]

Rhino owes me another case of .45acp!



That is not Texas law. We are not in Texas.

I am in Texas. For completeness sake and general education, the law is:

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

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. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during thenighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

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.

These are defenses to prosecution, not exceptions. You can be arrested, and you have to prove the above elements to use this as defense.

My first concealed handgun license classes featured the first chair felony prosecutor for Bexar County (San Antonio is in Bexar County, so big job). His job every morning was to review all felony arrests/investigations to determine if a felony should be prosecuted. We tried to get him to give us a concrete example of what would constitute a justification to use deadly force to protect property. He of course went all jello-y -- the most he would say is that if a poor carpenter living pay-check to pay-check found someone stealing his tools out of his truck and the carpenter would lose his job and his house, couldn't feed his kids, etc if he lost his tools, he (the prosecutor) would consider that a possible justification for blasting the burglar. He wouldn't commit to saying it would get the guy off the hook, just that it would strongly help the carpenter's case.

It's a pretty narrow defense, actually, I don't think I would rely on it for a can of Pringles. Or even a truckload. As far as the Fishers clerk goes, he is screwed because a) the incident didn't happen in the nighttime, and b) it didn't happen in Texas.

 

[MrsGungho]

Yes, and I swim in #2 and #3. I get to hear, through the chicken wire reinforced glass, about how "it wasn't loaded", or "I didn't mean to shoot HIM, I was just shooting", or a dozen other rationalizations of stupidity.

You are not in fear of death or serious bodily injury from Ronnie, Jr. running away with a can of Pringles. Let him go. Write it off as to shrinkage, check the video. Issue a trespass warning.

this, I work in a store that has HIGH shrink from shoplifters. Staff is instructed to let it go, give me a time, description and area and I will track it on video and get a report issued by the police. IF we are lucky, we know who it is and get the trespass warning, most times we have no idea the name of identified person.
My bonus check is partially dependent on shrink, I still don't "pull a gun". If I find it on video, report it, it doesn't count against me. Even our owners tell us to let it go, our lives are not worth the money that is walking out.

 

[Joniki]

Sheesh.

In my day the line of demarcation between solid citizens and aholes was a bright one. No cop of my generation would have arrested this clerk.

But the law enforcement profession in which I served no longer exists.

Very true. Unfortunately, the bottom feeders have changed the way we now do things.

 

[SSGSAD]

this, I work in a store that has HIGH shrink from shoplifters. Staff is instructed to let it go, give me a time, description and area and I will track it on video and get a report issued by the police. IF we are lucky, we know who it is and get the trespass warning, most times we have no idea the name of identified person.
My bonus check is partially dependent on shrink, I still don't "pull a gun". If I find it on video, report it, it doesn't count against me. Even our owners tell us to let it go, our lives are not worth the money that is walking out.

You, have seen me in Uniform, I work armed security .....

I cannot shoot someone, for shoplifting .....

If I detain, the "wrong" person, I am in trouble .....

That is why I DON"T carry hand cuffs .....

If I see something, I alert the Manager,

and let them "handle" it .....

I am right there, watching the "whole thing" .....

Most of the time, they just walk, and nothing is done .....

My opinion, is the Uniform, and duty belt, including handgun, is a DETERRENT,

If "they" see me, they most likely will choose some other place, to do their business .....

 

[SSGSAD]

An alleged crime.

You cannot point guns at people when not acting in self-defense. It's like someone has several rules on this or something, maybe Four of them.

And, you can't follow them, because, if they are "leaving", the threat is over .....

Is that correct ?????

 

[Alamo]

And, you can't follow them, because, if they are "leaving", the threat is over .....

Is that correct ?????

I would think you could follow them all you want, as long as you stick with following, but pointing a gun at them absent them presenting an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury would not be kosher. Or halal even.

 

[HoughMade]

...So if you walk outside your home and someone is in your vehicle and you BELIEVE them to be attempting to steal it, you can lawfully draw on them.

What force is being used against you or anyone else?

And, you can't follow them, because, if they are "leaving", the threat is over .....

Is that correct ?????

Theft is not robbery, robbery is not theft. What "threat" are you talking about?

 

[firefighterjohn]

Truth here.
Not sure how I would react if some douche bag was stealing one of my cars.
I do not owe on any of them so they are mine. The key word here is "Mine" and I am not of a mind to just give them up.
Now to shoot a thief in this day and age is a push by any measure.
Pistol whipping one into submission and possibly seeing life more clearly not so much. But I am sure there is some code against even this.

I couldn't agree more! Am I just going to let someone steal mine as well if I happen to see it happening? They would probably end up trashing, wrecking it, or chopping it eventually...but if it's mine bought and paid for with some sentimental value or hard to replace...I can't imagine I'd let it go without doing something! It just goes against all I stand for....I worked hard to be able to have what I've got and not going to just let someone TAKE it! I know, I know, it's just STUFF and STUFF can be replaced but still...Hope I never have to make that decision. (breathe...breathe....settling down....)

 

[rhino]

What force is being used against you or anyone else?



Theft is not robbery, robbery is not theft. What "threat" are you talking about?

So . . .

Let's say you see someone stealing your car. You are close enough to climb into the passenger seat while they are still in the process of thievery. Now that you're in the car, does it become a carjacking if they continue to steal the car?

 

[HoughMade]

So . . .
Let's say you see someone stealing your car. You are close enough to climb into the passenger seat while they are still in the process of thievery. Now that you're in the car, does it become a carjacking if they continue to steal the car?

Why would someone do that?

 

[Trigger Time]

It's easy for people who have money to say eh just let them drive away in your car or steal all the money you probably have to your name and call the police, they'll take care of you by sending some fat old detective that's just counting the days till retirement, I'm sure your $2-$300 is his top priority.

but for people who live paycheck to paycheck which is probably most of America through many times no fault of their own, losing your food money or the car that gets you to work (where you get fired for missing even one day) and the kids to the doctor, is like someone holding a gun to your head. It's easy for suits and robes to sit and judge the poor peasants when they can go back to their castles on the hill.

 

[SSGSAD]

What force is being used against you or anyone else?



Theft is not robbery, robbery is not theft. What "threat" are you talking about?

I was just talking in general, when the "bad guy" turns around, and walks away,

the threat is over .....

 

[indiucky]

Very true. Unfortunately, the bottom feeders have changed the way we now do things.

Glocks????

(IMHO it shouldn't matter if the gun feeds from the bottom and is plastic...)

Just kidding Glock guys....Just a grumpy old man remembering back when guns were made of steel and grips were.....Wait a minute...Did I take my blood pressure pills or wait...No...It's good...I got Matlock DVR'ed...So anyway that's what the river was like back in the 1970's...I used to trap within sight of Louisville and muskrats went for $8 a hide......Is Colonel Sanders really dead??? Extra crispy??? What does that even mean????"

 

[rhino]

Why would someone do that?

Hush! It's a thought experiment!

And . . . the witness is non-responsive! The witness is directed to answer the question!