Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In most states (all? maybe, IDK) deadly force is and should be reserved for where it is required to protect a life or prevent major physical harm. Property damage or loss never justifies deadly force.
Rodney Duve, Texas store owner, allegedly kills man for stealing beer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
Great idea - let's lower the threshold for deadly force to "shoplifting".
Sure we can't lower it further?
Don't want to get shot? Don't jump in line.
Don't want to get shot? Don't run a yellow light.
Don't want to get shot? Don't walk around with a smart look on your face.
Don't want to get shot? Don't talk back to police officers.
There are reasons behind society establishing thresholds for using deadly force.
If you add "taking two parking spaces intentionally" and "not returning the shopping cart to the corral" I'd vote for you...
I don't think the issue was that he was stealing beer per se, it was that it was a grab and run shoplifting type of theft, with no physical threat to the shopkeeper. Generally to use deadly force, there needs to be a direct threat to the life of the person defending themselves. TX laws may be a bit different in this regard, but I still think there needs to be an element of physical deadly threat.
If the thief grabbed a six pack, the pulled a knife to keep the shopkeeper from stopping him (essentially turning it into an armed robbery), then the shopkeeper would likely be considered justified shooting the thief. The stolen item would likely not be the issue.
If the thief grabbed a six pack, the pulled a knife to keep the shopkeeper from stopping him (essentially turning it into an armed robbery), then the shopkeeper would likely be considered justified shooting the thief. The stolen item would likely not be the issue.
Agreed, completely different situation - assault with deadly weapon, the six-pack wouldn't even be relevant. And yes, deadly force can of course be met with deadly force in self-defense.
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,300 posts, read 4,410,174 times
Reputation: 2394
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBMW
I don't think the issue was that he was stealing beer per se, it was that it was a grab and run shoplifting type of theft, with no physical threat to the shopkeeper. Generally to use deadly force, there needs to be a direct threat to the life of the person defending themselves. TX laws may be a bit different in this regard, but I still think there needs to be an element of physical deadly threat.
If the thief grabbed a six pack, the pulled a knife to keep the shopkeeper from stopping him (essentially turning it into an armed robbery), then the shopkeeper would likely be considered justified shooting the thief. The stolen item would likely not be the issue.
This sounds perfectly logical. But consider that such crimes are never even followed up on by the cops. This leaves business owners (by no means "rich" or even well-to-do) at the mercy of people who have no fear of repercussions. This wasn't just a couple of 6-packs of beer to him - it is his livelihood (and of his family). He has a right to protect his business, investment, and hard work. If the police can't do it for him, then it is up to him. Yes. A thief dead is such a waste, but the police aren't doing anything to deter them in order that justice would prevail. It takes death apparently for the police to deem something worthwhile.
killing a thief while in the act of stealing is a bad thing?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.