Not much to the story has came out yet. I’ll probably follow it in detail as it unfolds.
DALLAS – A man shot and killed the person who tried to rob his wife outside a popular Dallas grocery store.
It happened Tuesday night at the Aldi store on Forest Lane and Webb Chapel Road.
According to police reports, the elderly couple was walking to their car when a man approached them.
The suspect grabbed a gold necklace off the woman’s neck and knocked her to the ground in an attempt to rob her, police said.
The woman’s husband was carrying a concealed handgun and fired multiple shots, police said.
The 36-year-old suspect jumped in a car and tried to drive away, but ended up crashing in the parking lot and dying. His name has not yet been released.
Police said the husband does have a valid concealed handgun license.
His wife and other witnesses told police the shooting was in self-defense.
The case will be referred to a grand jury.
A couple of key points here — is there a disparity of force here?
I would argue probably yes; given the stated ages of the criminal and the victims. Certainly a disparity of force existed between the wife and the criminal.
Second — an earlier report had the shots being fired as the criminal drove away (not that it would make much difference here in Texas) but this report shows the shots being fired during the commission of the crime. So, how does the State of Texas view this type of shooting. Let’s look at the penal code,
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
So, without a duty to retreat and clearly there was a robbery or aggravated robbery in progress; the Concealed Handgun License holder had the legal authority for his actions.
This report on WFAA indicates the robber may have been trying to get away when he was shot. Of course, this being Texas we have that covered also.
That’s right — a legal justification for the use of deadly force regarding protection of property.
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 the nighttime, 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.
Criminals, you might want to consider that when you think about committing ‘just a robbery’, is it possibly worth your life to take something that doesn’t belong to you?
Left out of the report is how close the car was, how fast all of it went down. There is a world of difference in “He was driving away when he was shot” and”He immediately jumped in the car as the victim’s husband started shooting.” Both may technically be correct but the second shows how shooting could happened during the crime instead of minutes later.
Personally, I think this is a great law. Criminals shouldn’t get a free pass simply because they are “getting away” and “only stole property”. The criminal who pushed down an elderly lady risked her life doing so; isn’t it only fair he risks his life committing the crime.
Please join the discussion.