Pizza-purveying personnel pummel pistol-packing-punk

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

https://thefox.iheart.com/content/2024-10-17-pizzeria-employees-beat-down-armed-would-be-thief/

 

 

 

Edited Saturday at 04:18 PM by \GoBillsInDallas/

[Steve O]

Holy cow the manager beat the crap out of him. Kids lucky the gun jammed or he'd be dead. 

[US Egg]

So that’s what a pizza face looks like.

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

1 minute ago, US Egg said:

So that’s what a pizza face looks like.

 

[Steve O]

Guess it's best to find out early that you're not going to make it as a criminal. Hope the kid learns a trade in prison.

[Saxum]

7 hours ago, \GoBillsInDallas/ said:

https://www.fox7austin.com/news/austin-pizza-restaurant-employees-beat-man-richard-curtis-rob-marcos-pizza-texas

 

 

Like the house robber who fell through glass panel on roof he which broke under his weight probably will be cleared.

[BuffaloBill]

6 hours ago, Steve O said:

Holy cow the manager beat the crap out of him. Kids lucky the gun jammed or he'd be dead. 

 

 

The manager may be lucky too. Hard to say what the circumstances were but you can’t simply shoot the guy because you are mad. Probably self defense is plausible but maybe not. 

[Steve O]

2 hours ago, BuffaloBill said:

 

 

The manager may be lucky too. Hard to say what the circumstances were but you can’t simply shoot the guy because you are mad. Probably self defense is plausible but maybe not. 

Texas is a stand your ground state. Chances of getting off on self defense are better there than in many other states but as you say, maybe not. 

Edited Thursday at 09:56 PM by Steve O

[LeviF]

17 hours ago, BuffaloBill said:

 

 

The manager may be lucky too. Hard to say what the circumstances were but you can’t simply shoot the guy because you are mad. Probably self defense is plausible but maybe not. 

 

15 hours ago, Steve O said:

Texas is a stand your ground state. Chances of getting off on self defense are better there than in many other states but as you say, maybe not. 

 

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)

 

 

Edited Friday at 01:01 PM by LeviF

[Steve O]

15 minutes ago, LeviF said:

 

 

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)

 

 

The statute leaves a lot to interpretation. At the point where the gun jammed there was no longer imminent danger. Interestingly, that phrase is not used in the statute. However, the "other" did attempt to commit aggravated robbery. He was also attempting to enter unlawfully and with force. Therefore, the presumption is that the use of deadly force was reasonable. In Texas it would be pretty tough to find 12 people to vote guilty given the vagueness of the statute. The owner would stand a pretty good chance of getting off even though the use of deadly force was no longer necessary to prevent imminent danger. At least that's how I'm reading it. Not sure of the point you were trying to make?

[LeviF]

1 minute ago, Steve O said:

The statute leaves a lot to interpretation. At the point where the gun jammed there was no longer imminent danger. Interestingly, that phrase is not used in the statute. However, the "other" did attempt to commit aggravated robbery. He was also attempting to enter unlawfully and with force. Therefore, the presumption is that the use of deadly force was reasonable. In Texas it would be pretty tough to find 12 people to vote guilty given the vagueness of the statute. The owner would stand a pretty good chance of getting off even though the use of deadly force was no longer necessary to prevent imminent danger. At least that's how I'm reading it. Not sure of the point you were trying to make?

 

I wasn't trying to make a point. "Stand your ground" means different things in different places so it can be helpful to show what it means in (in this case) Texas. Brings some clarity to discussions of hypothetical legal consequences.

[Steve O]

11 minutes ago, LeviF said:

 

I wasn't trying to make a point. "Stand your ground" means different things in different places so it can be helpful to show what it means in (in this case) Texas. Brings some clarity to discussions of hypothetical legal consequences.

Got it. The statute is likely intentionally vague to give all possible advantage to would be victims. And to serve as a warning to would be perpetrators. As mentioned on another post on this thread, hope the kid learns a trade in prison because he isn't cut out for a life of crime.

[Ned Flanders]

On 10/17/2024 at 5:58 AM, \GoBillsInDallas/ said:

https://www.fox7austin.com/news/austin-pizza-restaurant-employees-beat-man-richard-curtis-rob-marcos-pizza-texas

 

Clicked on the link and it said page not found.

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

On 10/18/2024 at 9:26 AM, Ned Flanders said:

Clicked on the link and it said page not found.

 

https://thefox.iheart.com/content/2024-10-17-pizzeria-employees-beat-down-armed-would-be-thief/