Posted on 08/18/2009 6:30:34 AM PDT by Bubba_Leroy
A clerk at a Ben White Boulevard convenience store has been charged with murder after police say he shot and killed a man who was stealing a 12-pack of Budweiser early Sunday morning.
Jorge Luis Vielma, 22, and another man were on a "beer run," according to police, and attempted to flee after taking the beer. Police say Juan Romero, 23, a clerk at the Shell gasoline station at Ben White and South First Street, fired about a dozen shots at Vielma outside the store as he ran for a friend's waiting Mitsubishi Eclipse.
Vielma later died inside the car; his body was found early Sunday in the 1000 block of Mansell Avenue in East Austin.
Romero was charged Sunday with first-degree murder and was being held Monday at the Travis County Jail. His bail has been set at $250,000. If convicted, he could face up to life in prison.
According to an arrest affidavit, Vielma and a friend, David Campos, 30, were looking for a store to take beer from and settled on the Shell station. Campos told police that he parked the car while Vielma went inside for the beer. Campos said he then saw Vielma emerge running from the store and a short man with a limp in pursuit firing at him.
After Vielma made it back to the car, Campos said that he went "into shock" and drove mindlessly to Mansell Avenue, abandoned the car and fled. He later called 911 to anonymously report the shooting, according to the affidavit.
Police found the car, which was registered to Campos, shortly after 1 a.m. Sunday. When police arrived at Campos' apartment on East Oltorf Street, he was in the process of reporting his car as stolen, according to the arrest affidavit, but police said he soon admitted his role in the incident. Police didn't say whether Campos would be charged.
Police said they later interviewed Romero, who said he fired a pistol about 12 times at Vielma, picked up the shell casings and put them in his vehicle.
He also told police that he picked up the beer dropped by Vielma and threw it into a trash bin, and he deleted images of the incident from the store's video surveillance system.
Sgt. Joseph Chacon said that although Texas law allows residents to take reasonable measures to defend their property, officials determined that, "at least on the face of it," the shooting was not reasonable.
He said it did not appear that Vielma was armed at the time of the theft.
Chacon said police are still trying to determine who owned the gun used in the shooting. The store's owner, José Carranza, told police that he had not authorized Romero to use deadly force to protect the store's property.
Carranza said Monday that he did not know where Romero got the gun and that firearms are not kept in the store.
Theft, however, has been a constant problem for Carranza and his clerks, he said.
A sign taped to the door of the store addresses beer theft: "Due to the high number of dishonest people grabbing and running away (and) stealing our beer, we must require prepayment for beer."
Carranza said that people have stolen from the store at least 10 times this year and that store clerks were robbed at gunpoint four times in the past two years.
Each time, Carranza said, he was unable to get the attention of police, even though his workers were being threatened.
"I'm frustrated with police," Carranza said. "They told us that's not our priority. Now it's a priority because somebody got hurt."
Statistics from police on incident reports at that address were not immediately available.
Consulting police records, Cpl. Scott Perry said there have been several thefts, but only one report of a robbery at the store in the past two years — in November — and that the suspect in that case was not armed. A robbery is defined as threatening or causing injury in the course of committing a theft.
The clerk made the latest perp pay with his life for all the other perps that committed all the other robberies? That really doesn’t make much sense to me. What about Texas law? What about knowledge of the proper circumstances where deadly force should be used?
Ping for later...
He should be charged with murder. If not for being a part of the crime, then for leaving his accomplice to die in an abandoned car.
But pay some attention to a habitual reoccurring crime that threatens the existence of a small business ?
The same PD likes to park an empty cruiser on Loop 1/MOPAC close to the 183 exchange during 5 PM rush hour and back up traffic to the river. They also seem to like to have two motorcycle cops sit under the Steck overpass and see how much they can slow traffic in the PM. Last year, they also parked an empty cruiser at the 183 to MOPAC ramp for several days. BUT, don't worry about reoccurring crime in an area like this.
Each time, Carranza said, he was unable to get the attention of police, even though his workers were being threatened.
...
Maybe the clerk should have simply shot at the tires of the car. The robbers would have fled on foot, and the cops could easily track down the robbers from the license plate.
I feel really sorry for people who have to work as convenience store clerks. My brother was once late for a family function because he went into a store and saw no one there. Then he heard a somebody gasping “I’ve been shot”. The clerk was on the floor behind the counter. My brother helped out until the police/ambulance came.
I agree with the folks on this thread who are saying that the proper penalty for petty theft is not death. But I think some more effective deterrence is called for than just letting somebody run away.
I guess we’ll see what a jury thinks when it comes to trial. I doubt they’ll ever convict him of murder even in Austin, Tx. The law and the jury will make the interpretation.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2318619/posts?page=85#85
I doubt he can afford an attorney so he’ll get a court appointed one who will plea bargain to lesser charges. Deferred adjudication might be possible if this is his first run-in with the law.
I clearly said I would not shoot the guy, but if this clerk had been robbed numerous times at gunpoint, then I could undertsand his actions.
Conditions of use
Each state differs with respect to the specific instances in which the Castle Doctrine can be invoked, and what degree of retreat or non-deadly resistance (if any) is required before deadly force can be used.
In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:
An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.
The intruder must be acting illegally—e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary (CHECK)
The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the “Duty to retreat” and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of “Castle Doctrine” expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)
In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law, must not be using the Castle Doctrine to aid or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use deadly force upon an officer of the law or an officer of the peace while they are performing or attempting to perform their legal duties.
Note: the term “home” is used because most states only apply their Castle Doctrine to a place of residence; however, some states extend the protection to other legally-occupied places such as automobiles and places of business.
Texas is a state that extends the castle doctrine to businesses. The person was in the process of committing a felony... He met the requirements, the shooting was justified.
Yes but it has to be "reasonable" force. The cop didn't think it was reasonable since it wasn't his store that was robbed.
I hope the DA is more reasonable and refuses to prosecute.
No, of course not; neither am I. I'm saying that gun education should start with tiny children, from the "no-no don't touch" stage to 12th graders having target practice and education from Eddie Eagle about protocol, and everything in between. After that, if they want to exercise RKBA, it's up to them, but they will know the rules, respect, and mechanics of the whole thing.
You're right about the driving analogy.
You hit the nail on the head. That's one reason jury nullification is so important.
There's no way I'd vote to convict the clerk of any charge.
I think you’re going to have to find if unarmed shoplifting is a felony.
I think the clerk is going to be ok due to a nighttime robbery in progress.
The odd thing with the libs is they don’t want firearms safety in the schools but they want mandatory training to own a gun.
????????????????????
I was in a 7-11 about 11:00 PM and there was this teenager stacking up a couple of 12-packs in the isle. He waited a sec and then bolted for the door. the clerk just watched him go. I talked with the clerk and said “You could see that coming a mile away-Why did you let him do it”
The clerk said “Company policy. No force allowed.”
Just Free Beer, I guess.
furthermore, the idea that this clerk is guilty for over reacting in a situtation is absurd...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.