The D&Q Mini Mart on Richmond is a place most people know as a treasure chest for beer runs.
Last Sunday, one man’s beer run provided a lesson that proved fatal for one individual and likely long-lasting for the shop owner and community.
Theft is something that most college students are familiar with in some way or another. Stolen textbooks are a common experience for most college students, and if that student is lucky, this sums up their theft experiences.
For one shop owner, a stolen case of beer was deathly significant. On Sunday night, a 36-year-old man and his wife entered the mini mart and shoplifted beer.
The storeowner, who was aware of the shoplifters, confronted them in front of the store. A brief struggle took place; it ended with the shop owner stabbing the shoplifter before the couple fled from the scene.
According to reports from the Houston Chronicle, the shoplifting couple ran to a gas station down the street where they called for medical aid. The stabbed shoplifter was rushed to Ben Taub General Hospital, where he later died.
The events that took place on Sunday represent a common theme in Texas; self-defense is king. Taking action to prevent crimes and wrongdoings is our right when it comes to our personal property, but we must keep in mind the potential outcomes.
The owner of the mini mart has yet to be charged with any crime, but the case is still under investigation.
The shop owner may have opened himself up to charges of murder in criminal or civil court, all because of some stolen beer. Despite charges that may or not be filed, the shop owner will never be able to ditch the death he caused.
Being stolen from is a terrible experience, but death is even worse. No beer, television or car is worth the life of another human being, and as reasonable people, we must remember that.
There is a fine line between fighting for your life and fighting to prove a point.
Moral of the story: Don't steal. Don't turn good people, upholding universal values, into criminals and make them live with the consequences because of the poor the choice you chose to make yourself. The man that runs that shop is kind to all of his customers, has young children, and works hard to run an honest family business. Before you write an editorial of judgment based on limited facts from the Houston Chronicle release, you should wait for more details.
They're lucky it was only a knife and not a loaded gun. The fact of the matter is the couple committed a crime, end of discussion. If the man and the clerk got into an altercation then that means BOTH parties were involved and it was full within the clerk's right to stab him in order to end the altercation. It was NOT the clerk merely stabbing him only because he stole a case of beer. Next you'll say its a tragedy and travesty for a victim to get the upper hand and shoot and kill somebody who is trying to mug them.
BTW my reply was more or less aimed at the CEB, not you Montrose Lefty.
the shop owner is scum and should be charged with manslaughter. despite montrose lefty and zed's ball-less revenge fantasies imply, the correct way to confront a shoplifter is not stabbing him to death.
but yeah thank god that guy didn't have to eat that ~$25.
Cakewalk you're scum and worthless scum at that if you honestly think its okay for the couple to have broken the law over beer of all things. Like I said the man and clerk got into an altercation meaning the man was not defenseless, he fought back. The clerk was trying to apprehend him and its pretty obvious it escalated into a much more serious fight that the clerk wasn't able to detain the thief by normal means and had to stab him in order to subdue him. It wasn't a case of the clerk simply stabbing him over nothing, the man not only stole from him but tried to do him more harm by physically harming the clerk as the clerk was justifiably trying to apprehend the thief and as Lisa pointed out was fully within his right to use deadly force. Troll much? You know what? Don't even answer that, the answer is pretty obvious and thats giving you a very very generous benefit of the doubt that you have an inkling of common sense to piece together bits and pieces of information to form a logical conclusion.
yeah okay a bunch of pseudo-intellectual chaff, got it. anyway, you value human life less than a pack of beer. do you not get how disgusting and gross that is? that if someone commits even a petty crime like shoplifting, you believe that their life is instantly forfeit and they deserve to die. can't wait for the next news story about someone in saudi arabia being executed for theft so you can sound off about how barbaric it is.
your worldview is that of an extremely sheltered weakling. one of those guys who gets all twitchy when someone looks at them funny. my guess is that life has beaten you down pretty badly and so for comfort you fantasize about Making The Bad Guys Pay in whatever gutless way you can manage, even if it means cheerleading for a murderer.
Yeah keep playing the idiot (oh wait.) Theres a pretty clear distinction in this case, the thief fought back. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to put two and two together to figure out that it obviously must have became a serious fight if the clerk had to stab the thief to end the altercation. Better yet, why hasn't the clerk been brought to justice if this is such a serious "offense"? Why hasn't there been any lawsuits from the thief's family for this wrongful "murder"? Because they don't have a case. If the cops wanted to prosecute the clerk they would've had immediate evidence and testimony to do so via the store's security cameras and testimony from the thief's wife. She was there and saw the whole thing and the tapes would either support or refute her testimony. Maybe, just maybe its because not just because the law is on the clerk's side but also because like I said it became a serious fight when the clerk was trying to stop the thief.
Is it wrong for the clerk to have tried to stop a thief? Just in general. Is that wrong? Is it wrong for VICTIMS to stand up against CRIMINALS in general? If you honestly believe otherwise you're just proving my point that you're worthless scum.
i was never arguing the law's interpretation of his actions but it is worth noting that nowhere in the article does it say that the owner will not be charged, just that charges have not yet been filed. unfortunately, this being texas, he probably won't be charged.
it is not wrong to stop a thief from stealing something. it IS wrong to kill them to retain your property, if there is no imminent threat to life and limb. the owner chose to use lethal force to defend property, not his own life. this is gruesomely immoral if you believe that human life is more valuable than property.
treating petty thieves like monsters because they Broke The Law is for greasy loners who fantasize about being vigilantes because they got mugged once. no one likes that guy, zed. not a single soul.
Like I said they wouldn't have a case, its a matter of what happened. The crook fought back when the clerk was trying to stop him. The clerk defended himself. Its definitely quite likely the clerk wasn't thinking and didn't even think that him stabbing the thief would result in the crook dying. However he was not wrong at all from defending himself.
I don't think human life is less valuable than property, I do think however that victims have every right to defend themselves against criminals even if by doing so the criminal ends up dying. I would rather a crook die than the victim. Theres no gray area there, if the crook is threatening the life of the victim the victim is well within their inherent rights as a human being to defend themselves by any means necessary (I'm sure the clerk did not know if the thief was hiding any weapons on his person or not seeing as he simply snatched the beer and made a run for it and I do not blame the clerk for not taking any chances either seeing as trying to stop the thief resulted in the thief trying to fight him in order to keep a case of beer of all things.)
haha "better stab this shoplifter to death, just to be sure!"
i would rather no one die, as opposed to the owner missing his two cans of beer. but that's because i don't get off on developmentally-delayed revenge fantasies.
So you think its fine that victims shouldn't defend themselves? "Oh its perfectly fine if some arrogant punk is trying to beat the crap out of me. Oh he wants to kill me? Well I just won't fight back. Oh that will show him and get him to stop!" No, in the real world if someone is trying to do you harm you fight back. If they are threatening your life its either them or you, you are better off dead if you think its just fine to not defend yourself. The clerk didn't know if the thief was armed or not, all he knew was the thief was fighting back and probably kicking his ass if he had to use a knife to attempt to subdue him.
If the clerk let the thief run off without giving chase he would've been a terrible employee.
If the clerk tried to stop the thief but got killed instead it would've been a tragedy.
And yet the clerk accidentally killing the thief in self-defense after the thief was fighting him makes him a murderer? Do you ever take a moment to even read some of the trash you spew out?
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means.
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"
Case Rested.
The thief escalated to violence when challenged and thus his death is his own damn fault. Unless you think the owner was morally wrong to try to verbally prevent the theft at all.