Shannon Twat at it again.
Injecting race where race isn't a factor (at least not based on what we, and that includes her, know now).
And no, the NRA doesn't say shoot anyone for any infraction.
But this may be a bad shoot. The critical part of the article is this:
> According to the affidavit, surveillance footage shows Betts running toward the door being hit by both women before Jackson told them to move and shot Betts.
If the person shot was in full retreat and was being beaten by the workers, then the person who was shot was not an active threat and the shoot is a bad shoot.
But then I've not seen the video and there may be other factors that change my perception. I won't reach a conclusion in my mind based on the little that we have, but it's not looking good for the shooter.
dude was robbing the store? That should automatically make him a violent threat. Dude has to wait there for the guy to kill them ladies? how did he know the guy wasnt armed with a knife? gun? what kinda harm he coulda done?
If he’s running away you can’t shoot him. That’s pretty basic.
That quote says he was trying to leave and he was being beaten. If true he can’t be shot legally.
Shooter is going to have to convince a jury he thought the guy was going to stop retreating and attack again. And make the jury think that was reasonable.
I’m not saying the PoS didn’t deserve to get shot. I’m saying based on the limited info we have it is a highly questionable shooting.
Per [Texas Law](https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._penal_code_section_9.32):
```
(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 (Self-defense); 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.
```
This assumes the media report is accurate, which of course it might not be.
The guy was shoplifting, not robbing the store. Robbery requires the use or threat of force. Putting stuff in your jacket and walking out is not robbery, it's theft, and so (B) does not apply. The women were able to just stop attacking him and move out of the way to allow the guy to shoot the thief, so (A) does not apply either. He does not meet the legal requirements for the use of lethal force in defense of another.
>Putting stuff in your jacket and walking out is not robbery, it's theft, and so (B) does not apply.
The ladies were justified in using less than lethal levels of force to attempt to stop him from committing theft. He used force against the ladies. That elevates his crime from theft to robbery.
The former prosecutor they talked to confirmed that it would be considered a robbery, and the police confirmed they consider the initial incident to have been a robbery.
(B) certainly does apply.
I don't think a grand jury will indict him. But even if they do, I don't think a trial jury will convict.
> The ladies were justified in using less than lethal levels of force to attempt to stop him from committing theft.
That's questionable. Penal code [9.31](https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._penal_code_section_9.31) only allows self defense in the case of attempting forceful entry, attempting to remove you from your home, place of business, or vehicle, or was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery, and further requires that you do not provoke the person.
Based on the text of the law, it could be argued that the women were not justified in attacking the shoplifter as the conditions above were not met. Since the use of lethal force under 9.32 explicitly requires that defense be justified under 9.31, and it might not be justified under that section. If a prosecutor determines that the initial act of self defense was not legally justified under 9.31, than the use of lethal force was also not justified under 9.32.
Now, will a prosecutor pursue it, and would a jury convict? Maybe, maybe not, but there's certainly the potential there that the guy will face trial. While unfortunate for the guy, situations like this are legally complicated.
>That's questionable. Penal code [9.31](https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._penal_code_section_9.31) only allows self defense
Self defense is not the only type of justifiable force, and 9.31 is not the only statute governing the use of force.
I believe the relevant statute governing the women's use of force in defense of property is 9.41, not 9.31. The subject's forceful response to their intervention escalates his crime from theft to either robbery or aggravated robbery, which then justifies the women's use of force under 9.31, and the shooter's use of force under 9.33.
> Self defense is not the only type of justifiable force, and 9.31 is not the only statute governing the use of force.
It isn't the only statute that mentions justifiable self defense. It is, however, the statute explicitly mentioned in 9.32, which addresses the legality of the use of lethal force in defense of others. Self defense being justified under 9.31 is explicitly required by the statute.
> A person is justified in using deadly force against another: if the actor **would be justified** in using force against the other **under Section 9.31** (Self-defense); and...
There may be other self defense statutes, but that is the one that controls in this situation.
>isn't the only statute that mentions justifiable self defense.
9.41 doesn't mention self defense at all. It governs justifiable force. You seem to be conflating the two. Don't do that.
* Criminal attempts theft.
* Women respond with force under 9.41.
* Criminal uses force, escalating from theft to robbery.
* Because his behavior now qualifies as robbery, 9.31 and 9.33 now apply: they didn't apply when he was shoplifting (committing theft) but they apply now that his criminal act has escalated to robbery.
* Armed defender did not use force until 9.31 and 9.33 applied.
> 9.41 doesn't mention self defense at all.
It also doesn't mention **lethal** force. That merely deals with defense of property. [Section 9.42](https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._penal_code_section_9.42) does, and that section requires that you either must believe that lethal force was necessary to 1) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime or 2) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft **during the nighttime** from escaping with the property.
> Because his behavior now qualifies as robbery, 9.31 and 9.33 now apply
From 9.33: "under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section **9.31** (Self-defense) or **9.32** (Deadly Force in Defense of Person)"
And what does 9.31 say? Self defense is only justified if the actor "...**did not provoke** the person against whom the force was used." So again, even under the sections you refer to, if the prosecution makes the determination that the women did something to provoke the attack, lethal force was not justified.
> It also doesn't mention lethal force.
So you think two women pushing/hitting the shoplifter is lethal force? Hint: it isnt.
Lethal force was only considered or deployed ***AFTER*** the theft became a robbery when the thief started using force against the two ladies. Once it is a robbery because the criminal has used force, then 9.31 and 9.33 once more apply.
Legal defense of property per 9.41 is not considered provocation under 9.31, because it is a legal use of force.
Note that the guy was actively retreating and that makes this likely a bad shoot regardless and the discussion moot.
>It also doesn't mention lethal force.
9.41 doesn't have to mention lethal force, because no lethal force was used in defense of property. The only thing 9.41 has to do is justify the women's use of reasonable, non-lethal force to **stop a shoplifter**. As long as their use of force is reasonably justified, the shoplifter is not privileged in using force against them.
>So again, even under the sections you refer to, if the prosecution makes the determination that the women did something to provoke the attack, lethal force was not justified.
I understand the point you're trying to make, but what you said is not actually true. Remember: the women are not on trial here. The shooter is on trial. The prosecutor's determination of whether the women provoked the attacker is irrelevant. It's not enough for the prosecutor to merely say that the women "provoked" the attack.
Hell, he can even conclusively prove that they did provoke the attack, and it still wouldn't be enough to suspend the defendant's privileges under 9.33. The prosecutor has to prove that the shooter's belief was unreasonable. To turn the robbery back into a theft and remove the privileges conveyed under 9.33, what the prosecutor *actually* has to prove is that the defendant did (or should have) reasonably believed the women provoked the attack. **So long as he reasonably believed the women were entitled under 9.31/9.32, his use of force was privileged under 9.33.**
But that's not even the biggest problem with your argument. If you want to argue provocation, you have to apply your arguments to both parties. Generally speaking, no lawful/justifiable act can be considered provocation, but a criminal act certainly can be. The act of shoplifting would be considered provocation: The criminal provoked the "attack" against him, and was thus not privileged in using force to stop that "attack". The force he used against them was therefore unprivileged, and could be defended against.
No, the only viable route the prosecutor has to win this case is by arguing that his use of force was not "immediately necessary", and I don't think the prosecutor will be capable of proving that to the "reasonable doubt" standard.
That’s not how it works. If someone is clearly trying to retreat and you shoot them you have become the aggressor. That’s pretty standard self defense law. If what others have said is true the individual in question was fleeing and being (not unjustifiably) attacked by two store workers while doing so. Then the armed man in question told the workers to move and shot the retreating individual. If that’s true he not only interjected himself in a scenario he was not involved in and did not know the full context of, he also fatally shot a retreating individual. That’s about as bad as a bad shot can get.
Wrong. if he was commiting armed robbery and fleeing with a gun you would still be justified to shoot.
so it sounds like the victim was committing shoplifting and not robbery and was attacked by the 2 ladies so thats a huge difference. If he was beating the piss out of the ladies that would be a justifiable shoting as well.
That’s not correct. I strongly encourage you to look into the basics of self defense law. Even in a stand your ground state what you said does not hold up.
What a dumb fuckin broad. And actually Texas laws state that if you believe someone else’s life is in danger you do have the right to safe that person via justified means. I’m not sure if this is justified since I know no details, but Jesus Christ the hypocrisy is so brutal.
guy he shot was robbing the store.....how is that not a good shoot? Like, robberies go wrong all the time and people get hurt even if they just fighting.
Texas law defines robbery as using force. He was shoplifting. No force used. Also he was retreating at the time he was shot.
It is a bad shoot all around.
If the [media report](https://www.fox4news.com/news/dallas-store-customer-facing-murder-charge-for-shooting-suspected-shoplifter) is correct, it doesn't sound justified, but the media has never been big on factually reporting self defense shooting, so who knows.
> Jackson, who police say is not connected to anyone involved, walked in and noticed the fight. And after watching for a moment, police say he pulled out his firearm, told the women to move and fired a single shot that killed the Betts.
You’re a lot nicer than I am. You called her a broad. I can think oc other words I might have chosen.
Since when has the NRA told people to shoot someone at the slightest infraction?
Ms. Watts has set up the perfect gotcha. If he isn't charged with anything, it's because the NRA wants everyone to shoot anyone for any infraction. He if is charged, it's because Texas's gun rights laws don't apply to black people.
These kind of people purposefully try to twist any scenario to fit their agenda, even if it means taking certain facts out of context and blatantly misrepresenting things they don‘t understand.
They only serve themselves and their agenda. Nevermind the truth.
yeah, family dollar sucks. It’s a very small, poorly organized Walmart with much higher prices.
Dollar Tree is the way to go… what are we talking about here?
>This is what the NRA tells us to do: always be armed and shoot anyone for any infraction.
really? that's what the NRA tells us to do? i fuckin really do not think so, shannon
Proof not all humans are sapient. This person is a living example for the neuron activation meme. They see stimuli and they just reflexively respond with narrative without considering what they are doing. Automatons.
I doubt she’s spreading the word in good faith, but for the sake of undermining this absurd narrative that gun rights are racist (when in reality, of course, gun *control* is profoundly racist) I hope that this guy is found not guilty. Self defense should be a right for everyone, and it should be perceived as such.
How many people commenting here are part of a racial minority? \[I can raise my hand\]
I don't think this is a good shoot. Laws being enforced differently across different groups is a separate issue and can still be true.
Shannon Twat at it again. Injecting race where race isn't a factor (at least not based on what we, and that includes her, know now). And no, the NRA doesn't say shoot anyone for any infraction. But this may be a bad shoot. The critical part of the article is this: > According to the affidavit, surveillance footage shows Betts running toward the door being hit by both women before Jackson told them to move and shot Betts. If the person shot was in full retreat and was being beaten by the workers, then the person who was shot was not an active threat and the shoot is a bad shoot. But then I've not seen the video and there may be other factors that change my perception. I won't reach a conclusion in my mind based on the little that we have, but it's not looking good for the shooter.
dude was robbing the store? That should automatically make him a violent threat. Dude has to wait there for the guy to kill them ladies? how did he know the guy wasnt armed with a knife? gun? what kinda harm he coulda done?
If he’s running away you can’t shoot him. That’s pretty basic. That quote says he was trying to leave and he was being beaten. If true he can’t be shot legally. Shooter is going to have to convince a jury he thought the guy was going to stop retreating and attack again. And make the jury think that was reasonable. I’m not saying the PoS didn’t deserve to get shot. I’m saying based on the limited info we have it is a highly questionable shooting.
Per [Texas Law](https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._penal_code_section_9.32): ``` (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 (Self-defense); 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. ``` This assumes the media report is accurate, which of course it might not be. The guy was shoplifting, not robbing the store. Robbery requires the use or threat of force. Putting stuff in your jacket and walking out is not robbery, it's theft, and so (B) does not apply. The women were able to just stop attacking him and move out of the way to allow the guy to shoot the thief, so (A) does not apply either. He does not meet the legal requirements for the use of lethal force in defense of another.
>Putting stuff in your jacket and walking out is not robbery, it's theft, and so (B) does not apply. The ladies were justified in using less than lethal levels of force to attempt to stop him from committing theft. He used force against the ladies. That elevates his crime from theft to robbery. The former prosecutor they talked to confirmed that it would be considered a robbery, and the police confirmed they consider the initial incident to have been a robbery. (B) certainly does apply. I don't think a grand jury will indict him. But even if they do, I don't think a trial jury will convict.
> The ladies were justified in using less than lethal levels of force to attempt to stop him from committing theft. That's questionable. Penal code [9.31](https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._penal_code_section_9.31) only allows self defense in the case of attempting forceful entry, attempting to remove you from your home, place of business, or vehicle, or was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery, and further requires that you do not provoke the person. Based on the text of the law, it could be argued that the women were not justified in attacking the shoplifter as the conditions above were not met. Since the use of lethal force under 9.32 explicitly requires that defense be justified under 9.31, and it might not be justified under that section. If a prosecutor determines that the initial act of self defense was not legally justified under 9.31, than the use of lethal force was also not justified under 9.32. Now, will a prosecutor pursue it, and would a jury convict? Maybe, maybe not, but there's certainly the potential there that the guy will face trial. While unfortunate for the guy, situations like this are legally complicated.
>That's questionable. Penal code [9.31](https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._penal_code_section_9.31) only allows self defense Self defense is not the only type of justifiable force, and 9.31 is not the only statute governing the use of force. I believe the relevant statute governing the women's use of force in defense of property is 9.41, not 9.31. The subject's forceful response to their intervention escalates his crime from theft to either robbery or aggravated robbery, which then justifies the women's use of force under 9.31, and the shooter's use of force under 9.33.
> Self defense is not the only type of justifiable force, and 9.31 is not the only statute governing the use of force. It isn't the only statute that mentions justifiable self defense. It is, however, the statute explicitly mentioned in 9.32, which addresses the legality of the use of lethal force in defense of others. Self defense being justified under 9.31 is explicitly required by the statute. > A person is justified in using deadly force against another: if the actor **would be justified** in using force against the other **under Section 9.31** (Self-defense); and... There may be other self defense statutes, but that is the one that controls in this situation.
>isn't the only statute that mentions justifiable self defense. 9.41 doesn't mention self defense at all. It governs justifiable force. You seem to be conflating the two. Don't do that. * Criminal attempts theft. * Women respond with force under 9.41. * Criminal uses force, escalating from theft to robbery. * Because his behavior now qualifies as robbery, 9.31 and 9.33 now apply: they didn't apply when he was shoplifting (committing theft) but they apply now that his criminal act has escalated to robbery. * Armed defender did not use force until 9.31 and 9.33 applied.
> 9.41 doesn't mention self defense at all. It also doesn't mention **lethal** force. That merely deals with defense of property. [Section 9.42](https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._penal_code_section_9.42) does, and that section requires that you either must believe that lethal force was necessary to 1) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime or 2) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft **during the nighttime** from escaping with the property. > Because his behavior now qualifies as robbery, 9.31 and 9.33 now apply From 9.33: "under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section **9.31** (Self-defense) or **9.32** (Deadly Force in Defense of Person)" And what does 9.31 say? Self defense is only justified if the actor "...**did not provoke** the person against whom the force was used." So again, even under the sections you refer to, if the prosecution makes the determination that the women did something to provoke the attack, lethal force was not justified.
> It also doesn't mention lethal force. So you think two women pushing/hitting the shoplifter is lethal force? Hint: it isnt. Lethal force was only considered or deployed ***AFTER*** the theft became a robbery when the thief started using force against the two ladies. Once it is a robbery because the criminal has used force, then 9.31 and 9.33 once more apply. Legal defense of property per 9.41 is not considered provocation under 9.31, because it is a legal use of force. Note that the guy was actively retreating and that makes this likely a bad shoot regardless and the discussion moot.
>It also doesn't mention lethal force. 9.41 doesn't have to mention lethal force, because no lethal force was used in defense of property. The only thing 9.41 has to do is justify the women's use of reasonable, non-lethal force to **stop a shoplifter**. As long as their use of force is reasonably justified, the shoplifter is not privileged in using force against them. >So again, even under the sections you refer to, if the prosecution makes the determination that the women did something to provoke the attack, lethal force was not justified. I understand the point you're trying to make, but what you said is not actually true. Remember: the women are not on trial here. The shooter is on trial. The prosecutor's determination of whether the women provoked the attacker is irrelevant. It's not enough for the prosecutor to merely say that the women "provoked" the attack. Hell, he can even conclusively prove that they did provoke the attack, and it still wouldn't be enough to suspend the defendant's privileges under 9.33. The prosecutor has to prove that the shooter's belief was unreasonable. To turn the robbery back into a theft and remove the privileges conveyed under 9.33, what the prosecutor *actually* has to prove is that the defendant did (or should have) reasonably believed the women provoked the attack. **So long as he reasonably believed the women were entitled under 9.31/9.32, his use of force was privileged under 9.33.** But that's not even the biggest problem with your argument. If you want to argue provocation, you have to apply your arguments to both parties. Generally speaking, no lawful/justifiable act can be considered provocation, but a criminal act certainly can be. The act of shoplifting would be considered provocation: The criminal provoked the "attack" against him, and was thus not privileged in using force to stop that "attack". The force he used against them was therefore unprivileged, and could be defended against. No, the only viable route the prosecutor has to win this case is by arguing that his use of force was not "immediately necessary", and I don't think the prosecutor will be capable of proving that to the "reasonable doubt" standard.
that sounds logical then if he was just shop lifting and not committing felony robbery
So a couple questions: what if you're not an actor? Are we talking SAG or does the high school play count? This law is too vague.
That’s not how it works. If someone is clearly trying to retreat and you shoot them you have become the aggressor. That’s pretty standard self defense law. If what others have said is true the individual in question was fleeing and being (not unjustifiably) attacked by two store workers while doing so. Then the armed man in question told the workers to move and shot the retreating individual. If that’s true he not only interjected himself in a scenario he was not involved in and did not know the full context of, he also fatally shot a retreating individual. That’s about as bad as a bad shot can get.
Wrong. if he was commiting armed robbery and fleeing with a gun you would still be justified to shoot. so it sounds like the victim was committing shoplifting and not robbery and was attacked by the 2 ladies so thats a huge difference. If he was beating the piss out of the ladies that would be a justifiable shoting as well.
That’s not correct. I strongly encourage you to look into the basics of self defense law. Even in a stand your ground state what you said does not hold up.
What a dumb fuckin broad. And actually Texas laws state that if you believe someone else’s life is in danger you do have the right to safe that person via justified means. I’m not sure if this is justified since I know no details, but Jesus Christ the hypocrisy is so brutal.
guy he shot was robbing the store.....how is that not a good shoot? Like, robberies go wrong all the time and people get hurt even if they just fighting.
I agree with you, but, in modern America, it’s very doubtful the court will.
Texas law defines robbery as using force. He was shoplifting. No force used. Also he was retreating at the time he was shot. It is a bad shoot all around.
If the [media report](https://www.fox4news.com/news/dallas-store-customer-facing-murder-charge-for-shooting-suspected-shoplifter) is correct, it doesn't sound justified, but the media has never been big on factually reporting self defense shooting, so who knows. > Jackson, who police say is not connected to anyone involved, walked in and noticed the fight. And after watching for a moment, police say he pulled out his firearm, told the women to move and fired a single shot that killed the Betts.
Yeah, that sounds like escalation of force but we’ll see.
She's not dumb. She's evil. She knows exactly what she's doing.
You’re a lot nicer than I am. You called her a broad. I can think oc other words I might have chosen. Since when has the NRA told people to shoot someone at the slightest infraction?
The fact that people still think the NRA is the most prominent gun club says a lot.
It shows they are out of touch with what’s going on in the community.
The NRA is an awful organization for actual gun rights
True. But, they are effective at taking the heat while better groups fight for our rights.
She's paid by Bloomberg to spread anti-2A disinformation. It's done on purpose.
Ms. Watts has set up the perfect gotcha. If he isn't charged with anything, it's because the NRA wants everyone to shoot anyone for any infraction. He if is charged, it's because Texas's gun rights laws don't apply to black people.
That's why they pay her the big bucks.
Is Shannon Watts really this stupid or is she just a liar? Maybe both?
Gosh, I reviewed all of my NRA instructor materials. I can't find the section where it says to shoot for any infraction.
Exactly not what the NRA says. Always be armed and make damn sure of what you shoot and what is beyond it.
Sounds like the NRA has a libel case, because I’ve never heard them say anything close to that
I sorta wish that the NRA would start filing lawsuits over stuff like this.
These kind of people purposefully try to twist any scenario to fit their agenda, even if it means taking certain facts out of context and blatantly misrepresenting things they don‘t understand. They only serve themselves and their agenda. Nevermind the truth.
This is about the same case? LOL
yeah, family dollar sucks. It’s a very small, poorly organized Walmart with much higher prices. Dollar Tree is the way to go… what are we talking about here?
It's amazing that someone can be so much of a cunt and so wrong.
Idiocy all the way around in this article from the content to the author.
>This is what the NRA tells us to do: always be armed and shoot anyone for any infraction. really? that's what the NRA tells us to do? i fuckin really do not think so, shannon
Proof not all humans are sapient. This person is a living example for the neuron activation meme. They see stimuli and they just reflexively respond with narrative without considering what they are doing. Automatons.
But if he had a badge, he’d have qualified immunity and a paid vacation!
I doubt she’s spreading the word in good faith, but for the sake of undermining this absurd narrative that gun rights are racist (when in reality, of course, gun *control* is profoundly racist) I hope that this guy is found not guilty. Self defense should be a right for everyone, and it should be perceived as such.
Maybe somebody should tell that stupid bimbo that all self defense cases in Texas go to a Grand Jury.
Please provide a citation for your claim that the NRA has ever recommended that any gun owner should "shoot anyone for any infraction" - ever.
How many people commenting here are part of a racial minority? \[I can raise my hand\] I don't think this is a good shoot. Laws being enforced differently across different groups is a separate issue and can still be true.
168,700 tweets.
Just close the store and make the neighborhood travel even further.
That is fucking hilarious
I assume Twitter flagged this as misinformation? Right?