TexasCHLforum.com

Right now, after eleven hours of deliberation, the jury is hung. I found this interesting:

However, prosecutors argue Romero committed murder because Vielma ran away, dropped the beer, and did not have a weapon.

The law reads:

§ 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.

So the prosecutors are arguing that he followed the law and therefore should be found guilty of murder? I can see why the jury is deadlocked. Some jurors are saying, "The law says....and therefore he's not guilty" and other jurors are saying, "But he didn't have to use deadly force...."

If he dropped the beer, then it sounds like he wasn't "escaping with the property".

I haven't followed this, so I have no opinion. I just thought I would point that out.

baldeagle wrote:Right now, after eleven hours of deliberation, the jury is hung. I found this interesting:

However, prosecutors argue Romero committed murder because Vielma ran away, dropped the beer, and did not have a weapon.

The law reads:

§ 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.

So the prosecutors are arguing that he followed the law and therefore should be found guilty of murder? I can see why the jury is deadlocked. Some jurors are saying, "The law says....and therefore he's not guilty" and other jurors are saying, "But he didn't have to use deadly force...."

If nothing else, this thread clearly demonstrates that shooting people, for whatever reason/s, is not a cut and dried and/or clearly defined "guilty or not guilty" situation. I bet it ain't cheap either.

Oldgringo wrote:If nothing else, this thread clearly demonstrates that shooting people, for whatever reason/s, is not a cut and dried and/or clearly defined "guilty or not guilty" situation. I bet it ain't cheap either.

EXACTLY! Just because you CAN, doesn't mean you SHOULD.

From what I'm seeing here is he failed to follow the prime directive of deadly force encounters - - - "The only time to shoot is when the only thing worse than shooting is NOT shooting." revjen45 on StoppingPower.net
I tell my CHL students that I think there is little or no property worth the anguish and expense of shooting someone over and everyone is responsible for their own salvation. We pay insurance premiums to protect us financially from losses. Shooting much less killing someone who was only swiping a 12 pack and is not threatening you is not the time to shoot. I realize that repeated losses of merchandise is frustrating but ??????

Murder conviction, 8 years' probation for store clerk who killed beer thief
Jurors had deliberated for 13 hours in guilt/innocence phase.

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/mur ... 86762.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I really don't understand this conviction combined with this sentence. How can you be guilty of murder, but receive no jail time? It was obviously a very split jury, and I guess they thought this was some sort of compromise or something. But for those who don't think he murdered anyone, this verdict does put that stain on his record (guess he won't be owning another gun ever again). And for those who think he truly was guilty of murder, no prison time is a travesty.

I thought this was an obvious case of justified deadly force (though only by a very thin string clinging to a narrow reading of penal code) but that he would have the book thrown at him for the tampering with evidence stuff. I thought he'd do a year or more in prison for the tampering with no conviction at all for the killing.

Even in my very earliest cowboy movies, better than a half century ago, "backshooters" were looked upon with disdain. I reckon it must be true; there is nothing new under the sun.

I think I know why he was convicted.

A police officer testified that when he responded to a call of shots fired at the convenience store, Romero said nothing had happened. When police arrived at Romero's house later to interview him again, he gave them his 9 mm semiautomatic Smith & Wesson pistol and told detectives that he had fired 16 shots. He also said he knew he had hit Vielma because he saw blood on the pavement after Vielma fled in a car.

Romero told detectives that he did not call police because police had done little in response to past complaints about thefts at the store. His interview with police was played to the jury.

You don't shoot someone and then not call the police. When the police come anyway (because someone is going to hear the shots and call 911), you don't tell them nothing happened when you've shot someone. You don't tell the police how many shots you fired. Let them figure that out. And you don't tell the police you know you hit the bad guy, because that tells them that everything you said previously was a coverup.

What this guy did was within the law, but everything he did subsequently got him convicted of murder. He made himself look guilty. Now, when an armed robber comes into his store, he will be defenseless. Stupid.

The comments of the family of the deceased are disgusting.

Vielma's father, Jorge Vielma, said after the trial that the jury should have sentenced Romero to prison.

"I don't think it's right," he said. "He killed my son for no reason."

No, he killed your son because he was a thief.

Vielma's stepmother, Sherry Vielma, said her stepson should have been prosecuted for a Class C misdemeanor and "not executed and shot in the back." Romero did not testify during the trial.

And wouldn't it be nice if the police would actually investigate the crimes and charge her son with a Class C misdemeanor? He was shot, in part, because the Austin police could care less if a store is being constantly shoplifted.

Jorge Vielma wanted to have children and was always asking her what their names should be, Faxon wrote in the letter.

"He was always joking and his smile lit up his face," the letter said. "Jorge did not have a mean bone in his body and never held a grudge. I cry for him everyday."

No mean bones, just a thieving nature. Spare us the tripe about your son's character. He was a criminal, plain and simple.

austinrealtor wrote:Murder conviction, 8 years' probation for store clerk who killed beer thief. I really don't understand this conviction combined with this sentence. How can you be guilty of murder, but receive no jail time? It was obviously a very split jury, and I guess they thought this was some sort of compromise or something.

I agree that the jury reached some kind of compromise. Some jurors probably thought that he should be found guilty of something for killing a person, but didn't believe that he did it maliciously or that he was an evil person who deserved a prison sentence.

@baldeagle - really agree with every single word of your post

He fired 16 shots of 9 from a quality (Smith and Wesson) pistol
and ony hit the guy once??

SIA

My guess - and it's only a guess - is that the jury convicted him because he admitted to firing shots after the perp dropped the beer, so he was no longer trying to prevent the thief from escaping with the property, per 9.42(2)(B)

9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property . . . (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: . . . (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;

I suspect that erasing video - unsuccessfully, at that - was more of a jury red flag for "evidence tampering" than cleaning up cases and dropped beer . . . though I personally wouldn't regard it as "evidence" until after police defined it as such. (And I'm aware my opinion means squat to a court unless I'm actually on the jury.) One lesson here is - if you're going to erase video, make sure it's gone beyond recovery.

His statements to police without benefit of counsel certainly helped to do him in; this ought to be a lesson to all of us: LAWYER UP before talking to police. I suspect his video statements to police plus his demeanor made the jury not like him very much, so they convicted him . . . but since they didn't like the thief very much either, they didn't recommend prison time.

HankB wrote:I suspect his video statements to police plus his demeanor made the jury not like him very much, so they convicted him

you're probably right. i guess jury nullification goes both ways. this time it seems possible that the jury convicted him of a crime he didn't commit. (again, not saying the guy is innocent as a newborn baby - he certainly tampered with evidence etc. but MURDER seems an awfully long stretch to me).

austinrealtor wrote:

HankB wrote:I suspect his video statements to police plus his demeanor made the jury not like him very much, so they convicted him

you're probably right. i guess jury nullification goes both ways. this time it seems possible that the jury convicted him of a crime he didn't commit. (again, not saying the guy is innocent as a newborn baby - he certainly tampered with evidence etc. but MURDER seems an awfully long stretch to me).

I haven't been following this case, but his conviction would depend on the charges filed against him. If the DA filed only charges for murder, and not manslaughter, then the jury only had one choice - Guilty or Not Guilty.

Juries have a lot of latitude. In the first case I worked on, our client who was clearly guilty of escaping from a minimum security prison, was found not guilty because of the circumstances surrounding his escape (he had pretty good reasons including his own safety) and his exemplary behavior after his escape. He still had to go back and finish his sentence though.

In this case, as another poster stated, this guy got convicted because he did everything wrong after the shooting.