In Texas?

[Boogahz]

Granted, this was here in Travis County, which is nothing like the rest of Texas (blue island in a red state), but....probation for murder and tampering with evidence?


Store clerk gets probation in shooting death of beer thief

The clerk shot a guy that was running away after stealing a 12 pack of beer from the convenience store he was working at.

He got 8 years probation...

[Aslanna]

8 years probation? That's way too long! If you're not doing anything wrong you don't have to worry about getting shot in the back.

[Boogahz]

Hey now! He said he fired a warning shot....then shot 15 more times! The video of him going back into the store smiling and laughing after killing the guy was just sick.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

I am actually surprised he got a conviction at all with the deadly force to protect property laws in Texas.

[Boogahz]

I think the specific part of the law which stated that he had to be unable to retrieve the stolen property without deadly force is what got him convicted at all. The State does make it "easier" to justify deadly force in defense of one's property. That is another sticking point. The property was not technically his, as he was just an employee at the store. The owner had also instructed him NOT to chase down anyone that stole from the store.

Eight years probation is just strange, especially around here. I mean, he was eligible for just probation due to no previous criminal history, but this was much less than what was expected out of this one.

[Boogahz]

So, Judge threw out the Jury's guilty verdict on the murder charge because of a recent change by the Legislation which took away probation sentences for murder. It was then downgraded by the attorneys who agreed on a guilty plea to manslaughter...and 8 years probation which runs concurrent with the tampering with evidence sentence.

Something just doesn't feel right about the whole thing...

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/man ... 96649.html

[miir]

After learning of the mistake Wednesday, state District Judge Julie Kocurek threw out the jury's verdict

That's some pretty fucked up logic.
He was convicted of murder but becuase they fucked up on the sentencing, they throw out the murder conviction?
And then give him a conviction that matches the sentencing?


Either way, he's basically getting nothing for the murder err manslaughter as the 8 years probation for tampering with evidence hasn't changed.

[Boogahz]

yeah, that is part of what makes no sense to me. In Texas, the guilt and sentencing phases are two separate things. I would think that they would either throw out everything and retry the case,or throw out the sentencing and force the jurors to find one that fits the crime they found him guilty of. The jury found him guilty of murder. That means that the State was able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that multiple points were met to prove his guilt. How they can prove all of that, have a jury find that the facts agreed that those were met, and then throw that out for something else is beyond me.

Always thought it was more of a "make the punishment fit the crime," rather than "make the crime fit the punishment."

Reading the juror comments from after the trial, I think it would be easier to say that they did not truly believe he was guilty, and they should not have come back with that verdict if there was that much doubt during deliberations.

[miir]

Another thing that doesn't seem to make much sense...

Romero said he did not verbally warn Vielma and saw no weapon in Vielma's hand, but that he believed he had the right to shoot under Texas law.

If he believed he had the right to shoot him, why did he lie to the cops when they came to investigate reports of 'shots fired'.
If he believed he did nothing wrong, why did he try to hide the shell casings and delete the security camera footage?