Did you ever shoplift as a kid? Run out with candy? I did. Should we shoot them too?

You use deadly force when deadly force is needed. Deadly force wasn't warranted in this situation and it is the government's job to protect its citizens from vigilante justice.

He was a petty theif. He didn't hold up the place to take the beer. Haven't you ever stole anything from a store when younger? Pack of gum??

What rights? To live rights? Yeah right. They didn't show deadly force, therefore deadly force should not be used. This isn't a liberal agenda. It is a protection the government needs to uphold.

protection of thieves?

I would consider that reasonable. His actions go to mens rea and destruction of evidence is a crime. He may have to go to trial for the shooting simply because of that.

is it worth killing someone over a case of beer, you wouldn't think. but who knows, maybe clerk is also store owner and thats the XX time somebody has stolen beer........

i wouldn't think so, even if it was a "clean" shoot, atty fee's to go in ft of the grand jury are gonna cost you more then a case of beer.

texas law:

PENAL CODE
TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.


Sec. 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.


--------------------------------------------------------
and if he's only a clerk
--------------------------------------------------------


SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

And in this case he pursued, then threw away the item that was stolen. Sounds like the item in question wasn't seen to be worth defending.

Well I guess he's going to prison.

arrested and charged doesn't mean he's going to prison, it means arrested and charged.

I understand that but barring jury nullification, it sounds like he's up shit creek.