You Won’t Believe Why This 7-Eleven Clerk Shot A Thief In The Head

First, this clerk is not a responsible gun owner for multiple reasons. The first being that the gun turned out to be stolen. Second, you don’t shoot someone for stealing some beer.

In Las Vegas, 55-year-old Mariano Tejeda-Zuniga was arrested and booked on attempted murder with a deadly weapon and possession of a stolen firearm charges after he followed an alleged beer thief out of the 7-Eleven he works at and shot in him the head. The man stealing the beer is expected to survive, even though the bullet entered the back of his head and exited through his face.

In an interview, Tejeda-Zuniga stated he had bought the handgun from a person for $400. He said his store had been hit by thieves recently and he bought the firearm to scare anyone who may steal from the store.

The document also stated the worker later hid the gun under a stack of cups inside the store because he was scared.

As it turns out, the gun registration was traced back to the actual owner who had recently reported the firearm stolen.

[ad location=”Posts – Middle Post”]

During the interview with police, Tejeda-Zuniga was seemingly surprised that he would be in trouble for what he did. It’s almost like he thought it was ok to shoot someone in the back of the head for trying to steal some beer.

Now, had the thief displayed a firearm of his own, then you have justified cause to use deadly force to stop a threat. But, remember that this firearm was actually stolen. Tejeda-Zuniga says that he purchased it from a person for $400 which may be true but according to Clark County law:

As of October 1, 2007, Clark County requires individuals who are in the county for more than sixty days to register their handguns with local law enforcement. Registration of newly acquired handguns must be within seventy-two hours after taking title by purchase, gift or other transfer.

So unless this firearm was purchased in the last seventy-two hours, it was not legally owned in that county. Legalities over the firearm aside, this was not a self-defense situation and did not warrant the firing of this firearm.