General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
ExciteBike66
(2,700 posts)
elleng
(141,926 posts)
Hassin Bin Sober
(27,461 posts)The shot in the back/head after he disarmed the guy was not defense of others.
dchill
(42,660 posts)Paladin
(32,354 posts)
Irish_Dem
(81,248 posts)Including the ones holding the guns.
If LE had seen the guy shoot the robber, they could have shot him not understanding the situation.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)How about: nobody should make a judgement based on a short video clip without sound?
Shermann
(9,062 posts)There is rarely if ever this kind of evidence in a justified self-defense shooting.
Shermann
(9,062 posts)The robber did not aim the "gun" at the shooter but was threatening others in the immediate vicinity. It would have been reasonable for anybody in that situation to feel their life was threatened. The robber's back was to the shooter at the instant of the shot, but he was not attempting to flee nor deescalate the situation. That only served to create the opportunity to use deadly force to stop the threat.
It isn't even necessary to claim defense of others in my opinion. He was defending himself.
nini
(16,830 posts)But he’ll get away with it because he’s white and the robber is black.
The robber was wrong and I’m not defending that but to shoot him on his way out is hardly self defense.
Shermann
(9,062 posts)"On his way out" was far from certain, it would have been reasonable for anybody in the shooter's position to still feel threatened. That's where the legal bar is.
nini
(16,830 posts)With his back to the shooter.
Now if he had turned and aimed the gun in the direction of the shooter then yes - self defense.
IF he had shot him when he first walked past him swinging the gun that would have made more sense too.
But this Texas so it won’t matter.
Shermann
(9,062 posts)Turning his back and walking in the direction of the door didn't instantly deescalate the situation from life-threatening to non-life threatening. The threat remained until it was forcibly stopped, and it would have been reasonable to feel threatened throughout the event. These are the significant aspects from a legal perspective.
nini
(16,830 posts)Robbers don’t generally hang around a scene after getting what they came after.
This situation happened to my dad years ago. He was a retired lapd detective and could’ve taken the guy out too but because he was trained, he watched the guy and let it play out. He did help identify the guy and he was arrested.
My point is the guy’s timing was odd to me. He’ll be fine and become a gun nuts hero. Hoorah America. The comments on that YouTube link are sick.
Shermann
(9,062 posts)It's not like he had his gun at the ready. If he dug around in his waistband for a firearm while the robber was watching or training a weapon on him, he could've gotten himself shot.
This wasn't the best possible outcome, of course. Good on your father for taking a risk and getting the better outcome. But that can't be required from a legal perspective.
It's an interesting discussion but post #13 cites the actual law and wins the debate.
egduj
(881 posts)But the other guy waving his own gun around, pointing it at people and threatening to kill them if they don't give him their money, kinda muddies the situation a bit.
Takket
(23,714 posts)you have no idea what that robber intends to do once he's taken everyone's money. he's already at the point of terrorizing people with a weapon pointed at them, where the only thing between you being alive and dead is whether he decides to pull the trigger, and that is plenty close enough to death for someone to be justified in fearing for their life.
to be quite specific... this event took place and Texas... the actual law:
Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor: (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used: (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or (C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm
ripcord
(5,553 posts)As soon as you threaten someone with a weapon you deserve to be a target.
Shermann
(9,062 posts)You rob, you rape, you die.
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)Shooting the man while he was already down (including the coup de grâce to his head) was a criminal act.
Voluntary manslaughter is the killing of a human being in which the offender acted during the heat of passion, under circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed to the point that they cannot reasonably control their emotions.
Not justifiable.
MichMan
(17,149 posts)and vote to convict?
Dr. Strange
(26,058 posts)The last shot was probably murder, but given what the robber was doing, a jury might opt for nullification.
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)At best a hung jury, if there were one or more jurors who had an affinity to the law, justice, ethics, and morality.
And that is a shame.
BlueTsunami2018
(4,988 posts)This guy was just begging to be shot for doing what he did. Especially in Texas where you have to assume everyone is armed to the teeth. Fucked around, found out.
sinkingfeeling
(57,832 posts)
Runningdawg
(4,664 posts)If this man had walked into a school pointing that weapon, would we expect the cops to wait until he had fired at them it to shoot him?
pansypoo53219
(23,034 posts)
Straw Man
(6,946 posts)Last edited Sun Jan 15, 2023, 11:57 PM - Edit history (1)
Don't bet your life on the good will of the person who is robbing you at gunpoint.
If you didn't have a reasonable expectation that he intended to cause grievous bodily harm or death to you or someone else in the restaurant, you would just say "Fuck off -- I'm eating!" when he asked for your wallet. If you take him at his word, then lethal force in defense of yourself or others is justified. The law makes a clear distinction between unarmed and armed robbery, which includes fake weapons. There's no reason that the citizenry shouldn't be expected to do the same.
hunter
(40,688 posts)... but all things told I don't want any of those gun fetishists on my planet.
Gun fetishes are disgusting.
Once the guns come out everything is fubar.
Ex Lurker
(3,966 posts)HOUSTON — Several community activists gathered Sunday at the southwest Houston taqueria at which a robber was shot and killed earlier this month.
They said the shooting went "beyond self-defense" and also characterized it as "a cold-blooded execution."
While some are calling him a hero, this group wants the shooter to be criminally indicted.
"We must not allow citizens to become judge, jury and executor," the group, which consisted of Dr. Candice Matthews (Texas Coalition of Black Democrats/Rainbow/PUSH Coalition/New Black Panther Nation), Quanell X (New Black Panther Nation), family members of the deceased and other civil rights organizations, said in a statement.
Quanell X said the group is not condoning the actions of 30-year-old Eric Eugene Washington and said he was wrong for robbing the store. They said he deserved to be punished and sent to jail -- but not killed.
"He went too far," Quanell X said. "That's overkill. That's no longer self-defense."
They're calling for the shooter to be charged with something. Quanell X said he's not sure what that charge should be.
"That man went from being a law-abiding citizen to now committing criminal acts and criminal crimes. We believe ... I believe that he should be charged with something because we cannot have a society where our citizens are judge, jury and executioner," Quanell X said.
The group said they don't believe the initial shots were a problem.
"He stood over the young man and shot him multiple times over and over again when he was no longer a threat," Quanell X said. "I know for a fact that this was not just a simple act of a good citizen defending himself. There was no justification to walk up on him and put multiple shots, then leave with the weapon and come back and shoot him in the head again. That's too much."
Response to Ex Lurker (Reply #30)
The Mouth This message was self-deleted by its author.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)The Mouth
(3,414 posts)Mister Quanell X can go get f-ed.
Use a gun in a crime, you deserve to die.
*Anything* is justified once the other person draws.
Jedi Guy
(3,477 posts)The guy getting shot and dropping doesn't automatically take him out of the fight. Someone who's been shot might well be down but not out, and still very capable of using their weapon.
Just about any firearms training will teach you to shoot "until the threat is neutralized" which is generally interpreted to mean "not moving even a little bit." You don't shoot to scare, warn, disarm, or wound. If you've reached the point where you're shooting, all bets are off.
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)That was a criminal act.
Jedi Guy
(3,477 posts)If the answer to either of those questions is "yes," then he wasn't neutralized. To be fair, I haven't looked deeply into the circumstances of this one, so I don't know the answer to either of those questions. But if the shooter had reason to believe the robber was still a threat, then he wasn't neutralized.
Insofar as a criminal act is concerned, if the shooter catches charges, I wouldn't hold my breath for a conviction unless the answer to both of those questions is a clear and unambiguous "no." Even then, an acquittal wouldn't shock me. A competent defense attorney would point out that a man carrying one handgun might well have a second, and we're right back where we started.
sarisataka
(22,694 posts)Shortly after the news broke.
After shooting initially, while the robber was down the man walked over and picked up the BB gun. Then he fired an additional shot at point blank range.
I am strongly in favor of self-defense but if you have shot and disarmed a criminal it is very difficult to justify shooting him again.
Jedi Guy
(3,477 posts)That looks much more like vengeance than self-preservation. If he catches charges I'm sure his defense attorney will argue the "additional gun" angle, but it might not play well with the jury based on what you're describing.
Had he left it to just the initial volley of shots and covered the robber until the police arrived, I doubt like hell he'd have been charged with anything. With the disarm and tap to the head, he's probably in pretty serious trouble, legally speaking.
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)capped him one more time in the head.
It was a criminal act tat that point. Not defensible by any measure.
Jedi Guy
(3,477 posts)That's all I'd seen at the time I commented. If the robber still has the gun and is still moving after the initial shots, that's one thing. If, as sarisataka described (and I have no reason to doubt him), the shooter walked over after the initial shots, collected the robber's gun, and then gave him an execution tap in the head, he should be in a ton of legal jeopardy.
Then again, this is Texas. We shall see what the investigation turns up, if he catches charges as a result, and what happens when the jury does its thing.
sarisataka
(22,694 posts)Warning- nothing is edited or blurred out
https://mobile.twitter.com/rawsalerts/status/1611824003932475392/mediaViewer
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)When you watch it you will see (and hear) that the robber is completely down and the shooter calmly walks over and shoots him one more time in the head at close range.
That was not justifiable. Watch a see/hear for yourself. I'm confident you will come to a different conclusion after doing so.
I have no confidence a Texas jury will do the right thing. Unfortunately.
Jedi Guy
(3,477 posts)If it shows what you say it shows, and I have no reason to believe you're lying, then as I said before, I agree with you that this guy should catch charges.
Right now it's a question mark if he'll even catch charges, let alone if he'll be convicted. If he doesn't catch charges or is charged but acquitted at trial, I foresee some significant unrest in the Houston area and elsewhere.
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)to the back at medium range. More than enough to put him on the ground and unable to move.
Then he was executed with a close range shot to the head.
The shooter's actions passed from being arguably defensible to being involuntary manslaughter.
I don't think we will see "justice" in this case. I expect the shooter will walk away w/o charges.
Jedi Guy
(3,477 posts)While prosecutors have learned to be wary of overcharging, I think a point-blank execution shot on someone who's been rendered harmless fits the bill for second-degree murder.
A person intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;
A person intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act that causes the death of an individual; or
A person causes the death of an individual during the commission or attempted commission of a felony.
The main deciding factor as to whether or not an intentional act of murder is charged as capital murder (“first degree”) or murder (“second degree”) is the specifics of the murder as listed above.
However, murder can be charged as a second-degree felony if it can be proven that the act was committed as a result of a sudden heat of passion that rendered the defendant unable to cooly reflect on their actions, in which case, the charge would be dropped to a second-degree felony. A second-degree felony is punishable by 2-20 years in jail and a fine of up to $10,000.
Outside of using the heat of passion as a defense, other defenses against a murder charge can include self-defense, lack of intent or knowledge, or intoxication.
I'd say the shooter's actions fit the bill for "intentionally or knowingly causing the death of an individual." Most individuals will not survive being shot in the head at point-blank range.
Odds are his defense will be the "heat of the moment" and fear for his and others' safety. It'll be interesting to see if the jury goes for it.
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)Not sure if I was the victim of autocorrect or if I had a mental lapse, but I intended to write "voluntary manslaughter."
Voluntary manslaughter is the killing of a human being in which the offender acted during the heat of passion, under circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed to the point that they cannot reasonably control their emotions.
The definition of "voluntary manslaughter" fits the crime IMO. I do think it is reasonable that the shooter was acting in the heat of passion, which would mitigate from a second-degree murder charge. To me this would be a just charge (and conviction).
Jedi Guy
(3,477 posts)I don't blame that guy for deciding not to trust his life or anyone else's life to the odds, though. The fact that the robber did not, in fact, have a real gun really isn't relevant. No one there had reason to know that, and I sure wouldn't have risked acting on the chance that it was fake. I suspect that double-tap "just to be sure" there at the end might come back to haunt the shooter, though.
Insofar as the robber himself goes... he played stupid games and won a stupid prize. If he'd walked into that place to buy a taco instead of rob the diners, I suspect he'd still be drawing breath.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Without audio and context, nobody should be making a judgement on whether this was a justified shooting.
Just A Box Of Rain
(5,104 posts)and at what range.
A lack of sound skews the matter entirely.
Mr.Bill
(24,906 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 23, 2023, 10:45 PM - Edit history (1)
the bad guy would have had 50 bullet holes in him.
Ms. Toad
(38,634 posts)The customer fired 9 shots.
Four as the robber passed the customer - with the robber initially trying to run away then collapsing motionless to the ground, with the gun falling between 2 and 3 feet from the body, slightly under the table near the door. These shots are likely justified as self-defense or defense of others under Texas law (quoted in one of the earlier posts).
The customer then approaches the robber, firing four more shots into the motionless body as he walks toward him. Almost certainly not justified, especially since there is no hesitation as he reaches for the gun - which makes it clear that not only was the robber incapacitated, he was also disarmed.
The ninth, and final, shot comes after the customer picked up the robber's gun (lying on the floor out of reach). He fires - a direct shot into the back of the robber's head as he stands over the motionless, unarmed robber. Absolutely not justified.
It is interesting to note that the customer closest to the robber after he collapsed scurries past the customer wielding the gun, arms up, as if he is afraid of the customer (who had just shot the robber).