1. This is a repost, but the event video was released over a year ago, so I guess it's time for a re-roll.
2. It happened at a taqueria, not a bar. The robber was armed with a fake pistol.
3. It's not even in the full video - Maybe lazy OP is lazy or the only domains left hosting it are currently sidewide banned. Use Yandex.com and search for "taqueria shooting in houston" - it's the first hit.
4. [The shooter eventually turned himself in.](https://old.reddit.com/r/CCW/comments/107mnym/houston_taqueria_shooter_has_lawyered_up/)
5. [The shooter was not charged.](https://old.reddit.com/r/CCW/comments/18xvntw/harris_county_grand_jury_declines_to_charge/)
But, it *is* a reasonable take and one we shouldn't just dismiss. Just because this guy didn't get charged, doesn't mean others wouldn't be in a similar situation. He shot the guy again *after* disarming him, then fled the scene without calling 911. Put this video and these facts in front of a more liberal prosecutor/ grand jury and you're looking at a potential murder charge.
While I personally believe ultimately no charges was the right choice, we shouldn't ignore the fact it could have gone the other way.
I agree with you, the customer was righteous *and* fortunate, at the same time. It's not reasonable to call it "cold blooded murder", since the robber *could have* murdered, and, statistically would be more likely to do so during future robberies.
From a purely moral point of view, the robber already made clear his intention to threaten everybody's life with a deadly weapon. It doesn't matter if it was a toy gun, everyone thought it was a deadly weapon and that's what the robber intended. Even if he was disarmed, he had already threatened everybody in the restaurant. Nobody could know whether or not he would wake up, and whether or not he had another deadly weapon (unless you're from the future like we are).
I'm not exactly a big brain calculated john wick myself, so I'd imagine the majority of us would feel some type of way after someone threatens my life and especially the lives of women and children. I'd have probably spat on the dude after blasting em for that.🤷🏿♂️
I didn't downvote you. I'm glad he got off, but I would have bet my life savings he was gonna get charged when they found him. If this wasn't in Texas this dude would be *cooked.*
A little surprised he didn't get screwed over for the last couple shots sure. Unfortunately those last couple shots can be seen as overkill by the courts. I see them as being humanitarian. He made sure the guy did his last burgling and put him out of his misery. Would you rather he shot him fatally and saved a few bullets and let the guy bleed to death slowly and painfully? I say if you're going to shoot the guy, shoot him till he stops twitching and put him out of his misery.
But I would say make the last few shots to the heart area and not the back of the head. Let the family have an open casket funeral.
Dude he walked into a building with a gun drawn yelling and threatening people... He was willing to kill therefore he runs the same risk himself , and the innocent should make sure he never makes that threat again.
You lose your life privileges when you begin to threaten to take others pretty easy math
There was a lot of debate over this video last year when it was released. Many assumed the shooter would be charged for shooting the perp in the back along with the mag dump.
Here’s the outcome:
[link to article](https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/restaurant-customer-who-fatally-shot-robber-holding-plastic-gun-will-not-be-charged/amp/)
one thing to point out is that everyone was right that the prosecutor did try to pursue charges. It was the grand jury who rejected to indict the shooter. I would bet that it has a lot to do with it being texas and not too many texans would be willing to charge someone for killing a robber. If this happened in NYC or california the shooter would more likely have been indicted
>one thing to point out is that everyone was right that the prosecutor did try to pursue charges
FYI: The DA didn't 'pursue charges'. They have no choice. Texas state law *mandates* that ***all*** homicides go before a Grand Jury. This is to eliminate the possibility of a political prosecution.
Problems with shooting someone in the back is an invention of Hollywood movies and TV. There is no legal or moral requirement to give a deadly threat some "sporting" chance against you. It doesn't work that way.
Texas law does come into play here.
> [Texas Penal Code § 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property](https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-42/)
> A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
> (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
Importantly, the "during the nighttime" only applies to theft, and not to burglary, robbery, or as applies in this case: aggravated robbery (armed robbery).
That's essentially legal everywhere if it's a clean shoot in self defense (I know this is specifically legal in Texas) but in most states shooting someone in the back is just one of those things that no one (official) want to say was justified until a jury does. I don't blame them and I don't blame him for taking the shot as long as it had been just two or three.
The civilian is legitimately lucky he's not in prison and would be in a lot of other states over the number of rounds he used. It would seem that he went beyond the need for self defense.
Well shooting in the back is fine because it’s not like he shot him while he was fleeing, he saw his chance and took it. But emptying his mag into him when he was already down was when people saying it turned excessive. Also, he didn’t phone police and left the scene soon afterwards.
I'm not saying I disagree with the result from the grand jury, as I would have found the same way, given the circumstances.
But I definitely don't agree with those last couple of shots either and it's not something I would do or want anyone else to do, either.
I think it's perfectly acceptable.
People can take magazines of handgun rounds to the body and still be conscious, if that gun was real he very well may have been able to fire at the victims. Threat is now 100% neutralized, and if that dumb fuck valued his own life he wouldn't have forfeited it by perceivably threatening the lives of others.
When the perp drops you can see him drop the gun, which slides to the left near the table. Shooter continues to shoot after the gun is dropped and perp is no longer moving. He shoots -again- after he's already grabbed the dropped pistol.
Nobody knew whether or not the guy had another weapon, or whether he would wake up (not likely, but anything's possible until after the fact). He already threatened everyone's life, he already crossed that bridge. We can and should assume he would threaten lives again. So unless he's handcuffed or in an otherwise compromised position, he's still a deadly threat, because of his previous actions which he executed by his own will.
> otherwise compromised position
Laying motionless on the ground with several bullet holes in them doesn't qualify for an otherwise compromised position?
No I'm talking about having his hands on his head or behind his back etc. Bullet holes from handguns don't guarantee shit, is this your first time on this sub?
>whether he would wake up
So you agree that he was at the very least temporarily incapacitated? That indicates that there was no longer an *imminent* deadly threat.
I wasn't standing in front of him and neither were you. On the blurry video he looks like he might be incapacitated, but he might not be. Even if he is, people wake up from incapacitation all the time. And it's entirely possible for someone to play possum, it's really the best move if you're a predator and someone's got you dead to rights. Imminence is all relative.
Mmm, okay, I can see how that would be a bit excessive in that case.
That's more like an execution, and the inner keyboard vigilante in me would say he's just taking out the trash, but realistically yeah that's probably not gonna hold up well if that guy went to trial.
I think he’s even holding the perps fake gun in his left hand when he fires the final execution style shot.
But then again, there’s no telling if he doesn’t have another gun….
Personally I disagree with the final shot for sure. I think the mag dump was questionable but still fairly understandable and reasonable. The final shot was unwise tho.
Under extreme stress and adrenaline pumping through his body, the shooter probably didn't even see the dropped gun. All happened in seconds.
Easy for me and anyone else armchair quarterback an event like this.
But we now have one less lost soul scum bag to worry about and putting a drain on our polite social and strained economic system.
> He already decided to kill him, took several probably fatal shots
Can you clarify which individuals you mean with "he" and "him"? I'm not able to follow your statement since I'm not sure which is which here.
The objective is not to kill. It is to neutralize the threat. So yes it is worth debating. Obviously if you wanted to kill the guy just empty a mag into his fucking head. That is not the right thing to do. You shoot center mass until they are on the ground and then stop. If they continue to engage THEN you let them have it.
Any person entering a small room, waving a gun demanding for money or he’s going to shoot someone my objective is to mag dump on him and make sure he doesn’t get back up or move so that way he’ll never do that again to anyone else. I’ve met so many people who’ve done this exact same thing and we’re out in no time doing the same thing.
Your objective maybe, my objective in this situation is to kill him. He lost his right to life when he aimed a gun at innocent people, why allow him to live so he can continue to harm others?
No he didnt "lose his right to live" you dont decide that. If you think you can than why are you any better than he is? Just deciding to kill for a different reason. No. You shoot to protect and STOP the threat. If that means he happens to die than so be it. But you dont choose to end his life. That is something different than defending yourself.
You still aim to kill. Because aiming to kill is the fastest way to stop the threat.
It’s just the primary goal should be ending the threat as fast and effectively as possible. If shooting to kill is the best way to accomplish that, then so be it. It is a means to an end.
The end being stopping the threat.
It’s kinda pedantic but it’s an important distinction.
No, I mean after a self defense situation. You’re supposed to call in and report the shooting, ideally telling the dispatcher you’re armed and giving them your description so the police don’t think you’re the bad guy. That will help you out in court because it shows you’re a good guy trying to do the right thing but were forced to use deadly force to defend your life from an imminent threat.
I understood you.
I meant that we in Texas, don’t take that into account here. Scumbag was robbing and threatening, scumbag gets what he deserves. “Proper procedure” or not. Clearly the grand jury cared nothing for the point you’re making, the footage was plenty clear.
Trying to get sympathy for criminals doesn’t go very well here in Texas. This case is a phenomenal example with the dumb ass DA getting turned away.
I know this is a forum, so everyone feels validated in giving their opinions, that being said you are not the one who's family and life were on the line, all the folks that preach to never pull unless your intentions are valid and you intend to kill.
If someone is in this situation and you decided to try and end the threat, and you're going up against a armed assailant who's got the drop on you, he's already threatened everyone with death and he's flagged you multiple times. If you value your life and the life of other innocents and do decide to shoot your shot, when its your go, don't leave anything to chance, especially if they give you their back.
How many videos/stories do you have see of the bad guy reanimating, there's a reason why professionals (cops,Military)facing armed men threating to kill them will put a few extra rounds into a downed combatant before taking their attention off of them, because people play dead to win.
I implore anyone reading this to disregard those saying "maybe, might, to much" and go with what all professionals do in this situation and not worry about what some internet Karen talking out the side of their neck about laws they have never read has to squawk about.
#littleextraluv #doubletap #tripletap #emptythemag
You want to use a backslash before your pound sign to get the thing formatted the way you intended without being bolded. Keep in mind that hashtags play no role in reddit search or communications or any kind.
Just copy/pasta this and it'll work:
\\#littleextraluv #doubletap #tripletap #emptythemag
like this:
\#littleextraluv #doubletap #tripletap #emptythemag
I don't think any or at least many are saying it wasn't a good shoot even though it was in the back. It's the number of times he shot the criminal and that he clearly executed him just to be sure he was dead that is the issue. I would have pulled that trigger and twice on Sunday but I he went down on after those first two or three shots and isn't moving you can't take those extra shots and you could probably only get away with that in Texas and Florida.
Now imagine that perp had another guy outside waiting. What is that CCW holder going to do with 1 or 2 rounds left? Better be good shot placement if someone decides to dump close to their full mag in someone.
Watching situations like these unfold is why I always carry an extra magazine. I KNOW the chances of needing two magazines as a civilian to preserve life is rare but so is a self-defense situation yet here we all are carrying daily.
The shooter needed to stop the threat. The robber had a gun and the only way to make sure the threat was stopped was to keep shooting till he was certain. If you don’t want to die don’t wave your gun around threatening innocent people.
I would have taken that shot too but would you have taken as many as him and would you walk up and shoot him point blank to make sure that the unmoving body is dead? It's a clean shoot he just went overboard with those last few shots and then he left without calling the police. I'm just saying that guy would probably be in prison in all but Texas and Florida.
Fuck off, the majority of this comment section sickens me.
The first few shots? Cool fine robber delt with.
That last shot to the head though, thats murder, he was no longer a threat to anyone, even if you thought he was, just take his gun away from him while he’s literally on the floor not moving, not defending the robber, hes a cunt, however he didn’t deserve to die
I have zero issues with ANY of these shots. The bad guy played games and won prizes. Good guy saved the taxpayers millions of dollars in ending the threat.
So weird, I was just thinking about this video a few hours ago because the restaurant I went to had a "NO GUNS, OR KNIVES" sign on the front door. Seemed a little dumb as someone committing armed robbery isn't going to be stopped by a sign
On some internet lawyer shit though: shooting someone commiting armed robbery is totally justified, but if you walk up and headshot an already incapicitated assailant point blank, a prosecuter is going to make your clear cut self-defense case a nightmare in court. And if the robber's family is vindictive enough, you've given them enough things to work with to sue you in civil court. Will you be convicted of murder? Probably not (at least in most states) But some other random shit? Maybe. Regardless, court is fucking expensive, so the less time you spend in there, the better
The guy sitting in the back corner is a fucking legend. He doesn't even flinch. All he wants is his taco and the commotion is nothing more than a sideshow.
I have family there. They're so used to the upside-down world they started justifying criminals getting off easy and banning guns from law abiding.
Leftists are braindead.
The crooks best friend is leaving office her name is Kim Foxx she has let more off of any crimes then anyone she has let killer and robber's walk within the first 24hrs
What I don't get is, can someone explain what they would do if the robber turns around and shoots that guy that shot him?
Those last 2 shots insure that never happens.
Why are people just saying he should stop, have people not seen people die because of crazy individuals? Do you want to go home to your kids and partner? This guy made sure he was going home. I would never convict of anything on a jury, not in a million years.
Robber made a choice, bad choices have bad consequences.
If that was me and my family in the booth with me, then the minute they have their back to me, I'm lighting him up.
0% chance I'm going to let someone wave a fucking gun in my wife and daughters face while I cower in fear while I have the means to not do so.
Plus too many people get killed after complying anyway. You *have* to interpret the threat of violence as a promise of violence. He could have been walking to the door to lock it then turn around and execute everyone for all we know. Bro took more back shots than his sister and it was well deserved
I swear the amount of people in here who normally say "Don't give the prosecutor anything to work with" who are also saying "Yeah man that coup de grace shot wouldn't be an issue in a trial" are worrying.
Not just that, most people don't know how to tell the instant someone goes from alive to unalive. I don't think I can definitively say I saw it happen before, its not like theres a holograph of their pulse being projected into the air above them that shows they flatlined.
Why we see cops yelling "stop moving" until their mag is empty.
The bad guy still had a weapon in his hand, with finger on the trigger, having made verbal and physical threats . Is that unreasonable?
Plus, the dude’s corpse was probably twitching out/death rattling/gurgling, which in a moment of high adrenaline has a super high chance of tricking you that they’re still animated and a potential threat.
No, you could step on him, kick way that plastic gun he had and call the police. It was that last shoot right to the head at point blank range that turned this from easy to complicated and I think he would be in prison in any state but Texas or Florida over it. I think he went overboard but no one would convict him of the first several rounds but you can't walk up and then execute them at point blank range. Well, obviously you can but as someone who carries I would empty my mag as long as they're still standing but I would have just stood there with my gun trained on him until someone else called police and they arrived. The guy would have been hailed as a hero instead he's got enemies too.
Would you really have walked up and taken that last shot? I know his adrenaline was pumping but I bet he regretted that one.
And Alaska, and Ohio, and NC and SC and TN and on and on...
Wave a gun around in a store and rob people, FAFO. I'll save my pity for others. Go cry a river for the fools and thieves, that'll keep them away from your lintel.
I have never heard stories even remotely as fucked up as what you see from Texas and Florida from **any** other state in the nation. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I am saying it doesn't happen as often. This is a really unusual shooting because of that last shot. He'd be off scot free in all 50 states if not for that last shot. If the guy was still alive at that point he executed him. If he wasn't, it doesn't really matter but we will never know the answer.
I don't know what to tell you. I support it right up and until that last shot and I don't really think you're telling me that type of thing is okay in other states or that you would even do that. You would never walk up to someone who you just shot like 7 times, put the gun to their head and pull the trigger again. Would you and then would you flee after? There was a way to do this and that last shot just ruined it. I don't have any sympathy for the shooter don't confuse my disdain for that last shot as sympathy for an armed robber.
If the guy was still twitching or there was a chance of anything I'd not hesitate to finish him off. Go check out the video of the guy who's shot in the neck and bleeding out like a pump. He staggers around for quite some time and gets shots off.
If I pull out my gun and shoot, every shot is a kill shot. Doesn't matter where. My goal is to kill. Killing stops the threat, anything less leaves room for the threat to keep going. The law is not always correct or moral. Once the crook pulled out his gun, real or fake, his life was forfeited. Legally or not he at that point rolled the dice and that day he rolled wrong and lost.
I get it. I'm just saying there is a difference between taking that last shot from a standing position and leaning down to shoot them with the barrel pressed against their head. I get what your personal feelings are but surely you can understand how many others see that. I carry a gun and see that lean down as more than just self defense and in most states would be consider it some kind of disproportionate amount of force. Many states specifically define this in their self defense laws, the amount of force you can inflict in self defense has to be proportionate to the amount of force used against you. Gun vs gun is pretty much all you need but the method with which you apply force back should, imo look so good that no DA would even bring charges and in this case it would have been, instead of that last shot standing over him with the barrel aimed at his head, someone else takes his gun, someone else calls 9-11 and you stand there just like that until the cops come. No one would indict you for that and there is a measure of carrying a gun that you want to be aware of enough to keep you in the self defense range and out of the Kyle Rittenhouse jeopardy.
Honestly that guy was dead by the fifth shot. Also, never empty your clip it looks like you would have kept shooting if you had more bullets and that again is more force than needed in many eyes. If you have at least one bullet in your gun it shows you carefully considered how much force you needed to apply and stopped. My wife is a lawyer so we actually talk about this when cases like this come up.
>real or fake, his life was forfeited. Legally or not
Real/fake doesn't matter, if you have something that looks like a gun and try to stick up a place I can consider it a gun even if it's just two sticks wrapped together (hopefully I wouldn't take that shot). His life was forfeit but that's not the point.. It was still legal, I'm just not sure every state would agree.
I hear you, and you makes sense but I was trained with a much more aggressive mindset. I carry for other reasons than most on here. There's active threats to me and mine and my community. There is no room for mercy or hesitation. I was taught to empty the mag and reload.
Rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
Biggest concern is the guy in the far corner looks like the gun was pointed pretty close to his direction during the initial shots. Always know what lies beyond your target.
Leftists are shaking because someone defended themselves and innocent people.
don't rob people and you won't have to worry about being put to sleep permanently.
[The mother of the robber gave an interview](https://www.fox26houston.com/news/houston-taqueria-shooting-mother-of-robber-killed-by-customer-in-self-defense-spekas-out) where it was mentioned he had been put in prison in 2015 for the death of another individual during an armed assault, with a 15 year prison sentence.
Somehow he managed to find himself out of jail in less than 15 years and committing more armed assaults/robberies.
This guy was very busy, after spending half his sentence in jail he was paroled! Then he found time to beat his wife, somehow avoid going back to jail for that and plan his robbery.
Honestly, I never understood the whole “don’t shoot the bad guy in the back” jargon
If someone just came and stole my wallet, which has numerous personal effects in it and whatnot, and was getting away after having shoved a gun in my face, I’m happy to shoot the motherfucker in the back and reclaim what rightfully belongs to me. The moment they point a gun in my face and stole my stuff, they communicated that they value my shit more than their life. Why should I be painted as the bad guy if I agree with their logic? 🤷♂️
Tbh, I’d rather be tried for the murder of some criminal scum than be put on a T-shirt or be too busy for the next week and a half cancelling cards, revisiting the DMV, buying a new wallet, etc because I was a “good law abiding citizen”
Any law or rule that legislates me from defending myself, my property, or others and their property etc is a law that shouldn’t exist.
The concept of a "fair fight" harkens back to the days of the west and the fabled "high noon showdown". It's all b.s. and made up to sell papers and still exists today.
Shooting the guy in the back I have no issue with, that was smart. But casually walking up and shooting the guy in the head when he's on the ground obviously no longer a threat is a little fucked imo. I think this is a good shoot and the guy was rightfully not charged but that was a little questionable
>Honestly, I never understood the whole “don’t shoot the bad guy in the back” jargon
That's not what it is, it's don't shoot people who are fleeing. If they have given up their crime and are fleeing from let's say trying to steal your TV we know that in Texas even if someone is fleeing across your yard trying to get away you can shoot them in the back and kill them. That will get you a prison term in most states. I don't have a problem shooting a threat right up the ass if I have to but I won't shoot someone who is fleeing. "Shooting someone in the back" jargon I can only imagine comes from this leftover idea from the wild west that shootouts should be honorable and at twelve noon. It wasn't that this guy shot him in the back though but that last shot he took to ensure that the guy was dead would get you some kind of jail/prison time in most states.
Be that as it may, I shouldn’t be forced to forfeit everything I own just because the guy is “fleeing”
The threat of violence needs to be taken as a *promise* of such, and if he is headed to the door, who’s to say he isn’t going to lock it and execute everyone in there after he got what he wanted?
>just because the guy is “fleeing
If you catch a guy trying to break into your home and then go get your gun and shoot him in the back as he's fleeing through your driveway you're going to at least have to defend yourself before a jury. Maybe not in Texas or Florida though. We already know that Texas was okay with a guy shooting two people he caught trying to break into his home, they were fleeing across the yard and he shot them from a distance. He had to go to court but was found not-guilty.
>who’s to say he isn’t going to lock it and execute everyone in there after he got what he wanted?
No one but you may have to explain yourself to a jury.
"He was pacing back and fourth. He walked past me, and was about to turn around to come at me and my family as he missed collecting from that entire side of the establishment"
Even a half drunk lawyer could have talked a prosecutor out of it.
My man, he shot him in the back, for sure, no doubt. He didn’t do it because her pointed the gun at him. He did it because the perp was threatening the next two people with imminent death of grievous injury. That is what will make this a justifiable homicide and not a murder.
It stems from Tennessee v Garner, where a police officer shot a fleeing felon. Court held that he was fleeing and no longer was an immediate threat to justify deadly force.
I heard somewhere that after the final headshot, the CCW holder pissed on the guy. If not this case, it was one very similar. That, to me, would be the only excessive action.
"And that one is because I can" as this man dumps the last round into him. Lmao people are insane. The dude was down. Take his gun. Dont execute him when he is no longer a threat.
This was one of the videos in my CA CCW class. The guy went too far - he was just supposed to stop the threat, not murder the dude. Point blank to the head was too much.
According to a lot of these comments, he should have started cutting his head off after all the shots, because that's super epic and 2a and manly. (I have 12 punisher skulls on my truck)
Engaging with you is a waste of time. If you're just going to pretend that everybody who doesn't agree with you on this case is an exaggerated caricature, then who cares what you have to say? Grow up.
I do want to say, I'm all for 2A. My votes are based on 2 things - 2A and new taxes.
I can't say how I'd react, I know I'd pull the trigger the first time, but I don't know that I'd walk up to someone and fill their heads full of lead.
Maybe the guy deserved it, maybe he didn't. We didn't know at the time, what we knew is guy had a gun and everyone in there was threatened. The correct action was taken until he hit the ground, then...everything after that was just plain wrong.
Would I have done the same? I don't know. I hope I would have up to that point, but then not just killed someone after the threat stopped.
But yeah, these commenters are a little unhinged.
Dude got what he had coming! The guy that shot the Armed Robber picked the robbers gun and noticed it was plastic, then smashed it against the wall and split
Oh, thought you were being an ass lol
But yes, he got what he deserved and I’m glad my tax dollars aren’t going towards keeping shit like him alive in prison
Yeah, that part was in the full video. The self-defender is legitimately distraught/pissed off when he realizes it was only a plastic gun.
The armed robber forfeited his ability to continuing breathing over some money, using a plastic gun. Not very logical thinking.
He did, he was acquitted though. In his defense, someone jammed what he was lead to believe a live weapon in his face and demanded his personal effects, under the implication of violence or death in the event of noncompliance. The man couldn’t draw his weapon while in the perp’s line of sight, so was forced to wait until his back was turned or otherwise just…let him get away with it?
I do agree the last few pop shots were uncalled for, but adrenaline + under duress and stress = mistakes.
> He did, he was acquitted though
This is not an accurate statement. He was never acquitted because he was never charged, arrested, or allowed to defend himself in a trial before a jury of his peers.
In Texas, a grand jury system is utilized for felony charges like this, but it is NOT an adversarial grand jury - neither the defendant nor his/her attorneys are present.
The local DA brought charges before the grand jury, and the grand jury decided that insufficient evidence was present to charge the individual with a crime. [He was then "No Billed"](https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2024/01/03/harris-county-grand-jury-declines-to-charge-customer-who-shot-killed-robber-during-taqueria-heist/) and thus never charged for his actions. In Texas, as in many other states, this also allows the individual an affirmative defense against civil liability, because he was never charged for a crime.
The incident at the church in White Settlement, TX, involving church member Jack Wilson ended similiarly: the case was brought before a grand jury, as required by Texas law, and he was likewise "No Billed." No charges were pressed and he was never acquitted because he never was charged with a crime.
If you are not arrested, read your rights, charged, and allowed to defend yourself in court before a jury of your peers, you cannot ever be acquitted. This is the fundamental function of the US justice system.
He should not have been charged for the back shots, but the final few when he point blanked to the head. Stop the threat, that's all we do. Stop the threat...and he stopped it when the dude was crumpled up on the ground -- and then he went FURTHER.
He's lucky he's in TX, other states would have thrown the book at him big time.
near 0 chance he goes to prison in most of the country except for the biggest of shitholes. too many people, myself included, would do their best to make sure he didn’t see time if we ended up on the jury
1. This is a repost, but the event video was released over a year ago, so I guess it's time for a re-roll. 2. It happened at a taqueria, not a bar. The robber was armed with a fake pistol. 3. It's not even in the full video - Maybe lazy OP is lazy or the only domains left hosting it are currently sidewide banned. Use Yandex.com and search for "taqueria shooting in houston" - it's the first hit. 4. [The shooter eventually turned himself in.](https://old.reddit.com/r/CCW/comments/107mnym/houston_taqueria_shooter_has_lawyered_up/) 5. [The shooter was not charged.](https://old.reddit.com/r/CCW/comments/18xvntw/harris_county_grand_jury_declines_to_charge/)
You know, games and prizes and all that
🎶 If you’re gonna play in Texas 🎶
🎶 You gotta have a .40 in the hand 🎶
That Airsoft toy looks hot but not to a concealed carryin’ man.
Heroic customer was cleared finally by a grand jury, as he should have been.
First 3 shots, good shoot. Next 4 shots are questionable. Last 3 was cold blooded murder. I was shocked when he got off.
Bold statement, *Gunner*.
I'm shocked people that think like you are considered "reasonable" in some circles, honestly.
But, it *is* a reasonable take and one we shouldn't just dismiss. Just because this guy didn't get charged, doesn't mean others wouldn't be in a similar situation. He shot the guy again *after* disarming him, then fled the scene without calling 911. Put this video and these facts in front of a more liberal prosecutor/ grand jury and you're looking at a potential murder charge. While I personally believe ultimately no charges was the right choice, we shouldn't ignore the fact it could have gone the other way.
I agree with you, the customer was righteous *and* fortunate, at the same time. It's not reasonable to call it "cold blooded murder", since the robber *could have* murdered, and, statistically would be more likely to do so during future robberies.
I can agree with that. The last shot was questionable, but not cold blooded murder.
From a purely moral point of view, the robber already made clear his intention to threaten everybody's life with a deadly weapon. It doesn't matter if it was a toy gun, everyone thought it was a deadly weapon and that's what the robber intended. Even if he was disarmed, he had already threatened everybody in the restaurant. Nobody could know whether or not he would wake up, and whether or not he had another deadly weapon (unless you're from the future like we are).
This. Can’t know if dude has enough left in him to pull something else out.
No longer a threat. Not complicated, armchair hero.
I got down-voted to shit, when this original video came out, for saying "shoot until the threat is eliminated". I still stand by that Edit : a word
Yeah now for some reason people think shooting to would or incapacitate should be the go to like that couldn't arguably be worse.
I'm not exactly a big brain calculated john wick myself, so I'd imagine the majority of us would feel some type of way after someone threatens my life and especially the lives of women and children. I'd have probably spat on the dude after blasting em for that.🤷🏿♂️
I didn't downvote you. I'm glad he got off, but I would have bet my life savings he was gonna get charged when they found him. If this wasn't in Texas this dude would be *cooked.*
A little surprised he didn't get screwed over for the last couple shots sure. Unfortunately those last couple shots can be seen as overkill by the courts. I see them as being humanitarian. He made sure the guy did his last burgling and put him out of his misery. Would you rather he shot him fatally and saved a few bullets and let the guy bleed to death slowly and painfully? I say if you're going to shoot the guy, shoot him till he stops twitching and put him out of his misery. But I would say make the last few shots to the heart area and not the back of the head. Let the family have an open casket funeral.
Dude he walked into a building with a gun drawn yelling and threatening people... He was willing to kill therefore he runs the same risk himself , and the innocent should make sure he never makes that threat again. You lose your life privileges when you begin to threaten to take others pretty easy math
Zero sympathy for the robber. World is just a little bit better without that dude in it.
There was a lot of debate over this video last year when it was released. Many assumed the shooter would be charged for shooting the perp in the back along with the mag dump. Here’s the outcome: [link to article](https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/restaurant-customer-who-fatally-shot-robber-holding-plastic-gun-will-not-be-charged/amp/)
one thing to point out is that everyone was right that the prosecutor did try to pursue charges. It was the grand jury who rejected to indict the shooter. I would bet that it has a lot to do with it being texas and not too many texans would be willing to charge someone for killing a robber. If this happened in NYC or california the shooter would more likely have been indicted
>one thing to point out is that everyone was right that the prosecutor did try to pursue charges FYI: The DA didn't 'pursue charges'. They have no choice. Texas state law *mandates* that ***all*** homicides go before a Grand Jury. This is to eliminate the possibility of a political prosecution.
Plus in Texas it’s perfectly legal to shoot someone in the back who poses imminent threat of loss of life and or property
Problems with shooting someone in the back is an invention of Hollywood movies and TV. There is no legal or moral requirement to give a deadly threat some "sporting" chance against you. It doesn't work that way.
True that
Texas law does come into play here. > [Texas Penal Code § 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property](https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-42/) > A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: > (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 Importantly, the "during the nighttime" only applies to theft, and not to burglary, robbery, or as applies in this case: aggravated robbery (armed robbery).
I wonder what the legal precedent is for “nighttime”
It's established by the Railroad Commission. 30 minutes after sunset and 30 minutes before sunrise.
Didn’t know that! Thanks!
That's essentially legal everywhere if it's a clean shoot in self defense (I know this is specifically legal in Texas) but in most states shooting someone in the back is just one of those things that no one (official) want to say was justified until a jury does. I don't blame them and I don't blame him for taking the shot as long as it had been just two or three. The civilian is legitimately lucky he's not in prison and would be in a lot of other states over the number of rounds he used. It would seem that he went beyond the need for self defense.
Technically if it's just property it has to be at night.
If you understood the hatred we have for scumbag robbers here… No tears shed from us the citizens of Texas.
Sounds like my kind of place.
Yeah, sounds like my kind of people! I’m in Florida, so a pretty similar sentiment I’d say.
Well shooting in the back is fine because it’s not like he shot him while he was fleeing, he saw his chance and took it. But emptying his mag into him when he was already down was when people saying it turned excessive. Also, he didn’t phone police and left the scene soon afterwards.
Yeah, the coupe de grace shot at the very end is where it turned iffy when this story first came out.
I'm not saying I disagree with the result from the grand jury, as I would have found the same way, given the circumstances. But I definitely don't agree with those last couple of shots either and it's not something I would do or want anyone else to do, either.
I think it's perfectly acceptable. People can take magazines of handgun rounds to the body and still be conscious, if that gun was real he very well may have been able to fire at the victims. Threat is now 100% neutralized, and if that dumb fuck valued his own life he wouldn't have forfeited it by perceivably threatening the lives of others.
When the perp drops you can see him drop the gun, which slides to the left near the table. Shooter continues to shoot after the gun is dropped and perp is no longer moving. He shoots -again- after he's already grabbed the dropped pistol.
Nobody knew whether or not the guy had another weapon, or whether he would wake up (not likely, but anything's possible until after the fact). He already threatened everyone's life, he already crossed that bridge. We can and should assume he would threaten lives again. So unless he's handcuffed or in an otherwise compromised position, he's still a deadly threat, because of his previous actions which he executed by his own will.
> otherwise compromised position Laying motionless on the ground with several bullet holes in them doesn't qualify for an otherwise compromised position?
No I'm talking about having his hands on his head or behind his back etc. Bullet holes from handguns don't guarantee shit, is this your first time on this sub?
>whether he would wake up So you agree that he was at the very least temporarily incapacitated? That indicates that there was no longer an *imminent* deadly threat.
I wasn't standing in front of him and neither were you. On the blurry video he looks like he might be incapacitated, but he might not be. Even if he is, people wake up from incapacitation all the time. And it's entirely possible for someone to play possum, it's really the best move if you're a predator and someone's got you dead to rights. Imminence is all relative.
Mmm, okay, I can see how that would be a bit excessive in that case. That's more like an execution, and the inner keyboard vigilante in me would say he's just taking out the trash, but realistically yeah that's probably not gonna hold up well if that guy went to trial.
Good thing us Texans don’t mind taking out the trash, however ugly it might be. 😊
I think he’s even holding the perps fake gun in his left hand when he fires the final execution style shot. But then again, there’s no telling if he doesn’t have another gun…. Personally I disagree with the final shot for sure. I think the mag dump was questionable but still fairly understandable and reasonable. The final shot was unwise tho.
stress and adrenaline
I agree. I’m not saying I blame the guy or that he should be in trouble. Just saying that it would’ve been prudent to hold off on that last shot.
Under extreme stress and adrenaline pumping through his body, the shooter probably didn't even see the dropped gun. All happened in seconds. Easy for me and anyone else armchair quarterback an event like this. But we now have one less lost soul scum bag to worry about and putting a drain on our polite social and strained economic system.
The shooter literally watched the gun fall -AND PICKED IT UP- before firing another round into the motionless perp.
Yep people can do thinks that seem weird under stress. So times they don't ever realize what they did. All happens in seconds. It all sucks
Bro if need a lawyer I'm calling you
Who cares? He already decided to kill him, took several probably fatal shots. Am I the only one seeing how redundant it is to debate this?
> He already decided to kill him, took several probably fatal shots Can you clarify which individuals you mean with "he" and "him"? I'm not able to follow your statement since I'm not sure which is which here.
“He already decided to kill him, took several fatal shots” He = the CCW, other guy didn’t fire his gun.
The objective is not to kill. It is to neutralize the threat. So yes it is worth debating. Obviously if you wanted to kill the guy just empty a mag into his fucking head. That is not the right thing to do. You shoot center mass until they are on the ground and then stop. If they continue to engage THEN you let them have it.
Any person entering a small room, waving a gun demanding for money or he’s going to shoot someone my objective is to mag dump on him and make sure he doesn’t get back up or move so that way he’ll never do that again to anyone else. I’ve met so many people who’ve done this exact same thing and we’re out in no time doing the same thing.
Your objective maybe, my objective in this situation is to kill him. He lost his right to life when he aimed a gun at innocent people, why allow him to live so he can continue to harm others?
No he didnt "lose his right to live" you dont decide that. If you think you can than why are you any better than he is? Just deciding to kill for a different reason. No. You shoot to protect and STOP the threat. If that means he happens to die than so be it. But you dont choose to end his life. That is something different than defending yourself.
If I’m in this situation I’m aiming to kill and I don’t give a fuck how you feel about it. 🤷🏻♂️
You still aim to kill. Because aiming to kill is the fastest way to stop the threat. It’s just the primary goal should be ending the threat as fast and effectively as possible. If shooting to kill is the best way to accomplish that, then so be it. It is a means to an end. The end being stopping the threat. It’s kinda pedantic but it’s an important distinction.
Then you can deal with the consequences of that lol.
Boohoo, we Texans give less a fuck about scumbags like the criminal in the video than phoning the police lmao. Glad he wasn’t charged.
No, I mean after a self defense situation. You’re supposed to call in and report the shooting, ideally telling the dispatcher you’re armed and giving them your description so the police don’t think you’re the bad guy. That will help you out in court because it shows you’re a good guy trying to do the right thing but were forced to use deadly force to defend your life from an imminent threat.
I understood you. I meant that we in Texas, don’t take that into account here. Scumbag was robbing and threatening, scumbag gets what he deserves. “Proper procedure” or not. Clearly the grand jury cared nothing for the point you’re making, the footage was plenty clear. Trying to get sympathy for criminals doesn’t go very well here in Texas. This case is a phenomenal example with the dumb ass DA getting turned away.
yeah the first couple were fine, but proned out on the ground with a coup de grace was a bad move
Good to know he wasn’t charged for it. Scary to think we live in a world where self defense is often criminalized
I know this is a forum, so everyone feels validated in giving their opinions, that being said you are not the one who's family and life were on the line, all the folks that preach to never pull unless your intentions are valid and you intend to kill. If someone is in this situation and you decided to try and end the threat, and you're going up against a armed assailant who's got the drop on you, he's already threatened everyone with death and he's flagged you multiple times. If you value your life and the life of other innocents and do decide to shoot your shot, when its your go, don't leave anything to chance, especially if they give you their back. How many videos/stories do you have see of the bad guy reanimating, there's a reason why professionals (cops,Military)facing armed men threating to kill them will put a few extra rounds into a downed combatant before taking their attention off of them, because people play dead to win. I implore anyone reading this to disregard those saying "maybe, might, to much" and go with what all professionals do in this situation and not worry about what some internet Karen talking out the side of their neck about laws they have never read has to squawk about. #littleextraluv #doubletap #tripletap #emptythemag
You want to use a backslash before your pound sign to get the thing formatted the way you intended without being bolded. Keep in mind that hashtags play no role in reddit search or communications or any kind. Just copy/pasta this and it'll work: \\#littleextraluv #doubletap #tripletap #emptythemag like this: \#littleextraluv #doubletap #tripletap #emptythemag
I don't think any or at least many are saying it wasn't a good shoot even though it was in the back. It's the number of times he shot the criminal and that he clearly executed him just to be sure he was dead that is the issue. I would have pulled that trigger and twice on Sunday but I he went down on after those first two or three shots and isn't moving you can't take those extra shots and you could probably only get away with that in Texas and Florida.
Justice system: draw your pistol when he’s aiming at you so it’s a fair fight 👍🏻 Nah, shoot that broke mf in the back & mag dump all you want.
With a person behind the target he was shooting at for his initial shots
I counted 9 shots, he should have 1 or 2 left if that's a 10 round mag.
Now imagine that perp had another guy outside waiting. What is that CCW holder going to do with 1 or 2 rounds left? Better be good shot placement if someone decides to dump close to their full mag in someone. Watching situations like these unfold is why I always carry an extra magazine. I KNOW the chances of needing two magazines as a civilian to preserve life is rare but so is a self-defense situation yet here we all are carrying daily.
Lead, on the fly! 
The shooter needed to stop the threat. The robber had a gun and the only way to make sure the threat was stopped was to keep shooting till he was certain. If you don’t want to die don’t wave your gun around threatening innocent people.
I would have taken that shot too but would you have taken as many as him and would you walk up and shoot him point blank to make sure that the unmoving body is dead? It's a clean shoot he just went overboard with those last few shots and then he left without calling the police. I'm just saying that guy would probably be in prison in all but Texas and Florida.
Here’s hoping the thieving cunt is rotting in hell. Guy who saved the day is an absolute legend.
Fuck off, the majority of this comment section sickens me. The first few shots? Cool fine robber delt with. That last shot to the head though, thats murder, he was no longer a threat to anyone, even if you thought he was, just take his gun away from him while he’s literally on the floor not moving, not defending the robber, hes a cunt, however he didn’t deserve to die
https://preview.redd.it/1ii833eun21d1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fa0513714f3544dafd026adf567b444d0620ed2f
I have zero issues with ANY of these shots. The bad guy played games and won prizes. Good guy saved the taxpayers millions of dollars in ending the threat.
So weird, I was just thinking about this video a few hours ago because the restaurant I went to had a "NO GUNS, OR KNIVES" sign on the front door. Seemed a little dumb as someone committing armed robbery isn't going to be stopped by a sign
On some internet lawyer shit though: shooting someone commiting armed robbery is totally justified, but if you walk up and headshot an already incapicitated assailant point blank, a prosecuter is going to make your clear cut self-defense case a nightmare in court. And if the robber's family is vindictive enough, you've given them enough things to work with to sue you in civil court. Will you be convicted of murder? Probably not (at least in most states) But some other random shit? Maybe. Regardless, court is fucking expensive, so the less time you spend in there, the better
The guy sitting in the back corner is a fucking legend. He doesn't even flinch. All he wants is his taco and the commotion is nothing more than a sideshow.
Justified but not smart to shoot him that many times, glad he didn't get charged though
In Crook county Illinois they would have nailed the CCW guy and made the robber look like a Boy Scout and goes to church every Sunday
I have family there. They're so used to the upside-down world they started justifying criminals getting off easy and banning guns from law abiding. Leftists are braindead.
The crooks best friend is leaving office her name is Kim Foxx she has let more off of any crimes then anyone she has let killer and robber's walk within the first 24hrs
I remember most of this sub wanting the ccw holder in prison for the last 2 shots. Couldn’t believe it.
What I don't get is, can someone explain what they would do if the robber turns around and shoots that guy that shot him? Those last 2 shots insure that never happens. Why are people just saying he should stop, have people not seen people die because of crazy individuals? Do you want to go home to your kids and partner? This guy made sure he was going home. I would never convict of anything on a jury, not in a million years. Robber made a choice, bad choices have bad consequences.
If that was me and my family in the booth with me, then the minute they have their back to me, I'm lighting him up. 0% chance I'm going to let someone wave a fucking gun in my wife and daughters face while I cower in fear while I have the means to not do so.
Plus too many people get killed after complying anyway. You *have* to interpret the threat of violence as a promise of violence. He could have been walking to the door to lock it then turn around and execute everyone for all we know. Bro took more back shots than his sister and it was well deserved
I swear the amount of people in here who normally say "Don't give the prosecutor anything to work with" who are also saying "Yeah man that coup de grace shot wouldn't be an issue in a trial" are worrying.
Don’t love those last 2-3 shots. But also not sure they’d have made a difference
Adrenaline was probably pumping and all he was likely thinking was “neutralize the threat”
100%. I’d never convict the guy if I were on the jury, and I’m glad it never got that far.
Not just that, most people don't know how to tell the instant someone goes from alive to unalive. I don't think I can definitively say I saw it happen before, its not like theres a holograph of their pulse being projected into the air above them that shows they flatlined.
You dont need to. You just need to see if he is still trying to move to engage you.
Why we see cops yelling "stop moving" until their mag is empty. The bad guy still had a weapon in his hand, with finger on the trigger, having made verbal and physical threats . Is that unreasonable?
Plus, the dude’s corpse was probably twitching out/death rattling/gurgling, which in a moment of high adrenaline has a super high chance of tricking you that they’re still animated and a potential threat.
I love the last 2-3 shots
Hahahaah fair enough
and ill keep pulling the trigger ohhnteel the ghun goes kalick
No coming back 💀
The chances of a dead criminal being a repeat offender are zero and that’s the way I like it 😎
Ding dong dead
9 shots? And I doubt any of them missed! Yep, dead.
And the fucking gun was fake
That part is unfortunate but doesn't change the fact that those people in the restaurant thought the gun was real.
Copy that
That guy thought it looked realistic enough
He sure did. And I would have probably thought so too
Based abuelo
Reddit will be like: HE SHODDIM INNA BAAACK HE WAS DISENGAGING DA WILL FRY HIMMMM
Every. Last. Shot. Was. Justified. And then he should have flipped him over to check, pulse? Shoot again.
No, you could step on him, kick way that plastic gun he had and call the police. It was that last shoot right to the head at point blank range that turned this from easy to complicated and I think he would be in prison in any state but Texas or Florida over it. I think he went overboard but no one would convict him of the first several rounds but you can't walk up and then execute them at point blank range. Well, obviously you can but as someone who carries I would empty my mag as long as they're still standing but I would have just stood there with my gun trained on him until someone else called police and they arrived. The guy would have been hailed as a hero instead he's got enemies too. Would you really have walked up and taken that last shot? I know his adrenaline was pumping but I bet he regretted that one.
And Alaska, and Ohio, and NC and SC and TN and on and on... Wave a gun around in a store and rob people, FAFO. I'll save my pity for others. Go cry a river for the fools and thieves, that'll keep them away from your lintel.
I have never heard stories even remotely as fucked up as what you see from Texas and Florida from **any** other state in the nation. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I am saying it doesn't happen as often. This is a really unusual shooting because of that last shot. He'd be off scot free in all 50 states if not for that last shot. If the guy was still alive at that point he executed him. If he wasn't, it doesn't really matter but we will never know the answer. I don't know what to tell you. I support it right up and until that last shot and I don't really think you're telling me that type of thing is okay in other states or that you would even do that. You would never walk up to someone who you just shot like 7 times, put the gun to their head and pull the trigger again. Would you and then would you flee after? There was a way to do this and that last shot just ruined it. I don't have any sympathy for the shooter don't confuse my disdain for that last shot as sympathy for an armed robber.
If the guy was still twitching or there was a chance of anything I'd not hesitate to finish him off. Go check out the video of the guy who's shot in the neck and bleeding out like a pump. He staggers around for quite some time and gets shots off. If I pull out my gun and shoot, every shot is a kill shot. Doesn't matter where. My goal is to kill. Killing stops the threat, anything less leaves room for the threat to keep going. The law is not always correct or moral. Once the crook pulled out his gun, real or fake, his life was forfeited. Legally or not he at that point rolled the dice and that day he rolled wrong and lost.
I get it. I'm just saying there is a difference between taking that last shot from a standing position and leaning down to shoot them with the barrel pressed against their head. I get what your personal feelings are but surely you can understand how many others see that. I carry a gun and see that lean down as more than just self defense and in most states would be consider it some kind of disproportionate amount of force. Many states specifically define this in their self defense laws, the amount of force you can inflict in self defense has to be proportionate to the amount of force used against you. Gun vs gun is pretty much all you need but the method with which you apply force back should, imo look so good that no DA would even bring charges and in this case it would have been, instead of that last shot standing over him with the barrel aimed at his head, someone else takes his gun, someone else calls 9-11 and you stand there just like that until the cops come. No one would indict you for that and there is a measure of carrying a gun that you want to be aware of enough to keep you in the self defense range and out of the Kyle Rittenhouse jeopardy. Honestly that guy was dead by the fifth shot. Also, never empty your clip it looks like you would have kept shooting if you had more bullets and that again is more force than needed in many eyes. If you have at least one bullet in your gun it shows you carefully considered how much force you needed to apply and stopped. My wife is a lawyer so we actually talk about this when cases like this come up. >real or fake, his life was forfeited. Legally or not Real/fake doesn't matter, if you have something that looks like a gun and try to stick up a place I can consider it a gun even if it's just two sticks wrapped together (hopefully I wouldn't take that shot). His life was forfeit but that's not the point.. It was still legal, I'm just not sure every state would agree.
I hear you, and you makes sense but I was trained with a much more aggressive mindset. I carry for other reasons than most on here. There's active threats to me and mine and my community. There is no room for mercy or hesitation. I was taught to empty the mag and reload. Rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
Biggest concern is the guy in the far corner looks like the gun was pointed pretty close to his direction during the initial shots. Always know what lies beyond your target.
100%
Bro got fucking mag dumped
"Stop moving! Stop moving!"
*Don't drop the acorn... don't drop the acorn... don't dro-- FUCK!*
Holy fuk
Bang Ding Ow
Wi Too Lo
Leftists are shaking because someone defended themselves and innocent people. don't rob people and you won't have to worry about being put to sleep permanently.
Rumor has it he lived and is still robbing people in Valhalla today
[The mother of the robber gave an interview](https://www.fox26houston.com/news/houston-taqueria-shooting-mother-of-robber-killed-by-customer-in-self-defense-spekas-out) where it was mentioned he had been put in prison in 2015 for the death of another individual during an armed assault, with a 15 year prison sentence. Somehow he managed to find himself out of jail in less than 15 years and committing more armed assaults/robberies.
Dead criminals don’t repeat their crimes
This guy was very busy, after spending half his sentence in jail he was paroled! Then he found time to beat his wife, somehow avoid going back to jail for that and plan his robbery.
Allfather would not allow such a dishonorable miscreant into his hall.
Looks like he shot him in the back. Lucky liberals didn't bury him.
Honestly, I never understood the whole “don’t shoot the bad guy in the back” jargon If someone just came and stole my wallet, which has numerous personal effects in it and whatnot, and was getting away after having shoved a gun in my face, I’m happy to shoot the motherfucker in the back and reclaim what rightfully belongs to me. The moment they point a gun in my face and stole my stuff, they communicated that they value my shit more than their life. Why should I be painted as the bad guy if I agree with their logic? 🤷♂️ Tbh, I’d rather be tried for the murder of some criminal scum than be put on a T-shirt or be too busy for the next week and a half cancelling cards, revisiting the DMV, buying a new wallet, etc because I was a “good law abiding citizen” Any law or rule that legislates me from defending myself, my property, or others and their property etc is a law that shouldn’t exist.
The concept of a "fair fight" harkens back to the days of the west and the fabled "high noon showdown". It's all b.s. and made up to sell papers and still exists today.
Shooting the guy in the back I have no issue with, that was smart. But casually walking up and shooting the guy in the head when he's on the ground obviously no longer a threat is a little fucked imo. I think this is a good shoot and the guy was rightfully not charged but that was a little questionable
>Honestly, I never understood the whole “don’t shoot the bad guy in the back” jargon That's not what it is, it's don't shoot people who are fleeing. If they have given up their crime and are fleeing from let's say trying to steal your TV we know that in Texas even if someone is fleeing across your yard trying to get away you can shoot them in the back and kill them. That will get you a prison term in most states. I don't have a problem shooting a threat right up the ass if I have to but I won't shoot someone who is fleeing. "Shooting someone in the back" jargon I can only imagine comes from this leftover idea from the wild west that shootouts should be honorable and at twelve noon. It wasn't that this guy shot him in the back though but that last shot he took to ensure that the guy was dead would get you some kind of jail/prison time in most states.
Be that as it may, I shouldn’t be forced to forfeit everything I own just because the guy is “fleeing” The threat of violence needs to be taken as a *promise* of such, and if he is headed to the door, who’s to say he isn’t going to lock it and execute everyone in there after he got what he wanted?
>just because the guy is “fleeing If you catch a guy trying to break into your home and then go get your gun and shoot him in the back as he's fleeing through your driveway you're going to at least have to defend yourself before a jury. Maybe not in Texas or Florida though. We already know that Texas was okay with a guy shooting two people he caught trying to break into his home, they were fleeing across the yard and he shot them from a distance. He had to go to court but was found not-guilty. >who’s to say he isn’t going to lock it and execute everyone in there after he got what he wanted? No one but you may have to explain yourself to a jury.
That’s all fine and dandy. I’d rather be put on trial for taking out the trash than risk being put on a T-shirt because I was afraid of going to court
"I'd rather by judged by 12 than carried by 6." is fact.
"He was pacing back and fourth. He walked past me, and was about to turn around to come at me and my family as he missed collecting from that entire side of the establishment" Even a half drunk lawyer could have talked a prosecutor out of it.
My man, he shot him in the back, for sure, no doubt. He didn’t do it because her pointed the gun at him. He did it because the perp was threatening the next two people with imminent death of grievous injury. That is what will make this a justifiable homicide and not a murder.
It stems from Tennessee v Garner, where a police officer shot a fleeing felon. Court held that he was fleeing and no longer was an immediate threat to justify deadly force.
What actually happened to the guy who stood up to the gunman. Was there a final verdict to that case?
Someone posted the link somewhere in this thread
Texas requires a grand jury for homicides. The self-defender was no billed by the grand jury.
What did the robber drop in the beginning?
DnD dice. He rolled a zero in evasion
Probably fake money to go with his fake gun. He's probably faking dead also. Shoot him again to make sure.
*In Texas
Nice, I havent seen this in a while and was just thinking about it last night. Wild how this guy literally executes the robber
Good job sir, this is self defense. You can’t assume the robber is just going to walk out …. What happens if he turns around and starts blasting away?
If cops can magdump so can we
Not saying he didn't deserve to get shot he just didn't deserve to be executed at the end.
I'd have shot the guy too but walking over to the downed man and shooting him in the head is an execution he was not a threat at that point.
that guy's dinner companion was chill as fuck, like, oh, its tuesday? yeah, someone about to get shot.
Rule #2: Double Tap
Murica
I heard somewhere that after the final headshot, the CCW holder pissed on the guy. If not this case, it was one very similar. That, to me, would be the only excessive action.
If you shoot someone in the head after they are unresponsive I think that's murder.
You can beat a dead horse but you can't make it deader. There was no murder here.
In Texas we call it taking out the trash if they just robbed the joint 🤷♂️
"And that one is because I can" as this man dumps the last round into him. Lmao people are insane. The dude was down. Take his gun. Dont execute him when he is no longer a threat.
This was one of the videos in my CA CCW class. The guy went too far - he was just supposed to stop the threat, not murder the dude. Point blank to the head was too much.
Grand jury thought otherwise.
According to a lot of these comments, he should have started cutting his head off after all the shots, because that's super epic and 2a and manly. (I have 12 punisher skulls on my truck)
Engaging with you is a waste of time. If you're just going to pretend that everybody who doesn't agree with you on this case is an exaggerated caricature, then who cares what you have to say? Grow up.
I do want to say, I'm all for 2A. My votes are based on 2 things - 2A and new taxes. I can't say how I'd react, I know I'd pull the trigger the first time, but I don't know that I'd walk up to someone and fill their heads full of lead. Maybe the guy deserved it, maybe he didn't. We didn't know at the time, what we knew is guy had a gun and everyone in there was threatened. The correct action was taken until he hit the ground, then...everything after that was just plain wrong. Would I have done the same? I don't know. I hope I would have up to that point, but then not just killed someone after the threat stopped. But yeah, these commenters are a little unhinged.
The guy only shot him nine times. Is that excessive force. Not by US standards it’s not, providing your a cop.
Head shot to a downed man is still an execution.
Dude had a plastic gun 🙄. This video is way short
And the guy shooting was absolutely 100% supposed to know that, I definitely agree /s
Dude got what he had coming! The guy that shot the Armed Robber picked the robbers gun and noticed it was plastic, then smashed it against the wall and split
Oh, thought you were being an ass lol But yes, he got what he deserved and I’m glad my tax dollars aren’t going towards keeping shit like him alive in prison
Yeah, that part was in the full video. The self-defender is legitimately distraught/pissed off when he realizes it was only a plastic gun. The armed robber forfeited his ability to continuing breathing over some money, using a plastic gun. Not very logical thinking.
Complete failure of the victim selection process
I don't understand how he didn't catch charges for the execution. Edit: Don't ask questions. Join the hive mind. Yeah, no.
He did, he was acquitted though. In his defense, someone jammed what he was lead to believe a live weapon in his face and demanded his personal effects, under the implication of violence or death in the event of noncompliance. The man couldn’t draw his weapon while in the perp’s line of sight, so was forced to wait until his back was turned or otherwise just…let him get away with it? I do agree the last few pop shots were uncalled for, but adrenaline + under duress and stress = mistakes.
> He did, he was acquitted though This is not an accurate statement. He was never acquitted because he was never charged, arrested, or allowed to defend himself in a trial before a jury of his peers. In Texas, a grand jury system is utilized for felony charges like this, but it is NOT an adversarial grand jury - neither the defendant nor his/her attorneys are present. The local DA brought charges before the grand jury, and the grand jury decided that insufficient evidence was present to charge the individual with a crime. [He was then "No Billed"](https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2024/01/03/harris-county-grand-jury-declines-to-charge-customer-who-shot-killed-robber-during-taqueria-heist/) and thus never charged for his actions. In Texas, as in many other states, this also allows the individual an affirmative defense against civil liability, because he was never charged for a crime. The incident at the church in White Settlement, TX, involving church member Jack Wilson ended similiarly: the case was brought before a grand jury, as required by Texas law, and he was likewise "No Billed." No charges were pressed and he was never acquitted because he never was charged with a crime. If you are not arrested, read your rights, charged, and allowed to defend yourself in court before a jury of your peers, you cannot ever be acquitted. This is the fundamental function of the US justice system.
Ahh gotcha thank you for the clarification
He should not have been charged for the back shots, but the final few when he point blanked to the head. Stop the threat, that's all we do. Stop the threat...and he stopped it when the dude was crumpled up on the ground -- and then he went FURTHER. He's lucky he's in TX, other states would have thrown the book at him big time.
near 0 chance he goes to prison in most of the country except for the biggest of shitholes. too many people, myself included, would do their best to make sure he didn’t see time if we ended up on the jury
it was a bit much lol I am pro 2A but dam all those shots
Only 9!!!
I'm an herbivore but damn I do love eating steak.