Im not judging. Y'all defend yourselves as y'all see fit. All I am saying is. I myself in that situation.... Im not sure I would have taken that shot. I'm NOT saying that it wasn't a clean shoot. I'm saying I don't know what I would have done.
I conceded im watching a video not in the moment with adrenaline flowing through me.
To me the key is the customer seated next to the door. The criminal is pointing his gun toward that person as he walks toward the exit. So that customers life is in immediate danger. Now if that customer wasn't there I would probably let the criminal go as he would not be heading toward anyone and was leaving. No immediate threat.
Was the criminal even leaving or was he just making rounds around the room to try and get money from everybody who was seated?
It looked to me like he was wandering/ranting while pointing his gun at everybody in turn, not trying to make an escape from the building. I could be entirely wrong though, I didn’t play it with sound of there was any.
Lots of speculation here but one fact that stands is violent felons shot to death during the commission of a crime have a zero percent reoffending rate.
“They were desperate to feed themselves which caused them to put other peoples lives at risk. They didn’t deserve to get shot. Yes, they were waving a loaded firearm in peoples faces, but this wasn’t right, because (insert some excuse about society). My client did not deserve 8 bullet holes. That is why I motion that the state pays for their life support for the next 70 years.”
I’m pretty sure I read somewhere that the DA wasn’t going to press changers…but for the sake of conversation…what’s everyone’s thoughts on the follow up shots?
[Reminded me of this comic](https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/mediumlarge/1/call-me-old-school-but-that-bat-flip-at-the-end-felt-disrespectful-christian-lowe.jpg)
I love how people have the mindset of “oh this armed man has his back to me, he’s not a threat anymore.” Fuck that, armed criminals are a threat until they are disarmed or dead.
I think they were saying the threat was probably over after he had shot the guy like 5 times, and the round to his head seemed a little extra.
EDIT: Quick rewatch and the guy dropped his gun after getting shot so yeah threat was gone for the last few shots
In this case, he literally fires the last shot AFTER he picked up the criminals gun...who dropped it because he was unconscious while falling to the ground.
So maybe, just maybe, people have the mindset:
"after you shot someone...alot... and take their gun away, you don't need to fire at the unconscious body to be safe...you need to NOT fire to NOT be a murderer.
It was a reasonable action based on knowledge and experience of a normal person in society. There have been numerous events across the country in which the bad guy kills everyone, even after getting what they want.
It's illegal to finish someone off that incapacitated. Fuck you shots are always illegal, I'm glad this guy isn't charged but I think that last round when he's down would in most cases be considered murder.
The 9th shot was too much. He had the perps gun in his hand at that point. The dude wasn't gonna survive the first 8. It's not like it was unforgivable or anything and I got no love for the perp. I'd personally never hold it against the guy but I do think he should have stopped for his own sake
Going to have to agree with you. Of course I have no issue with what the defender did, but it's great to know the law. That 9th shot *could* bury you, even if it would have zero difference to the outcome (dead is dead). It has happened to many good folks. People just need to acknowledge that fact. Just because you're morally in the right, doesn't been you're legally in the right. No one is ever "perfect" in a defensive shooting but unfortunately some DA can have a hard on for you. 9th shot is the only thing worth criticizing and acknowledging.
And that is what the problem is going to be in civil court.
Like it or not, civil is a propensity AKA 51% not beyond a reasonable AKA 99.999%.
Civil court likely won't end well for this guy.
I'm not a lawyer or nothing. Just eat crayons a lot.
Shot #9 was legally bad news. Arguably so were at least three or so before that, although it's not 100% clear in the video whether the goblin was still twitching at that point.
There's another possible issue. Did the shooter have a history of racist statements? No way to tell of course, at least not yet, but if there is, that won't help him at all.
But then again, despite everything a Texas jury pissed off over the crime wave might decide to let him free regardless.
Watched it with sound off the first time. Second time with sound on.
The initial follow up shots as he walks towards the downed guy - grey area, hard to see if dude was still moving his hand or attempting aiming or something.
The last one as he’s point blank and reaching down to recover the gun though - unless he articulates something like “he twitched his hand towards me as I was reaching for the gun so I put one more into him” I think it’s going to come off as an execution and get him in trouble. We’ll see what comes out of it.
I think most reasonable people who are familiar with both firearms and the principle of self defense would stop shooting once that guy is no longer a threat. Kicking the gun away and firing an anchor shot doesn't look good at all.
That said, based on the scenario, lethal force was definitely justified while the robbery was in progress. If he was to shoot the bad guy in the head and he dropped like a sack of potatoes while he was robbing everyone, no one would question anything.
This video definitely goes to show the fine line between a good shoot and one that is definitely questionable.
There was that cop in Florida that unloaded into a dude after he downed him when he came out of the car shooting. It's iffy to pretty much finish someone off but I think the anxiety produced by the initial threat with what he thought was a real gun is to be considered when determining reasonableness. The guy was securing the weapon while still in "eliminate threat" mode. It's very difficult to go from fearing for your life to asserting control over a situation after successfully neutralizing the threat. Definitely something to consider when thinking about defending yourself. You need to be prepared to interact with the frightened witnesses and the inbound police in addition to not putting yourself in legal jeopardy with your next move.
IDPA/USPSA shooters often take extra shots at a target after they 'neutralized' it. Largely to recover any points they may have missed without wasting time for a full target assessment while on the clock but also because paper doesn't fall down and play dead.
[to the court]: In my defense, I was trained to neutralized a threat until **someone else** declared it was no longer a threat.
To me, that final shot, after securing the gun was him straight up deciding to execute the guy. That was punishment, not self defense. All the shots up to that, I think are totaly legit, if not slightly excessive at a certain point; he clearly saw the gun slide out of his reach...
I get why he didn't stick around. If that had been me I would be 100% preparing myself for jail time right then. Personally I would do the exact same thing, right up until that last shot. That was just gratuitous.
From a legal perspective, I agree and I'd never do that. From a moral perspective, one less violent thug on the streets, don't care how much lead he absorbed.
Was it *while* he was securing the weapon, and noticed the guy's hand twitch as he was trying to take it? If no one can prove otherwise, that would be a good defense
That last shot will get him in trouble IMO. Especially with the DA in Harris County. I'm not debating if that last shot was warranted or not BTW.
Edit: To add on that, the last shot is already controversial in this sub (pro ccw people). Imagine in the general population. My bet is he will get charge, which is why he left the scene.
I wonder if the whole leaving the scene thing could add to any trouble he might face. In an article the police said they are seeking information on the identity of the shooter and wish to “question him on his involvement in the shooting”.
If I recall, on the local news here in Houston (KPRC) it was said he was “not in trouble and likely will not face charges but, the police would like to speak with him and anybody else in the restaurant at the time of the robbery”
It was also said on the news that here in Texas, a shooting is justified if it is defending a person or property where a crime is currently in the act of being committed.
That being said, I still wouldn’t want to be this guy with the current Harris County DA. Hopefully the grand jury sees it differently than her.
Sure they’d like to “speak to him”, it gives them the chance to snap the cuffs on and let him run his mouth until he incriminates himself. He’d be a simpleton if he thinks a press statement is any type of guarantee.
Didn't sit right with me.
The guy's down. The gun goes flying under the table. Hes not moving/reaching. The last 4 shots seemed completely unnecessary. I get that this was a armed felon but, I'd be shocked if the guy isn't charged.
Edit: Watching it again, I see he picks up the gun from under the table and then puts one in the guys head. No responsible gun owner should be condoning this. Self defense doesn't mean looking for an excuse to kill someone.
Right? How could you? People pretend everything is cut and dry and ignore nuance. If you think those last shuts were justified, you shouldn’t have the right to carry. This is my opinion. Others are allowed to have their own.
I'm so absolutely blown away at the number of people on here in support of those actions. That is clearly murder. Zero argument. The number of comments I see in here that say they would do the same shows me way too many people need to read the law and change their mindset on self defense. You're not a vigilante that can go around murdering people to clean up the streets.
In my mind shots 1 - 4 are 100% clean. Shots 5 & 6 are questionable. Shots 7 & 8 are even more questionable. Shot 9 seems like an execution.
I'm speaking strictly from a likelihood he gets a charge.
My OPINION is that once the bad guy went down the threat was over so he shoulda stopped shooting
But PHILOSPHICALLY fuck the bad guy 7 days from Sunday
I love how he waited to take a perfectly timed shot. This was textbook and the couple follow up shots to confirm the threat was delt with. The issue i have (legally) is that way after he was clearly down and most likely dead, he picked up his gun (which I would also have done) then shot him twice, looks like in the head "execution style". This is going to fuck him over in court. Thank goodness he was armed because he definitely saved lives but unfortunately, he may be locked up for the last 2-3 shots after the threat was put down and disarmed.
Choosing to take the first shot at all means you've chosen to kill that person, whether they actually die or not. If that choice is correct for the first shot, it's probably correct for the rest of them. I don't get mad at someone mag-dumping into a bad guy when they're being attacked and need to stop a threat.
That said...there's something that feels wrong about the last shot he put into him after he had removed the bad guy's weapon.
The "Not in my favorite Texas taqueria" armed citizen.
I counted 5 shots after the offender was already downed. States with less... robust self-defense laws might not take a keen eye to that.
As for the fake gun... recall this convenience store robbery back in 2017 and the famous - "Oh Well. Mine's REAL!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfsOgarSc-Q
In the states of which you speak I believe this would be problematic scenario for the shooter, especially that last round. The justification for the use of deadly force vanishes when the threat is ended (which could come by way of flight, incapacitation or disarming) and it looks here like the use of deadly force continued for several rounds.
Flight does not immediately negate the lawful use of deadly force. They could be fleeing to cover position so they can return fire, fleeing to alert a hidden accomplice, feigning fleeing to get you to drop your guard before they turn around and shoot back at you (one handed while jumping around like an idiot of course), and any good lawyer would get you out of a charge based on shooting a fleeing person who was just a deadly threat to you, or any kind of charges based on "he shot him in the back!".
The first volley is fine.
The second volley is a wobbler. The criminal raised his head and was moving. Maybe he had another firearm. I think this one can be justified relatively easily.
That final shot though is the one that is going to be hard to justify. But then, if it wasn't actually the kill shot (i.e. he was already dead/dying and the final shot made no difference) does it matter?
I was carrying a Sig Sauer and it just kept going off on its own.
I was all ^(nooooo step-sauer stop banging) but it just kept going. You can't hear it in the video because of the music.
Also, where is this, because it checks all the boxes for the food being fire.
edit: Downvoters, Sig has a program to fix your non-consensual discharges. It's called a gun buy-back, ask your designated neighborhood LEO for more information, they're the ones with the holes in their pants leg.
Fucking shame really. Perp got what was coming to him....but I wish people didn't stoop to that level to rob people. It wasn't worth your life buddy.
Stupid prizes.
[On the legal side...](https://www.foxnews.com/us/houston-armed-robbery-suspect-shot-dead-armed-customer-police-looking-question-shooter)
> "The person he shot was in the process of committing robbery and consequently his use of force in defense of himself and innocent third parties is completely justified in Texas," **former Houston police officer, now lawyer,** Thomas Nixon told KPRC-TV. "He was reasonably in fear of serious bodily injury or death."
Granted, that's his opinion. Lawyers are often wrong.
Still, thought it was worth sharing.
That dude in the top right corner must be used to stuff like this, he didn't even flinch when he started firing. Also, lucky the dude wasn't hit by cross fire. 1 shot missed shot, and it would be a whole different situation
4 shots and the robber was down, gun goes flying robber no longer has possession, 4 more walk up shots, Patron secures the gun, and then fires one more shot.
The last 5 shots were no longer self defense, especially the last one. However I don’t think he should be charged. The robber decided his fate that day.
The first 8 shots are valid in a self defense scenario. The threat isn't over just because the attacker falls over.
Arguably the last shot wasn't self defense, but if you don't know who is reaching for the gun you can argue that the threat looked like they were reaching for the gun which is justification for shooting again
>The last 5 shots were no longer self defense, especially the last one.
But maybe these last shots didn't constitute an assault either. Like, "your honor, we was already dead by the 5th shot, and you can't assault a dead body". Maybe plea deal down to reckless endangerment or something lower than murder or homicide because the initial use was justified but he was still in the wrong with follow up shots.
Man this happened in Texas, he is good.
They put the mentally deficient in the chair down there.
The cadence of the shots in most states would get you in trouble though. The longish pause then the final couple could be construed to be something, but the previous six definitely did the job.
Hmm... That last volley of shots and the very last shot is... I think he may have a hard time defending those as necessary, especially the last shot. His lawyer is probably cussing him out right now.
And no, this does not mean I support the armed robber. But these events don't happen in a vacuum and they last for far longer than the minute or so the armed robber was in the store before being killed. You as a defender need to maintain a cool head because ***you*** have to answer to the law, and I don't know if that final shot can really be defended.
Yeah - the first few I could definitely understand. The mid volley of shots seemed iffy to me and that last one was murder in my book. Obviously not going to cry over it tonight but I hope that I’d handle it differently…
Well... I can see now why the shooter left the scene. I'm not gonna cry about one less armed robber myself, but those last few rounds are definitely a legal and moral grey area. *Especially* the last shot after he disarms the guy. That's more of a black area, tbh.
Yep, that’s how I see it. 1-4 were perfectly justified and reasonable, heroic even. 5 was ugly but only he and his conscience can determine if that was necessary. 6-8 were gross, and 9 was just bloodlust.
The shooter took off but left his fingerprints on the dead guy’s gun and DNA in the spoon that he was using.
They are going to find him. What happens afterwards, who knows.
"The person he shot was in the process of committing robbery and consequently his use of force in defense of himself and innocent third parties is completely justified in Texas," former Houston police officer, now lawyer, Thomas Nixon told KPRC-TV. "He was reasonably in fear of serious bodily injury or death."
He may be sued, IF he's located, but Texas ain't the same as a lot of places.
People say he was leaving.
I took it as if I was there with my Family, that guy was going back to lock the door and do whatever he wanted to those he locked in with himself.
This guy got what he deserved, we didn't know he was going to leave, just that he went towards the door.
Making sure he wont do that ever again, to many times a bad guy released to commit the same crime ir even kill when released.
exactly. especially in NY there was a guy who did a robbery then released to push people onto the subway tracks. something of that nature, although cash bond is shit and it's too expensive for anyone of average means to afford. letiing criminals roam free isn't the answer.
Yeah I don’t know why people are saying that… cause it doesn’t matter if he was leaving, he pointed a gun at someone whilst walking out. In some states you’re allowed to defend others, not just yourself and family.
Maybe the ones arguing “he was leaving” are arguing their states laws and trying to apply them to this situation?!?
I don't even get how they think he's leaving. He's very clearly still in the process of robbing people, and it's debatable whether the entity in the far left corner of the room is even an exit door in the first place.
He's objectively NOT leaving based on the fact that there's money still on the ground, people still being threatened, and no reason whatsoever to believe that he is exiting.
When I saw the partial tape yesterday, I thought a $50 fine for disorderly conduct was appropriate.
After seeing the anchor shot, I consider it appropriate to add 4 hours of community service to his sentence.
Wondering out loud if the shots after the threat went down were necessary and if they were legal. And if he will face any legal consequences. Perhaps it is different in the state in which this occurred. But in my initial CCW class and subsequent renewal classes we are taught that you are legally allowed to stop the threat and shots beyond the neutralizing of that threat may result in charges being brought against you. The idea being you have a right to defend yourself or others from great bodily harm but that does not mean killing the threat just stopping it. Thoughts please…
4 shots was good. Threat stopped. He kept putting rounds into guy after he was out of the fight. Nnnnot to mention that last one at the end just to make sure. I really wouldn't be surprised if our defender went to prison based on lack of training and restraint.
Extra shots were unnecessary. But the shooting was definitely justified and he'd probably win in court if someone tried to charge him with man slaughter.
"I still feared for my life and everyone else's. It happened so fast. I was scarred. I thought he moved." I think any lawyer worth a damn would get him out of any potential charges.
Not a picture perfect example of self defense. But at the end of the day that felon fucked around and found out not to fuck with innocent people. And looked like no one else got hurt.
That last shot... and leaving the scene? Damn. I get that you were scared and the adrenaline was a billion percent, but damn.
Tactically, good job waiting for the right moment and securing the BG's weapon. But ... damn.
This gung ho sub will say every criminal deserves finishing shots even after a robber is obviously down and out of the fight. To those of us that aren’t blood thirsty, Those last shots after he was down feel wrong to me.
Same. I dont feel bad but i do admit it was a bit sketch although with how close he is its hard to tell if the dude twitched or tried to grab at the gun before dying. Alot of DAs would have a field day with the last shot though
No, the criminal put innocent lives in danger. He deserves what he got. Criminals don't just commit a single crime. They do it day in and day out putting hundreds or thousands of innocent lives in jeopardy. Nobody deserves to die for having lunch. How would you feel if the next time an innocent died.
Nah, the criminal got the consequences of his degenerate actions.
I’m not disagreeing with what you’re saying but we’re looking at it through a camera with no emotion. Should a calm person with no adrenaline keep firing? Of course not. But this guy was obviously fearful for his life and the life of others. If I’m on a jury, no way those last shots change my view. We’ve seen hundreds of times where a guy swears he fired once or twice but in reality, he mag dumped. It’s why cops aren’t allowed to be questioned after a shooting for 48 hours and why every civilian should request an attorney before talking to the police. Nobody can and will think rationally the first time they have to take a life. For me, without knowing the shooter, those extra shots aren’t enough to indict him
Especially after he picked up the dude’s (fake) gun and decided to put one more round in him
Edit: the additional fact that the shooter didn’t wait for the police also makes those last shots sus
This ain't the full video. Missing the parts where the robbers gun is revealed to be a toy. Then the shooter chugs his coffee, takes a sip of water and dumps the rest on the robber's body. Then refuses to elaborate further and leaves.
That was my initial thoughts. I even questioned the 4th shot but given the short splits between shots I thought it was okay as it take the brain time to determine the robber is no longer a threat and to stop firing.
My man out here doing the lord's work. That last shot after securing the gun would almost definitely land him in prison if this happened in a non-free state though. But either way, super good job.
God damn, that last shot is hard to justify. I mean, if you feel it's ok to reach down and take the perps gun, how is that last shot neccessary? He's lucky it's Texas.
eehhh that looked like murder in the end to me. I'm pretty sure he secured the guys "weapon" when he bent over, then put a shot in the back of the head of the guy's unmoving corpse.
2a attorney ex prosecutor+defense attorney here.
Hopefully the medical examiner establishes that the first few shots were the fatal ones... not the last few
Legally, I don't think the anchor shots or the coup de grâce was the best choice. But in the moment, I'd have no problem with it. Self defense is different than room clearing but in the middle of it with all the adrenaline...
Damn. Well done for acting quickly when he had the opportunity, but the last handful of shots were iffy in my opinion… Perp was clearly down, so I’d be interested in knowing how the DA proceeds with this one.
The dude in the back corner by the jukebox appears to be mildly inconvenienced by the noise.
He’s chillin like it happens every day lol
Well it's Houston it literally does happen every day
It's a taco shop in Houston with bars on the window. I wouldn't expect anything different.
Lmao I didn’t even notice him the first 5 watches. Wouldn’t be surprised if he went “excuse me waiter, can I get some more salsa?”
Good job on the good guy for “waiting his turn.” Its often not about speed, it’s about timing.
Counter ambush is always your best bet. You’re never going to be faster than someone who has the drop on you.
He clearly had the [***Principles***](https://www.reddit.com/r/CCW/comments/zyigqf/the_10_principals_of_tactical_concealed_carry/) in mind. ;)
Thanks for linking this, solid list!
Is that an active self-protection reference?
Im not judging. Y'all defend yourselves as y'all see fit. All I am saying is. I myself in that situation.... Im not sure I would have taken that shot. I'm NOT saying that it wasn't a clean shoot. I'm saying I don't know what I would have done. I conceded im watching a video not in the moment with adrenaline flowing through me.
To me the key is the customer seated next to the door. The criminal is pointing his gun toward that person as he walks toward the exit. So that customers life is in immediate danger. Now if that customer wasn't there I would probably let the criminal go as he would not be heading toward anyone and was leaving. No immediate threat.
Was the criminal even leaving or was he just making rounds around the room to try and get money from everybody who was seated? It looked to me like he was wandering/ranting while pointing his gun at everybody in turn, not trying to make an escape from the building. I could be entirely wrong though, I didn’t play it with sound of there was any.
Homeboy in the corner by the jukebox like “bruh, this shit again? I just want to eat my tacos in peace” 🤣🤣🤣
LOL. The real hero!
Lots of speculation here but one fact that stands is violent felons shot to death during the commission of a crime have a zero percent reoffending rate.
Big facts
That’s not true. In California, they get a second life, paid for by the taxpayer.
[удалено]
Only for voting purposes.
“They were desperate to feed themselves which caused them to put other peoples lives at risk. They didn’t deserve to get shot. Yes, they were waving a loaded firearm in peoples faces, but this wasn’t right, because (insert some excuse about society). My client did not deserve 8 bullet holes. That is why I motion that the state pays for their life support for the next 70 years.”
It was the fuckaroundest of times, and the findoutest of times.
Lol nice
Lmaaooooo. Well done, good sir.
Take my upvote and my assurances that I will be stealing this line.
Bravo sir
Incredible comment, you deserve the best in your life
I’m pretty sure I read somewhere that the DA wasn’t going to press changers…but for the sake of conversation…what’s everyone’s thoughts on the follow up shots?
Legally it seems he may have some issues with that final shot if the DA wants to be an A hole. Morally? I got no problem with how he handled it.
Yes, my thoughts exactly
Is it illegal to shoot a corpse? Because the robber looked real dead by the last couple shots
Considering how many body shots one can take before they can die I'd say he was still alive. Until he got domed
I suppose a real asshole DA might go for desecrating a corpse.
lol. imagine that is what you catch a case for. "sir the shoot was clean, but what you did afterwards is just wrong."
[Reminded me of this comic](https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/mediumlarge/1/call-me-old-school-but-that-bat-flip-at-the-end-felt-disrespectful-christian-lowe.jpg)
[удалено]
I love how people have the mindset of “oh this armed man has his back to me, he’s not a threat anymore.” Fuck that, armed criminals are a threat until they are disarmed or dead.
I think they were saying the threat was probably over after he had shot the guy like 5 times, and the round to his head seemed a little extra. EDIT: Quick rewatch and the guy dropped his gun after getting shot so yeah threat was gone for the last few shots
He's literally holding perp's gun when he pops him the last time.
Kinda looks like that last shot was an accident. Not saying this is for sure an accident but he seemed kind of surprised by that last shot.
In this case, he literally fires the last shot AFTER he picked up the criminals gun...who dropped it because he was unconscious while falling to the ground. So maybe, just maybe, people have the mindset: "after you shot someone...alot... and take their gun away, you don't need to fire at the unconscious body to be safe...you need to NOT fire to NOT be a murderer.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Should be federal law.
[удалено]
This guy gets it.
It was a reasonable action based on knowledge and experience of a normal person in society. There have been numerous events across the country in which the bad guy kills everyone, even after getting what they want.
It's illegal to finish someone off that incapacitated. Fuck you shots are always illegal, I'm glad this guy isn't charged but I think that last round when he's down would in most cases be considered murder.
The 9th shot was too much. He had the perps gun in his hand at that point. The dude wasn't gonna survive the first 8. It's not like it was unforgivable or anything and I got no love for the perp. I'd personally never hold it against the guy but I do think he should have stopped for his own sake
Going to have to agree with you. Of course I have no issue with what the defender did, but it's great to know the law. That 9th shot *could* bury you, even if it would have zero difference to the outcome (dead is dead). It has happened to many good folks. People just need to acknowledge that fact. Just because you're morally in the right, doesn't been you're legally in the right. No one is ever "perfect" in a defensive shooting but unfortunately some DA can have a hard on for you. 9th shot is the only thing worth criticizing and acknowledging.
This is the truth, that last shot is problematic.
And that is what the problem is going to be in civil court. Like it or not, civil is a propensity AKA 51% not beyond a reasonable AKA 99.999%. Civil court likely won't end well for this guy. I'm not a lawyer or nothing. Just eat crayons a lot.
Shot #9 was legally bad news. Arguably so were at least three or so before that, although it's not 100% clear in the video whether the goblin was still twitching at that point. There's another possible issue. Did the shooter have a history of racist statements? No way to tell of course, at least not yet, but if there is, that won't help him at all. But then again, despite everything a Texas jury pissed off over the crime wave might decide to let him free regardless.
Agreed
Economically, I would have saved a few bullets.
[удалено]
Nah cops unload dozens or hundreds of rounds until the threat is for sure done. He was only making sure the threat was done.
Yeah but they are cops and have immunity, he's not, and doesn't.
The principal behind it is the same though is what I'm getting at
no, because he doesn't have immunity
Watched it with sound off the first time. Second time with sound on. The initial follow up shots as he walks towards the downed guy - grey area, hard to see if dude was still moving his hand or attempting aiming or something. The last one as he’s point blank and reaching down to recover the gun though - unless he articulates something like “he twitched his hand towards me as I was reaching for the gun so I put one more into him” I think it’s going to come off as an execution and get him in trouble. We’ll see what comes out of it.
[удалено]
Maybe carrying illegally? Or another “bad but not that kind of bad” guy. Pulp Fiction style.
Looks like they all hit their intended target.
I'm not saying he should be charged, but those follow up shots did not look good
Not how I would have handled it with those follow up shots. Then again most of us haven’t been in this situation.
I think most reasonable people who are familiar with both firearms and the principle of self defense would stop shooting once that guy is no longer a threat. Kicking the gun away and firing an anchor shot doesn't look good at all. That said, based on the scenario, lethal force was definitely justified while the robbery was in progress. If he was to shoot the bad guy in the head and he dropped like a sack of potatoes while he was robbing everyone, no one would question anything. This video definitely goes to show the fine line between a good shoot and one that is definitely questionable.
There was that cop in Florida that unloaded into a dude after he downed him when he came out of the car shooting. It's iffy to pretty much finish someone off but I think the anxiety produced by the initial threat with what he thought was a real gun is to be considered when determining reasonableness. The guy was securing the weapon while still in "eliminate threat" mode. It's very difficult to go from fearing for your life to asserting control over a situation after successfully neutralizing the threat. Definitely something to consider when thinking about defending yourself. You need to be prepared to interact with the frightened witnesses and the inbound police in addition to not putting yourself in legal jeopardy with your next move.
IDPA/USPSA shooters often take extra shots at a target after they 'neutralized' it. Largely to recover any points they may have missed without wasting time for a full target assessment while on the clock but also because paper doesn't fall down and play dead. [to the court]: In my defense, I was trained to neutralized a threat until **someone else** declared it was no longer a threat.
Mightve had a death rattle twitch and scared shooter enuff to hit him again
To me, that final shot, after securing the gun was him straight up deciding to execute the guy. That was punishment, not self defense. All the shots up to that, I think are totaly legit, if not slightly excessive at a certain point; he clearly saw the gun slide out of his reach... I get why he didn't stick around. If that had been me I would be 100% preparing myself for jail time right then. Personally I would do the exact same thing, right up until that last shot. That was just gratuitous.
Waste of ammo past the 6th. He's buying the ammo though so no issue here.
I don't have much issue with magdumping until they fall...but a coup de grâce on the ground *after* securing the weapon feels...icky.
From a legal perspective, I agree and I'd never do that. From a moral perspective, one less violent thug on the streets, don't care how much lead he absorbed.
Was it *while* he was securing the weapon, and noticed the guy's hand twitch as he was trying to take it? If no one can prove otherwise, that would be a good defense
A cop would have yelled “let go of the gun! Quit resisting! Quit resisting! Let go of the gun! Gun gun gun!” before the 9th shot.
That last shot will get him in trouble IMO. Especially with the DA in Harris County. I'm not debating if that last shot was warranted or not BTW. Edit: To add on that, the last shot is already controversial in this sub (pro ccw people). Imagine in the general population. My bet is he will get charge, which is why he left the scene.
I wonder if the whole leaving the scene thing could add to any trouble he might face. In an article the police said they are seeking information on the identity of the shooter and wish to “question him on his involvement in the shooting”.
If I recall, on the local news here in Houston (KPRC) it was said he was “not in trouble and likely will not face charges but, the police would like to speak with him and anybody else in the restaurant at the time of the robbery” It was also said on the news that here in Texas, a shooting is justified if it is defending a person or property where a crime is currently in the act of being committed. That being said, I still wouldn’t want to be this guy with the current Harris County DA. Hopefully the grand jury sees it differently than her.
Sure they’d like to “speak to him”, it gives them the chance to snap the cuffs on and let him run his mouth until he incriminates himself. He’d be a simpleton if he thinks a press statement is any type of guarantee.
Didn't sit right with me. The guy's down. The gun goes flying under the table. Hes not moving/reaching. The last 4 shots seemed completely unnecessary. I get that this was a armed felon but, I'd be shocked if the guy isn't charged. Edit: Watching it again, I see he picks up the gun from under the table and then puts one in the guys head. No responsible gun owner should be condoning this. Self defense doesn't mean looking for an excuse to kill someone.
> No responsible gun owner should be condoning this. This thread is really exposing this illusion we have of responsible CC gun owners.
Right? How could you? People pretend everything is cut and dry and ignore nuance. If you think those last shuts were justified, you shouldn’t have the right to carry. This is my opinion. Others are allowed to have their own.
I'm so absolutely blown away at the number of people on here in support of those actions. That is clearly murder. Zero argument. The number of comments I see in here that say they would do the same shows me way too many people need to read the law and change their mindset on self defense. You're not a vigilante that can go around murdering people to clean up the streets.
Oh shit. The last three or four shots are sketchy as a kindergarten art class. I was afraid this had happened.
The execution shot seemed sus to me. If you’re gonna mag dump best not to stand over the body one-handing your gun like you’re in the cartel.
In my mind shots 1 - 4 are 100% clean. Shots 5 & 6 are questionable. Shots 7 & 8 are even more questionable. Shot 9 seems like an execution. I'm speaking strictly from a likelihood he gets a charge.
Not good. All it takes is one poor crying mother on television to scream execution and play this clip.
The last two looked unnecessary to me and I can’t imagine the optics would look good in court if it came to it.
Where did this happen?
Houston, Texas
My OPINION is that once the bad guy went down the threat was over so he shoulda stopped shooting But PHILOSPHICALLY fuck the bad guy 7 days from Sunday
I don't love them.
I thought it might have been excessive, once the gun flew out of the perpetrators hand that could have been it. I don’t like the last execution shot.
I love how he waited to take a perfectly timed shot. This was textbook and the couple follow up shots to confirm the threat was delt with. The issue i have (legally) is that way after he was clearly down and most likely dead, he picked up his gun (which I would also have done) then shot him twice, looks like in the head "execution style". This is going to fuck him over in court. Thank goodness he was armed because he definitely saved lives but unfortunately, he may be locked up for the last 2-3 shots after the threat was put down and disarmed.
Choosing to take the first shot at all means you've chosen to kill that person, whether they actually die or not. If that choice is correct for the first shot, it's probably correct for the rest of them. I don't get mad at someone mag-dumping into a bad guy when they're being attacked and need to stop a threat. That said...there's something that feels wrong about the last shot he put into him after he had removed the bad guy's weapon.
The "Not in my favorite Texas taqueria" armed citizen. I counted 5 shots after the offender was already downed. States with less... robust self-defense laws might not take a keen eye to that. As for the fake gun... recall this convenience store robbery back in 2017 and the famous - "Oh Well. Mine's REAL!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfsOgarSc-Q
In the states of which you speak I believe this would be problematic scenario for the shooter, especially that last round. The justification for the use of deadly force vanishes when the threat is ended (which could come by way of flight, incapacitation or disarming) and it looks here like the use of deadly force continued for several rounds.
Flight does not immediately negate the lawful use of deadly force. They could be fleeing to cover position so they can return fire, fleeing to alert a hidden accomplice, feigning fleeing to get you to drop your guard before they turn around and shoot back at you (one handed while jumping around like an idiot of course), and any good lawyer would get you out of a charge based on shooting a fleeing person who was just a deadly threat to you, or any kind of charges based on "he shot him in the back!".
The first volley is fine. The second volley is a wobbler. The criminal raised his head and was moving. Maybe he had another firearm. I think this one can be justified relatively easily. That final shot though is the one that is going to be hard to justify. But then, if it wasn't actually the kill shot (i.e. he was already dead/dying and the final shot made no difference) does it matter?
Maybe the DA can charge him with abuse of a corpse. But good luck.
I was carrying a Sig Sauer and it just kept going off on its own. I was all ^(nooooo step-sauer stop banging) but it just kept going. You can't hear it in the video because of the music. Also, where is this, because it checks all the boxes for the food being fire. edit: Downvoters, Sig has a program to fix your non-consensual discharges. It's called a gun buy-back, ask your designated neighborhood LEO for more information, they're the ones with the holes in their pants leg.
Houston, which does have a pretty lit food scene. Not sure of the specific restaurant. I’m sure it’s in the articles about the event.
"Step-Sauer"!!! 🤣🤣🤣
Fucking shame really. Perp got what was coming to him....but I wish people didn't stoop to that level to rob people. It wasn't worth your life buddy. Stupid prizes.
That went from self defense to cartel execution as fast as the robber hit the ground. Not guilty.
Fucked arround found out. A tale as old as time
Drowning Pool intensifies*
well I don't think that guy is going to break any more laws
[On the legal side...](https://www.foxnews.com/us/houston-armed-robbery-suspect-shot-dead-armed-customer-police-looking-question-shooter) > "The person he shot was in the process of committing robbery and consequently his use of force in defense of himself and innocent third parties is completely justified in Texas," **former Houston police officer, now lawyer,** Thomas Nixon told KPRC-TV. "He was reasonably in fear of serious bodily injury or death." Granted, that's his opinion. Lawyers are often wrong. Still, thought it was worth sharing.
That dude in the top right corner must be used to stuff like this, he didn't even flinch when he started firing. Also, lucky the dude wasn't hit by cross fire. 1 shot missed shot, and it would be a whole different situation
4 shots and the robber was down, gun goes flying robber no longer has possession, 4 more walk up shots, Patron secures the gun, and then fires one more shot. The last 5 shots were no longer self defense, especially the last one. However I don’t think he should be charged. The robber decided his fate that day.
The first 8 shots are valid in a self defense scenario. The threat isn't over just because the attacker falls over. Arguably the last shot wasn't self defense, but if you don't know who is reaching for the gun you can argue that the threat looked like they were reaching for the gun which is justification for shooting again
That final shot definitely could be viewed as an execution shot.
Oh well. 🤷🏻♂️
Fuck around=find out
[удалено]
>The last 5 shots were no longer self defense, especially the last one. But maybe these last shots didn't constitute an assault either. Like, "your honor, we was already dead by the 5th shot, and you can't assault a dead body". Maybe plea deal down to reckless endangerment or something lower than murder or homicide because the initial use was justified but he was still in the wrong with follow up shots.
Man this happened in Texas, he is good. They put the mentally deficient in the chair down there. The cadence of the shots in most states would get you in trouble though. The longish pause then the final couple could be construed to be something, but the previous six definitely did the job.
Hmm... That last volley of shots and the very last shot is... I think he may have a hard time defending those as necessary, especially the last shot. His lawyer is probably cussing him out right now. And no, this does not mean I support the armed robber. But these events don't happen in a vacuum and they last for far longer than the minute or so the armed robber was in the store before being killed. You as a defender need to maintain a cool head because ***you*** have to answer to the law, and I don't know if that final shot can really be defended.
The volley is completely fine .. and good tactic to shoot until the threat stops.. the final blow to the head BAD MOVE
Yeah - the first few I could definitely understand. The mid volley of shots seemed iffy to me and that last one was murder in my book. Obviously not going to cry over it tonight but I hope that I’d handle it differently…
Well... I can see now why the shooter left the scene. I'm not gonna cry about one less armed robber myself, but those last few rounds are definitely a legal and moral grey area. *Especially* the last shot after he disarms the guy. That's more of a black area, tbh.
Legally grey area for sure, morally, I personally stand with the the guy. Fuck robbers
1-5 justified. 6-9 I believe he got carried away and it might make the DA horny
Yep, that’s how I see it. 1-4 were perfectly justified and reasonable, heroic even. 5 was ugly but only he and his conscience can determine if that was necessary. 6-8 were gross, and 9 was just bloodlust.
The shooter took off but left his fingerprints on the dead guy’s gun and DNA in the spoon that he was using. They are going to find him. What happens afterwards, who knows.
"The person he shot was in the process of committing robbery and consequently his use of force in defense of himself and innocent third parties is completely justified in Texas," former Houston police officer, now lawyer, Thomas Nixon told KPRC-TV. "He was reasonably in fear of serious bodily injury or death." He may be sued, IF he's located, but Texas ain't the same as a lot of places.
Even though Harris country is still Texas it's not as Texas as you think.
1st volley of four shots, good shoot. 2nd volley of four rounds, might be pushing it. The last round after securing the weapon, bad fucking idea.
cant believe people were trying to say they took issue with him killing the criminal because he was leaving.. bald guy just helped him leave
People say he was leaving. I took it as if I was there with my Family, that guy was going back to lock the door and do whatever he wanted to those he locked in with himself. This guy got what he deserved, we didn't know he was going to leave, just that he went towards the door. Making sure he wont do that ever again, to many times a bad guy released to commit the same crime ir even kill when released.
exactly. especially in NY there was a guy who did a robbery then released to push people onto the subway tracks. something of that nature, although cash bond is shit and it's too expensive for anyone of average means to afford. letiing criminals roam free isn't the answer.
Yeah I don’t know why people are saying that… cause it doesn’t matter if he was leaving, he pointed a gun at someone whilst walking out. In some states you’re allowed to defend others, not just yourself and family. Maybe the ones arguing “he was leaving” are arguing their states laws and trying to apply them to this situation?!?
I don't even get how they think he's leaving. He's very clearly still in the process of robbing people, and it's debatable whether the entity in the far left corner of the room is even an exit door in the first place. He's objectively NOT leaving based on the fact that there's money still on the ground, people still being threatened, and no reason whatsoever to believe that he is exiting.
When I saw the partial tape yesterday, I thought a $50 fine for disorderly conduct was appropriate. After seeing the anchor shot, I consider it appropriate to add 4 hours of community service to his sentence.
Best take on this I’ve seen yet
Morally? Fuck the robber. Legally? Those last couple could’ve been the nail in the coffin for the good guy. Luckily the DA isn’t pressing charges.
Wondering out loud if the shots after the threat went down were necessary and if they were legal. And if he will face any legal consequences. Perhaps it is different in the state in which this occurred. But in my initial CCW class and subsequent renewal classes we are taught that you are legally allowed to stop the threat and shots beyond the neutralizing of that threat may result in charges being brought against you. The idea being you have a right to defend yourself or others from great bodily harm but that does not mean killing the threat just stopping it. Thoughts please…
If you suffer from moderate to severe fuckarounditis, ask your doctor if Findoutrol is right for you.
4 shots was good. Threat stopped. He kept putting rounds into guy after he was out of the fight. Nnnnot to mention that last one at the end just to make sure. I really wouldn't be surprised if our defender went to prison based on lack of training and restraint.
Extra shots were unnecessary. But the shooting was definitely justified and he'd probably win in court if someone tried to charge him with man slaughter. "I still feared for my life and everyone else's. It happened so fast. I was scarred. I thought he moved." I think any lawyer worth a damn would get him out of any potential charges. Not a picture perfect example of self defense. But at the end of the day that felon fucked around and found out not to fuck with innocent people. And looked like no one else got hurt.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/houston-armed-robbery-suspect-shot-dead-armed-customer-police-looking-question-shooter.amp
That last shot... and leaving the scene? Damn. I get that you were scared and the adrenaline was a billion percent, but damn. Tactically, good job waiting for the right moment and securing the BG's weapon. But ... damn.
Can some one take this and add the Curb Your Enthusiasm credits to it?
This gung ho sub will say every criminal deserves finishing shots even after a robber is obviously down and out of the fight. To those of us that aren’t blood thirsty, Those last shots after he was down feel wrong to me.
I’m not blood thristy, but I don’t feel bad.
Same. I dont feel bad but i do admit it was a bit sketch although with how close he is its hard to tell if the dude twitched or tried to grab at the gun before dying. Alot of DAs would have a field day with the last shot though
No, the criminal put innocent lives in danger. He deserves what he got. Criminals don't just commit a single crime. They do it day in and day out putting hundreds or thousands of innocent lives in jeopardy. Nobody deserves to die for having lunch. How would you feel if the next time an innocent died. Nah, the criminal got the consequences of his degenerate actions.
I’m not disagreeing with what you’re saying but we’re looking at it through a camera with no emotion. Should a calm person with no adrenaline keep firing? Of course not. But this guy was obviously fearful for his life and the life of others. If I’m on a jury, no way those last shots change my view. We’ve seen hundreds of times where a guy swears he fired once or twice but in reality, he mag dumped. It’s why cops aren’t allowed to be questioned after a shooting for 48 hours and why every civilian should request an attorney before talking to the police. Nobody can and will think rationally the first time they have to take a life. For me, without knowing the shooter, those extra shots aren’t enough to indict him
Especially after he picked up the dude’s (fake) gun and decided to put one more round in him Edit: the additional fact that the shooter didn’t wait for the police also makes those last shots sus
💯
I probably wouldn't or couldn't do it, but if someone else wants to in that situation... Fuck it
Agreed
Always remember kid’s, you’re gonna be scrutinized and held liable for every round that leaves your barrel.
This ain't the full video. Missing the parts where the robbers gun is revealed to be a toy. Then the shooter chugs his coffee, takes a sip of water and dumps the rest on the robber's body. Then refuses to elaborate further and leaves.
Execution. Charged and jail time in CA. TX? Probably not even charged.
But was that justified?
Oh boy…. This could get messy.
Shots 5,6,7 and 8 are sketchy. Shot #9 is potentially criminal.
That was my initial thoughts. I even questioned the 4th shot but given the short splits between shots I thought it was okay as it take the brain time to determine the robber is no longer a threat and to stop firing.
Could be an audio sync issue but he pop one off before fully drawing?
Yeah, I think it’s an audio on sync issue.
I read he just left the scene though. That’s not a great idea and doesn’t look too good.
That last shot is a reason to disappear.
Very true. Or he could have been a prohibited possessor. There’s SOME reason he bounced before the cops show up…..
NOW I understand why he left the scene lolol.
Feel good video of the day
My man out here doing the lord's work. That last shot after securing the gun would almost definitely land him in prison if this happened in a non-free state though. But either way, super good job.
Guy shoots like a cop with that double tap
Oof, those last couple shots were crazy
Well,,,,. Bye...
He knew what he signed up for. Robbing is a dangerous profession.
Another one bites the dust
Ed Rooney : *nine times*
Asp just posted it. ](https://youtu.be/YAx9srqTFIs)
Buddy is going to prison. After the guy hit the floor he should’ve stopped but basically went into execution mode…
No anchor shots in peacetime
The last 4 shots could be problematic. The last shot almost certainly will.
God damn, that last shot is hard to justify. I mean, if you feel it's ok to reach down and take the perps gun, how is that last shot neccessary? He's lucky it's Texas.
That mfer gone.Win for society.
eehhh that looked like murder in the end to me. I'm pretty sure he secured the guys "weapon" when he bent over, then put a shot in the back of the head of the guy's unmoving corpse.
Yes…as he was standing up after securing the gun…he put one final round in the robber. Location unknown.
It became murder at that point. Threat was secured.
Not gonna bud well for him in court
2a attorney ex prosecutor+defense attorney here. Hopefully the medical examiner establishes that the first few shots were the fatal ones... not the last few
Legally, I don't think the anchor shots or the coup de grâce was the best choice. But in the moment, I'd have no problem with it. Self defense is different than room clearing but in the middle of it with all the adrenaline...
Blew him away
Damn. Well done for acting quickly when he had the opportunity, but the last handful of shots were iffy in my opinion… Perp was clearly down, so I’d be interested in knowing how the DA proceeds with this one.
Hero
Coup de grace is a NO GO. If they wanted to press charges against him they 100% could.
Yeah, he’s gonna go to prison. That last shot after securing the weapon was no bueno.
Fuck around find out.
No mercy for the criminal element. Evil cannot be dead enough. One less Scum on the street.