'He had a plastic pistol': Houston activists want 'vigilante killer' who shot a robber to be charged

[bentoncity]

Mods said my post violated forum policy so I deleted it.

Dan

Read More

 

[CamoDeafie]

@bentoncity all ya gotta do is look up Michael Strickland, who was legally carrying with a CHL and drew his gun in self defense at a protest with a certain group of black-clad people... and got arrested and cannot own guns anymore.

And then look at the Rittenhouse situation....

 

[Alexx1401]

Has this case actually gone to the Grand Jury yet? I will be curious to see if they actually charge him when it does and if they do if the DA there tries to take it to trial. Should be fun watching them try to get 12 people to vote guilty if they do.

 

[Yarome]

Soo... basically.... their complaint is that the good guy rendered the perp "too dead"? I'm not intimately familiar with western religions, but is there some fear that him being too dead will prevent him from being reincarnated?

Considering the choices he made in this life... is that such a bad thing if he has to wait in line longer before coming back as a elephant turd?

 

[CamoDeafie]

Soo... basically.... their complaint is that the good guy rendered the perp "too dead"? I'm not intimately familiar with western religions, but is there some fear that him being too dead will prevent him from being reincarnated?

Considering the choices he made in this life... is that such a bad thing if he has to wait in line longer before coming back as a elephant turd?

These are the same people who consistently refuse to accept responsibility for the consequences of their own actions... or to hold people accountable for the consequences of their actions

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Plastic pistol or not....
If the deceased chose not to try and rob the restaurant in the first place....
He probably would still be alive today.
Andy

 

[Nutty4Guns]

The problem lies with the last shot fired in this Houston incident. Perp was already down (probably already dead), when he walked back over and put another round in him.

 

[dangerranger60]

Most of us have seen the video. If I was on the jury, I would have a hard time voting to convict! From the view of the camera, I did not see a Gratuitous assassination that the rainbow warrior was describing.
I saw someone that was robbed and shot the robber at the first opportunity to pull his pistol without being shot himself. DR

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Soo... basically.... their complaint is that the good guy rendered the perp "too dead"? I'm not intimately familiar with western religions, but is there some fear that him being too dead will prevent him from being reincarnated?

Considering the choices he made in this life... is that such a bad thing if he has to wait in line longer before coming back as a elephant turd?

So, you are saying that there is such a thing as "Overkill"?

I'll see myself out now.

 

[Alexx1401]

The problem lies with the last shot fired in this Houston incident. Perp was already down (probably already dead), when he walked back over and put another round in him.

Looks like a no problem to me other than maybe wasting one round with the price of ammo now days.

 

[Xaevian]

The issue will be the state definition/threshold of lethal/deadly force. Once that line is crossed, the shooter continuing to act until the act becomes lethal is kind of a moot point. Hence why it is called that.

 

[L84Cabo]

[Mod...I hope this is OK to post here. If not, move or delete..]
Given the mentality of Inslee, Ferguson and some of the legislators in this state, it gives me cause to wonder what would happen to myself should I be in the same situation here in Wa. State?
Any thoughts of where this Wa legislature may be headed with an incident like this? I can't imagine some of them not looking forward to propose some law in a case like this that's wholly against a lawful gun owner in self defense!

Dan

---

​

I'm going to suggest that if you find yourself in a similar situation in WA state, you a) hold off on firing the 9th round like the guy in the taco shop did and b) not leave the scene once it's over...or if you must leave because it's unsafe, you contact law enforcement as soon as you are able.

To be clear, I don't have any issues with how that situation went down. But do keep your head about you and recognize that you may end up having to substantiate your actions in a court of law. And if that happens, you'll have an easier time if you hadn't fired that last round, and you stuck around to speak with law enforcement.

As for WA state legislature, they don't currently seem to be too interested...at the moment...in situations like this. They're too busy trying to ban stuff outright. It's anyone's guess, however, what type of crap they'll try to pull in the future.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

The problem lies with the last shot fired in this Houston incident. Perp was already down (probably already dead), when he walked back over and put another round in him.

According to the Law of Self Defense:

WHAT IF THE NINTH SHOT WAS UNINTENTIONAL?

Another interesting argument that could be made with respect to the otherwise unjustifiable ninth shot to the robber's head is that it was not an intentional act—perhaps while arising from having picked up the robber's "pistol" the shooter tightened his grip on his own gun and unintentionally depressed the trigger, unintentionally firing that ninth round into the robber's skull.

Normally, unintentionally shooting someone in such a manner would qualify as a reckless killing. Recklessness occurs when someone knows or should know that they are creating an unjustified risk of death to another and then ignores that risk with the result that they kill someone. The killing is not intentional, so not murder, but reckless, and so still criminal. The knowing creation of the unjustified risk is what differentiates recklessness, carrying criminal penalties, from mere negligence, carrying only civil liability.

One could argue that the shooter would be justified in keeping his muzzle on the robber, given the just occurring armed robbery. In that case the pointing of the muzzle was the creation of a risk of death, but arguably not an unjustified risk of death. And if the risk of death is not unjustified, it's not reckless, and does not carry criminal liability.

It might, of course, still qualify as negligence and carry civil liability. Indeed, an argument could be made that under the circumstances it was simply a pure accident, carrying zero legal liability whatever.

Were I legal counsel to this shooter, I'd be inclined to rely on defense of persons and defense of property to justify Use-of-Force #1, the first set of four shots, the same, somewhat more ambiguously but still credibly, for Use-of-Force #2, the second set of four shots, and if consistent with my client's own recounting of the event argue unintentional shooting of an accidental, or at worst negligent, manner to avoid criminal liability and perhaps even civil liability for Use-of-Force #3, the ninth and final shot.

DOES THAT MEAN SHOOTER WILL BE INDICTED, PROSECUTED, CONVICTED?

So, given the apparent lack of legal justification for that ninth and final shot, potentially an unjustified unlawful killing, does that mean the shooter in this case will be indicted, prosecuted, and convicted?

The answer is: Who knows?

In the context of indictment, as I've already noted it's being reported that this shooting will be presented to a grand jury. There the prosecution has the discretion to present either only one side of the evidence, the side consistent with a narrative of guilt, in which case an indictment is almost assured–this is the normal practice, and why grand jury's are largely a rubber stamp of the prosecutor's office. If you only hear one side of an argument, it generally sounds compelling.

Alternatively, the prosecution could present a more balanced view of the shooting, one more favorable to a narrative of innocence, in which case the grand jury might decline to indict–this is what happened in the Michael Brown shooting case. That approach is not the norm, however, and indeed in the case of Michael Brown it cost that particular prosecutor his career, because after decades as the local prosecutor he was replaced by a George Soros-funded candidate in the next election.

In the context of prosecution, if the State decides to take someone to trial, they're in it to win it. Folks will wonder about the prospects for jury nullification, but honestly that's a fools' wish. If the State wants to go hard on that final shot, and especially if this case becomes racially and politically energized in the year or two between today and when the trial starts, a conviction on the legal merits (and even absent legal merit) would seem not unlikely.

Houston Taqueria Shooting: Legally Justified Killing or Simply an Execution?

Importantly, at the moment this ninth shot was fired, not only was the robber now disarmed of the only weapon he was known to possess—the “pistol” recovered by the shooter—but he appears completely inert and unmoving on the ground.

legalinsurrection.com

 

[solv3nt]

According to the Law of Self Defense:

WHAT IF THE NINTH SHOT WAS UNINTENTIONAL?

Another interesting argument that could be made with respect to the otherwise unjustifiable ninth shot to the robber's head is that it was not an intentional act—perhaps while arising from having picked up the robber's "pistol" the shooter tightened his grip on his own gun and unintentionally depressed the trigger, unintentionally firing that ninth round into the robber's skull.

Normally, unintentionally shooting someone in such a manner would qualify as a reckless killing. Recklessness occurs when someone knows or should know that they are creating an unjustified risk of death to another and then ignores that risk with the result that they kill someone. The killing is not intentional, so not murder, but reckless, and so still criminal. The knowing creation of the unjustified risk is what differentiates recklessness, carrying criminal penalties, from mere negligence, carrying only civil liability.

One could argue that the shooter would be justified in keeping his muzzle on the robber, given the just occurring armed robbery. In that case the pointing of the muzzle was the creation of a risk of death, but arguably not an unjustified risk of death. And if the risk of death is not unjustified, it's not reckless, and does not carry criminal liability.

It might, of course, still qualify as negligence and carry civil liability. Indeed, an argument could be made that under the circumstances it was simply a pure accident, carrying zero legal liability whatever.

Were I legal counsel to this shooter, I'd be inclined to rely on defense of persons and defense of property to justify Use-of-Force #1, the first set of four shots, the same, somewhat more ambiguously but still credibly, for Use-of-Force #2, the second set of four shots, and if consistent with my client's own recounting of the event argue unintentional shooting of an accidental, or at worst negligent, manner to avoid criminal liability and perhaps even civil liability for Use-of-Force #3, the ninth and final shot.

DOES THAT MEAN SHOOTER WILL BE INDICTED, PROSECUTED, CONVICTED?

So, given the apparent lack of legal justification for that ninth and final shot, potentially an unjustified unlawful killing, does that mean the shooter in this case will be indicted, prosecuted, and convicted?

The answer is: Who knows?

In the context of indictment, as I've already noted it's being reported that this shooting will be presented to a grand jury. There the prosecution has the discretion to present either only one side of the evidence, the side consistent with a narrative of guilt, in which case an indictment is almost assured–this is the normal practice, and why grand jury's are largely a rubber stamp of the prosecutor's office. If you only hear one side of an argument, it generally sounds compelling.

Alternatively, the prosecution could present a more balanced view of the shooting, one more favorable to a narrative of innocence, in which case the grand jury might decline to indict–this is what happened in the Michael Brown shooting case. That approach is not the norm, however, and indeed in the case of Michael Brown it cost that particular prosecutor his career, because after decades as the local prosecutor he was replaced by a George Soros-funded candidate in the next election.

In the context of prosecution, if the State decides to take someone to trial, they're in it to win it. Folks will wonder about the prospects for jury nullification, but honestly that's a fools' wish. If the State wants to go hard on that final shot, and especially if this case becomes racially and politically energized in the year or two between today and when the trial starts, a conviction on the legal merits (and even absent legal merit) would seem not unlikely.

Houston Taqueria Shooting: Legally Justified Killing or Simply an Execution?

Importantly, at the moment this ninth shot was fired, not only was the robber now disarmed of the only weapon he was known to possess—the “pistol” recovered by the shooter—but he appears completely inert and unmoving on the ground.

legalinsurrection.com

Ok Alec

 

[titsonritz]

Most of us have seen the video. If I was on the jury, I would have a hard time voting to convict! From the view of the camera, I did not see a Gratuitous assassination that the rainbow warrior was describing.
I saw someone that was robbed and shot the robber at the first opportunity to pull his pistol without being shot himself. DR

I would not vote to convict any degree of homicide if he cut the turds head off and threw it in the street.

 

[L84Cabo]

According to the Law of Self Defense:

WHAT IF THE NINTH SHOT WAS UNINTENTIONAL?

Another interesting argument that could be made with respect to the otherwise unjustifiable ninth shot to the robber's head is that it was not an intentional act—perhaps while arising from having picked up the robber's "pistol" the shooter tightened his grip on his own gun and unintentionally depressed the trigger, unintentionally firing that ninth round into the robber's skull.

Normally, unintentionally shooting someone in such a manner would qualify as a reckless killing. Recklessness occurs when someone knows or should know that they are creating an unjustified risk of death to another and then ignores that risk with the result that they kill someone. The killing is not intentional, so not murder, but reckless, and so still criminal. The knowing creation of the unjustified risk is what differentiates recklessness, carrying criminal penalties, from mere negligence, carrying only civil liability.

One could argue that the shooter would be justified in keeping his muzzle on the robber, given the just occurring armed robbery. In that case the pointing of the muzzle was the creation of a risk of death, but arguably not an unjustified risk of death. And if the risk of death is not unjustified, it's not reckless, and does not carry criminal liability.

It might, of course, still qualify as negligence and carry civil liability. Indeed, an argument could be made that under the circumstances it was simply a pure accident, carrying zero legal liability whatever.

Were I legal counsel to this shooter, I'd be inclined to rely on defense of persons and defense of property to justify Use-of-Force #1, the first set of four shots, the same, somewhat more ambiguously but still credibly, for Use-of-Force #2, the second set of four shots, and if consistent with my client's own recounting of the event argue unintentional shooting of an accidental, or at worst negligent, manner to avoid criminal liability and perhaps even civil liability for Use-of-Force #3, the ninth and final shot.

DOES THAT MEAN SHOOTER WILL BE INDICTED, PROSECUTED, CONVICTED?

So, given the apparent lack of legal justification for that ninth and final shot, potentially an unjustified unlawful killing, does that mean the shooter in this case will be indicted, prosecuted, and convicted?

The answer is: Who knows?

In the context of indictment, as I've already noted it's being reported that this shooting will be presented to a grand jury. There the prosecution has the discretion to present either only one side of the evidence, the side consistent with a narrative of guilt, in which case an indictment is almost assured–this is the normal practice, and why grand jury's are largely a rubber stamp of the prosecutor's office. If you only hear one side of an argument, it generally sounds compelling.

Alternatively, the prosecution could present a more balanced view of the shooting, one more favorable to a narrative of innocence, in which case the grand jury might decline to indict–this is what happened in the Michael Brown shooting case. That approach is not the norm, however, and indeed in the case of Michael Brown it cost that particular prosecutor his career, because after decades as the local prosecutor he was replaced by a George Soros-funded candidate in the next election.

In the context of prosecution, if the State decides to take someone to trial, they're in it to win it. Folks will wonder about the prospects for jury nullification, but honestly that's a fools' wish. If the State wants to go hard on that final shot, and especially if this case becomes racially and politically energized in the year or two between today and when the trial starts, a conviction on the legal merits (and even absent legal merit) would seem not unlikely.

Houston Taqueria Shooting: Legally Justified Killing or Simply an Execution?

Importantly, at the moment this ninth shot was fired, not only was the robber now disarmed of the only weapon he was known to possess—the “pistol” recovered by the shooter—but he appears completely inert and unmoving on the ground.

legalinsurrection.com

It's hard to kill someone who is already dead. We, of course, won't know until the autopsy is done. But odds are good the dude was dead already by shot #9. And if that's the case, I'm not sure what they would charge him with...desecrating a dead body maybe?

 

[Koda]

In a 'not surprising anymore' atmosphere, it's looking like self defense of yourself & others is being pushed by 'certain types of individuals' to charge/hang/convict/prosecute etc. justifiable shootings in cases like this. Personally, I take offense at the mere suggestion of prosecuting any individual that's protecting themselves and/or others.

The question in this case is where does self defense end and excessive force begin? The Texas taco shop robbery hasn't been ruled justifiable and isn't the greatest example of self defense. FWIW I don't think they should charge the guy either.

 

[Provincial]

The robber didn't have to be already dead for the last shot to be moot. Just wounded badly enough to be unlikely to survive.

Some of this will be determined by how fast any paramedics arrived at the scene, and how successful they are in similar situations.

If the robber was bleeding out, and no one was rendering first aid, chances of survival were probably nil, no matter how fast the paramedics arrived.

Any opinion on the point at which the robber died is just that - opinion. A good jury would throw out all such testimony under the "beyond a shadow of a doubt" qualification.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

I'm going to suggest that if you find yourself in a similar situation in WA state, you a) hold off on firing the 9th round like the guy in the taco shop did and b) not leave the scene once it's over...or if you must leave because it's unsafe, you contact law enforcement as soon as you are able.

I remember more than one the Ayoob Files going way back to the 80's were Massad Ayoob stated that he believed the person shooting in self defense would either have not been charged at all or would have faced greatly reduced charges had they not fled the scene, or in one I remember the person stripped the gun and tossed the parts out the window More often than not it will be viewed as flight equals guilt and look! We even have a SCOTUS case!

Hickory v. United States, 160 U.S. 408 (1896)

Hickory v. United States

supreme.justia.com

 

[Cottonwood]

I'm still waiting to hear or read what's going to happen in this case.