robber with fake pistol shot dead in Texas restaurant

[HotRodGuy]

If I were on that grand jury, I'd recommend charges of murder on the dead guy. I mean, someone was killed while he was perpetrating a violent crime. Can't let his family try to paint him as an innocent angel who just had a toy......

 

[Alexx1401]

I have been trying to daily look at the local news out of Huston hoping they have something about how this shakes out. If someone sees something more please post it. Since if they do not charge this guy the press may just lose interest in this.

 

[Flopsweat]

I have been trying to daily look at the local news out of Huston hoping they have something about how this shakes out. If someone sees something more please post it. Since if they do not charge this guy the press may just lose interest in this.

Or someone may try to leverage it into another riot.

 

[Alexx1401]

Or someone may try to leverage it into another riot.

If the shooter looked like me I am quite sure they would be trying.

 

[Lilhigbee]

At the risk of "what-iffing it" to Andy's chagrin, We have no idea how many times or where the perp was hit. It is entirely possible that as our hero took control of the weapon the do-bad reached into his pocket which, under the circumstances, could be seen as a continuation of the threat. The video quality is so poor that we'll never know. The final shots MAY have been entirely justified.

Personally, I don't care how many times or where or how the POS got shot. As long as he got shot enough, I'm good with it. This fine-line balancing act of exactly when the threat has ended is BS. Only one person in the world could possibly make that judgment call and his mindset was affected by fear, rage, adrenalin, who knows what else. The "reasonable man" doctrine has to consider all of the circumstances our "reasonable man" was subjected to if it is to be reasonable.

Our aspiring college honor student portrayed himself as an imminent threat to everyone in the restaurant, but was also a continuing threat to hundreds if not thousands of people for the rest of his life. Getting snuffed doing what he loved suits everyone except our hero who will have to live with his conscience.
That is more than enough punishment.

 

[Flopsweat]

...
The "reasonable man" doctrine has to consider all of the circumstances our "reasonable man" was subjected to if it is to be reasonable.
...

All good points but this one especially.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

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

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Work is slow thanks to Biden's economy, so I keep coming up with new thoughts about this defensive gun use.

What if the shooter had an inferior caliber pistol such as 380, 32 or even 22LR? He may have thought that a mag dump was necessary to stop the threat.