Taqueria Shooting in Houston - Update

[RVTECH]

A Grand Jury declined to file charges against the man who fatally shot an alleged robber at a busy southwest Houston-area taqueria.

Grand jury declines to charge man for death of alleged robber in SW Houston taqueria shooting

You might remember the viral video of the incident, where the alleged robber went into the restaurant and demanded money before he was shot. Now, a grand jury has decided not to charge the customer who opened fire.

abc13.com

Read More

 

[WillametteWill]

To me the most important takeaway from this is that you cannot use this as an example of a good course of action or expect the same results (i.e., not being charged) if you act in the same manner. He is very lucky that he will not be spending the remainder of his life in a 10 by 10 box. What may have started as a legitimate defensive use of force ended up going way beyond what would be permissible in nearly any location.

It was, of course, all started and caused by the bad guy with the (fake) gun.

 

[MannyGlocks]

WW,

If a violent criminal drops his guard his victims should remain passive and hope he doesn't kill anyone before he leaves?

 

[front_sight]

WW,

If a violent criminal drops his guard his victims should remain passive and hope he doesn't kill anyone before he leaves?

I did not read the article or look at the photo/video. I don't think Will is saying you shouldn't shoot if you have to. I think he is just saying that if the perp has not specifically said he is going to kill you (or someone else) or demonstrated that he might by having shot someone else already, then not every grand jury is going to rule that deadly force was justified. They probably will in a conservative state like Texas. But not every armed robbery results in the robber shooting someone and in some states that fact may not justify a preemptive use of deadly force by a bystander. The result will be that the good guy goes to jail.

If you are a CW carrier you sure better decide what the trigger (no pun intended) is going to be to fire on someone. If you are standing in line at the grocery store and two guys with guns start robbing the place, to me that is not nearly enough cause to open fire on them. At the point where they start shooting witnesses, THEN you have reasonable fear of your life and the lives of others, and probably should take action if you choose not to retreat. But that is not the time to try to make a decision whether or not you are going to shoot.

 

[Alexx1401]

WW,

If a violent criminal drops his guard his victims should remain passive and hope he doesn't kill anyone before he leaves?

Few here had ANY thoughts the shooter should have gotten anything other than a pat on the back. Problem is what most of us here think is NOT the common way of thinking in many places. The fake gun was not the potential problem here. It was the way the shoot went down. The shooter is VERY lucky he did not end up in prison over this. Would it be "right" if he was charged? No. There is what is "right" and there is what happens in the real world.

 

[hawmanai]

Lucky the Texas Grand Jury is tired of criminals.

The shots after robber was no longer a threat and fleeing the scene might have put him away if it happened in a more Liberal area.

 

[WillametteWill]

WW,

If a violent criminal drops his guard his victims should remain passive and hope he doesn't kill anyone before he leaves?

The first four shots were completely justified, fake gun or not. The gun being real or not is not a factor as the perceived threat was reasonable.

Shots five, six, seven, and eight were in the back of a prone suspect and his gun had fallen away from him. What exactly is the threat here that justifies four shots in the back of a prone, unmoving person?

...Three second pause while the "good guy" approaches the downed, unmoving bad guy...

The "good guy" then picks up the bad guy's gun and shoots him in what appears to be the back of the head.

If anyone thinks any of the shots beyond the first four were remotely justified, and I wish to be kind here, it might behoove one to learn more about the justification for using deadly force. What would that cross-examination look like while the jury is shown this video 50 times, in slow motion, stopping to ask what the armed defender was thinking at this moment (before he puts a round in the back of his head)?

The final shot was a coup de gras on an unarmed (since he just picked up his gun) person in the back, likely in the head.

Am I okay with the guy not being charged? Yup. He didn't bring the fight. But my point is if any of us think we would not be charged in the same situation we are kidding ourselves. I also don't think it is ethical to shoot people in the back of the head after putting eight shots into them and they are lying prone.

ASP has the video with the audio and video synced...most other sources do not.

 

[Catfishmoon]

Luckily for the shooter he was in Texas.
As mentioned by others, the concern is the final shots that were fired.
I would not want to be in those same circumstances in Washington, Oregon or California and expect the same outcome from prosecutors or a jury.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Didn't click but when in Houston, do as the blam blammers do. It's really rather simple.

 

[JRMadrid]

Ah, so only retaliate when it's pointed at you…

Got it. Then when he focuses on somebody else you can relax. Understood.

Wayne LaPierre is that you?

 

[Alexx1401]

Ah, so only retaliate when it's pointed at you…

Got it. Then when he focuses on somebody else you can relax. Understood.

Wayne LaPierre is that you?

Not even close to what anyone said here. Did you bother to watch the video? Might help to actually watch it. Now if you find yourself in that situation and wish to do the same thing? By all means you do you. Don't expect to get as lucky as this guy did.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Harris County (Houston) has a Soros DA, so the good guy is indeed lucky.

 

[Knobgoblin]

Not even close to what anyone said here. Did you bother to watch the video? Might help to actually watch it. Now if you find yourself in that situation and wish to do the same thing? By all means you do you. Don't expect to get as lucky as this guy did.

Word.

If you're going to run around administering finishing moves , you might as well take an ear or finger as a trophy.

 

[drstrangelove]

Word.

If you're going to run around administering finishing moves , you might as well take an ear or finger as a trophy.

Do like they do to coyotes in the Midwest… hang them on fence posts for other yotes to see.

 

[WillametteWill]

Ah, so only retaliate when it's pointed at you…

Please show me where "retaliate" is located as a justification for deadly force self defense (in the United States), I'll wait.

Got it. Then when he focuses on somebody else you can relax. Understood.

If you bother to watch the video you will see he is focused on bleading out, not moving, being unarmed and face down in the ground.

Wayne LaPierre is that you?

Strawberry bricks.

 

[Xaevian]

Even a Grand Jury dismissed it. This should tell everyone crying about "overkill" everything they need to know about the laws in TX. In most jurisdictions, when deadly/lethal force is justified, that means up to and including death. There is nothing beyond lethal force. He was justified in killing that guy in TX. He wasn't dead yet, so he made sure he was. He's dead, so no one can ask him if he was done fooling around.

People should remember state laws and state case laws regarding self defense differ from state to state. Just because the left coast is full of cucks doesn't mean the rest of the country is. Justifiable homicide in TX, whether someone likes it or not. Didn't even go to trial no matter how hard the DA tried.

 

[JRMadrid]

Not even close to what anyone said here. Did you bother to watch the video? Might help to actually watch it. Now if you find yourself in that situation and wish to do the same thing? By all means you do you. Don't expect to get as lucky as this guy did.

Please show me where "retaliate" is located as a justification for deadly force self defense (in the United States), I'll wait.

If you bother to watch the video you will see he is focused on bleading out, not moving, being unarmed and face down in the ground.

Strawberry bricks.

You two sure took that personally. Lighten up, thought there were hardened folk here.

Gonna go make snow angles in the yard. Thinking maybe obtuse ones beside some right ones.

 

[WillametteWill]

You two sure took that personally. Lighten up, thought there were hardened folk here.

Not personally and the skin is pretty thick. We do have folks here though who are new to concealed carry and laws of self defense and may see information that leads them in a dangerous direction. It is a fault of mine that I tend to reply like I'm teaching a class. Sorry, I don't intend to come off too strong. But trust me, I have had plenty of folks over the years who, in person so I know there was no jesting or sarcasm, share some insane theories of self defense.

 

[Koda]

Many people think a lack of prosecution equals lawfully justified actions, whats worse than believing that is influencing others to believe the same fallacy. Texas law notwithstanding.


Back when this story unfolded Branca put out a video of his opinion on this under Texas law and even he questioned if the last shot was justified. It is interesting how Texas doesnt prosecute some cases though.

 

[Xaevian]

There us a chasm of difference between what may be morally right and what may be legally right.

The long version, fasten your seatbelts and put your tray in the upright position;

Trigger alert, find a safe space immediately:

This case didn't have a lack of prosecution. It was taken to a grand jury very quickly and was aggressively pursued by the AGO. That is the formal review where only the prosecution provides their version and evidence and that almost always goes to trial from there. This video that appears so damning would be a centerpiece of that evidentiary presentation. And yet, it wasn't enough to even go to trial.

Yeah, I know it is obvious that I am not a fan of the "good shoot or bad shoot" game and definitely dislike the Supreme Court of Public Opinion. Wanna play that, then show up for jury duty. Everything else is just an opinion piece. Here is my opinion: There is no such thing as a good shoot. They are all tragedies one way or another. The fact remains though, law is bound by definitions either codified into it or by legal determination via previous decisions (case law).

I see a lot of judicial distrust from folks who often say "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6." But do you? Do you really?