Assess this recent in-the-news defensive shooting incident (Houston)

[FL-NC]

My personal opinion- I don't have a problem with anything that citizen did. I also think there is a thin line between what is necessary and what is "excessive". That robber needed to be put down. He was flagging everyone in that place with what must be assumed to be a loaded handgun with ill intent. That is insanely dangerous to everyone there, even if it hadn't been intentional. Add the malicious intent (robbery) and the solution is to put him down. How the man who defended himself and others present went about doing this is of no consequences to me personally, since no innocents were hit. This is based on my experiences in a war zone. Some may say that this is the US and not a war zone in the mideast. I say, a gunfight is a gunfight. A jury may differ.

 

[JohnKSa]

The reality is that gunfights are graded Pass/Fail...

Not for the purposes of analysis here. A defender can make a lot of mistakes and succeed if he is very lucky and/or the attackers are clueless bumbling idiots. It wouldn't make sense to assume that any defender who doesn't get killed/injured and doesn't kill/injure an innocent did everything right and therefore everything he did should be used as the ideal example for other defenders to follow.

I've seen one defender in a video who dropped magazines from his gun repeatedly during a gunfight but wasn't killed or injured. Should we applaud that as a "pass" and modify our firearms so that they are more likely to unintentionally discharge their magazines? The idea is clearly ridiculous.

He simply did a great job overall.

He succeeded in surviving and in not killing any innocents. That alone is not nearly sufficient to make such a pronouncement.

That robber needed to be put down.

Yup, the initial shots were justifiable. Once he HAD been clearly put down, picking up his gun and shooting him in the back of the head was excessive.

I say, a gunfight is a gunfight.

Did you watch the full video and not just the one that stops where the shooting starts? Once you have the other guy's gun in your hand and he's lying on the floor and not moving, it's not a gunfight any more by any reasonable definition. Shooting him in the back of the head at that point doesn't qualify as part of a gunfight.

 

[230RN]

He carried his defensive weapon in a manner such that he had difficulty drawing it quickly and smoothly

Not as bad as having to carry in an ankle rig, which is sometimes necessary. I experimented with that extensively out of necessity at one point and the best I could do was 40% "quickly" and 10% "smoothly."

But I had a gun on me !

Despite this use of this apex of concealment methods I later found out it partly showed up in a photograph of the seated group I was in because my pants leg rode up a little when seated. But if you didn't know what it was and you happened to notice it in the first place, you'd think it was just an ankle monitor. (Yikes!)

(FYI this experimentation revealed that my best way to use an ankle rig was on the inside of my strong side leg, butt forward. )

Terry, 230RN

 

[Kleanbore]

The reality is that gunfights are graded Pass/Fail

Really?

and so far this one is looking like a Pass.

He was not injured by the man with the inopertive gun; he injured no bystanders; he shot and killed the man he intended to shoot and apparently intended to kill. Not a pass in my book.

 

[Kleanbore]

Every single (no exceptions) comment thread below news stories that I've seen has had full support for the armed hero.

ignorance fom the ignorant. and meaningless.

He simply did a great job overall.

I hate to put is quite this way, but anyone who believes that is woefully ignorant of both defensive shooting and use of force law

 

[Rexster]

A Grand Jury has yet to have its say. The DA’s office can make all manner of noises, seeming to support the armed citizen, for political reasons, to placate voters, but, if the Grand Jury returns a true bill, the DA must do her job. (She was elected in the 2016 “blue wave” that almost totally flipped this county.) Having been the subject of a Grand Jury investigation, after a line-of-duty shooting, I do, personally, know what it is like to face a hostile Grand Jury, when the DA had no problem with my use of deadly force. A Grand Jury can choose to indict, even if the DA is not going for a prosecution. Or, of course, a DA can get a Grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.

That tacqueria is not far from where I live, so, yes, my now-retired self could have been sitting inside the place, when that robbery occurred. Well, not really; my gut is not as young as it once was, and I rarely out and about after dark, anymore, but there is at least one late-night eatery I occasionally continue to patronize. A take-down robbery could occur. If I were to perform the same series of actions as the armed citizen in the video, I doubt that I would be treated nearly as favorably.

 

[GEM]

Exactly. It comes down to this:
1. The first four shots are legit by reasonable analysis
2. The last shot over his head is not by the rule of law. The excuses, getting closer to get a better shot, are mostly nonsensical.
3. The responses are demonstrating an emotional decision process (he deserved it) vs. a cognitive evaluation based on the rule of law as now formulated. The legal decision processes will be based on which one is predominant in the decision process to charge, and if in court, the minds of jury.

 

[230RN]

apparently

'Nuff said, and I've seen staff rail against "speculation" a number of times on this forum despite "speculations" being frequently offered as fact by moderators themselves.

I hope this isn't regarded as a personal attack, I'm just pointing out difficulties in logic and have done so several times in this topic.

There is sometimes a difference between "legal" and "justice," which plays a large part in this matter despite technical legalities, even though the "justice" is a highly relevant matter in this particular incident in this particular zeitgeist.

I hope this post closes this topic as no longer being useful and I trust that I will not be victimized because of my observations. Honorable men do honorable things.

Thanks, GEM, and lock 'er up.

Terry, 230RN

Edited for spelling: "zeitgeist"

 

[luzyfuerza]

So far, posters have assumed that the last shot hit the robber. That's not a sure thing.

Considering ONLY the last shot:

If it actually hit the robber in a spot that could reasonably have caused his death, realistic charges could include murder or manslaughter.

If it didn't, charges could be illegal discharge, assault with a deadly weapon, etc.

The ME's report will be critical to how that last shot might be charged.

 

[Kleanbore]

'Nuff said, and I've seen staff rail against "speculation" a number of times on this forum despite "speculations" being frequently offered as fact by moderators themselves.

I cannot see how anyone could interpret the deliberate, point blank shooting of a helpless man on the ground in the head as anything other than an intentional shot to kill, whether it was the proximate cause of death or not..

 

[230RN]

See luzyfuerza's remark and re-read my remarks on justice versus the law.

Go ahead, have the last word so you can obviously call it a "win."

Terry

 

[Kleanbore]

See luzyfuerza's remark

I've seen it.

 

[jmorris]

What he did not do is move so that there were no innocents behind the target. Basic defensive shooting.

At what point in a defensive operation does the defender implement offensive tactics?

Switching from resistive measures to offensive ones.

 

[Kleanbore]

At what point in a defensive operation does the defender implement offensive tactics?

Switching from resistive measures to offensive ones.

The point had to do with ensuring the safety of others.

 

[jmorris]

He did more in ensuring the safety of others from that day forth than the .gov had done in years of judging and punishing the deceased. Of course that’s not at all what self defense is or about but certainly a side effect of this incident.

We are lucky the only deceased is the perpetrator of the crime. Had the robber killed everyone (probably just anyone) before the guy could finally get his pistol out, people would be shouting “why did he wait so long?”

My hind site being fantastic, I think he should have just put his head down and plugged his ears…. We know it wasn’t likely he could have been shot now or anyone else. So his worries would have been over that day with, “I didn’t see or hear anything.”

That said, there have been lots of hero’s (and just normal guys, some not so normal) that have sent bullets their buddies direction. Lots of them, some have even resulted in casualties.

 

[WTBguns10kOK]

So far, posters have assumed that the last shot hit the robber. That's not a sure thing.

Considering ONLY the last shot:

If it actually hit the robber in a spot that could reasonably have caused his death, realistic charges could include murder or manslaughter.

If it didn't, charges could be illegal discharge, assault with a deadly weapon, etc.

The ME's report will be critical to how that last shot might be charged.

Yes, that's an excellent point. Unfortunately, that adds the error of speculation to the grandstanding we see in the thread. We'll need to see the report. At this point, still looks like an excellent shoot and the desired result of incapacitating the suspect.

 

[WTBguns10kOK]

There is sometimes a difference between "legal" and "justice," which plays a large part in this matter despite technical legalities, even though the "justice" is a highly relevant matter in this particular incident in this particular zeigeist

Best phrase of this thread, nice to see someone who understands the changing climate and how it affects self defense tactics and legal results.

 

[Kleanbore]

There is sometimes a difference between "legal" and "justice," which plays a large part in this matter despite technical legalities, even though the "justice" is a highly relevant matter in this particular incident in this particular zeitgeist.

In this country, private citizens are not empowered to exact justice.

At this point, still looks like an excellent shoot and the desired result of incapacitating the suspect.

As previously posted, Attorney Andrew Branca, an expert in the law of self defense, and Attorney Steve Gosney, with extensive experience in criminal law on the prosecutorial and defensive sides and in appellate cases, tell us that the video shows a use of force act that was not lawfully justified-- but that the criminal justice system may overlook that, for political reasons.

 

[230RN]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but wasn't this thread moved from the Legal forum in the first place? I don't see that notice about it today, Saturday, 14 Jan.

https://abc13.com/houston-robberies...essner-and-bellaire-southwest-crime/12663715/

The above link is a relatively brief local Houston news report which includes security camera footage with sound, showing an armed robbery in progress and subsequent shooting to stop by a patron inside. Only the armed robber was fired upon and hit. My personal opinion is this is a good shoot given the totality of the known circumstances, and the patron did well, but did leave the scene. As reported the police are looking for the shooter for questioning. I prefer not to speculate as to why the patron left.

Mods I think this fits here, but please move as required.
Bolding mine.

unclenunzie, yes, no?

It amuses me to think speculate that the Legal forum moderator didn't want to touch this subject with a 3.048 Meter pole.

Terry, 230RN

 

[Kleanbore]

Here is a rather thorough legal analysis of the shooting. It is a long read, and it covers most of that has been said in the thread. Serious readers with an interest in the case would gain from reading it.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/...lly-justified-killing-or-simply-an-execution/

It does not address a couple of key "tactical" aspects of the incident--the way the shooter's gun was carried, and the risk created for persons behind the target. When those are folded in, this case makes an excellent study scenario for education and training--better than any fictional example that I can imagine.

Notwithstanding the legal aspects of the final shot, I find it very easy to sympathize with the shooter.

One can bet that at this point, the shooter really, really wishes that he had eaten somewhere else that day.

 

[unclenunzie]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but wasn't this thread moved from the Legal forum in the first place? I don't see that notice about it today, Saturday, 14 Jan.

unclenunzie, yes, no?

It amuses me to think speculate that the Legal forum moderator didn't want to touch this subject with a 3.048 Meter pole.

Terry, 230RN

No, I posted this in STT originally.

 

[230RN]

^ OK, thanks. My mistake.

 

[JohnKSa]

At what point in a defensive operation does the defender implement offensive tactics?

If deadly force is justified, and as long as deadly force is justified, either offensive or defensive tactics are acceptable. The key is to keep in mind that if a defender succeeds, then at some point in the scenario, by definition, the justification for deadly force will end and any deadly force used after that point will be unacceptable whether it's offensive or defensive.

Yes, that's an excellent point. Unfortunately, that adds the error of speculation to the grandstanding we see in the thread. We'll need to see the report. At this point, still looks like an excellent shoot and the desired result of incapacitating the suspect.

The last shot is criminal whether it hits or doesn't hit. The circumstances may change the specific crime it is, but regardless of what that crime turns out to be, it's going to be a crime. As far as incapacitating the robber, the CCW did well. He made some mistakes before he drew and fired (e.g. lots of fidgeting that made him stand out to an observer), some mistakes while shooting (e.g. lines of fire that put some bullets pretty close to other people in the shop), and some mistakes after the robber was down (e.g. shooting after the justification for deadly force exists). This type of analysis is part of the point of this subforum. If you don't like it, then it would make sense for you to avoid participating in the ST&T subforum rather than to keep fussing about it serving one of its intended purposes.

That said, there have been lots of hero’s (and just normal guys, some not so normal) that have sent bullets their buddies direction. Lots of them, some have even resulted in casualties.

Sure, but we don't need to celebrate that as good tactics. The whole point is to learn from what others do so we have an edge if we are found in a similar situation.

There is sometimes a difference between "legal" and "justice," which plays a large part in this matter despite technical legalities, even though the "justice" is a highly relevant matter in this particular incident in this particular zeitgeist.

Justice is administered only by the court system. Had the robber survived, he would have been subject to actions by the justice system. The CCW is currently under review by the justice system. Justice is relevant in the sense that doing the wrong thing as a CCW exposes us to jeopardy from the justice system. It is not relevant in terms of whether or not the outcome of a CCW shooting is perceived to be "justice" since the goal of the legal use of deadly force isn't to mete out "justice".

I've said this before, but the goal of this discussion isn't to try our best to exonerate the CCW. The goal is to learn lessons from what he did. Both from what he did right and what he did wrong. People who can't stomach anything other than dedicated attempts to try to make the guy out to be a hero who did everything right don't understand the point of this discussion or the point of ST&T in general. It doesn't make sense to participate in discussions in ST&T with that kind of mindset.

 

[Kleanbore]

That said, there have been lots of hero’s (and just normal guys, some not so normal) that have sent bullets their buddies direction. Lots of them, some have even resulted in casualties.

When that happens in a civilian context, the issue becomes one of whether the shooter did in fact exercise due caution, whether the result was foreseeable and avoidable, and and whether the shooting was in fact necessary at that instant and from that location. If any of those measures comes up short, the act is criminal.

 

[luzyfuerza]

Something else that commenters here and elsewhere don't know for certain is the defender's intent.

Laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but in general terms, intent is a key difference between murder and manslaughter. "I shot him because I was angry with him" versus "the gun I was holding in my hand went off".

Defender's actions recorded in video provide a few clues about his intent. But the defender's own descriptions of what he was thinking at the time are the clearest source. He may, if he chooses, describe these thoughts to the police, the prosecutor, the Grand Jury, and perhaps to a trial jury.

Prosecutors make charging decisions based on what they believe they can prove in court. Including what they can prove about intent. Those who have written here that the defender's final shot shows that he committed murder are basing their statements on their assumptions about his intent. Not on any provable facts.



So, if intent is so important, should anyone ever admit that they intentionally shot another person?

In fact, in order for the use of deadly force to be excused or justified under the laws of self-defense, that use of deadly force must be intentional. An unintentional/accidental/reckless shot won't generally be excused or justified as self-defense. And most of the time, only the defender can describe exactly what her intent was.