Yes.
Not really. The evidence regarding what happened can be quite sufficient.
Assess this recent in-the-news defensive shooting incident (Houston)
- Thread starter unclenunzie
- Start date
- Status
WTBguns10kOK
member
A very poignant question overall and especially of interest to this shooting. Considering the ridiculous number of laws and lack of consistency across the union, at some point people stop caring and do their best to do the right thing.
If you set aside differences among laws that provide various assumptions in cases involving home invasion, breaking into occupied conveyances, etc., use of force laws are essentially very consistent among jurisdictions.
The only key thing that comes to mind in this case that may differ across jurisdictions is the Texas Code provision regarding the defense of moveable personal property.
As mentioned, it may or may not be murder, but it was not a lawful act. As to intent, the CCW throwing his drink at the body on the way out was a bad idea which could be used to provide insight into intent.
There are some basic general principles that are nearly universal. I posted them in post #130 of this thread.
There is one really basic overarching principle of the legal use of deadly force:
The provisions that justify deadly force are intended to provide legal protection for people who are left with no option but to use deadly force. We learn them so we don't do the wrong thing, or say the wrong thing--they should not be used a "recipe" for how to cook up a legal way to shoot people. They are there to provide a safety net when using deadly force is the only reasonable option.
If you use deadly force only when there's no other reasonable option and stop using it once it's no longer necessary, then you can reasonably expect the exemptions in the law to keep you from being punished. If you expect or want more from them than that, you need to realign your perspective.
What’s right isn’t always legal and what’s right varies according to a person’s beliefs. That’s why we only deal with what’s legal here.
That's why we have to have laws.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
Not. True.
Intent can be inferred by actions. And more often than a lot of people think.
As for a person verbalizing their intent...that is not necessarily an accurate way of conveying intent either, as people lie and exaggerate all the time.
Back when our son was a wee little lad in the Cub Scouts, I asked him "How can you tell if a person is lying or being honest?"
(I asked my kids provoking questions as they grew up.)
It was fun watching him think about it and I was looking forward to seeing how his brain worked on this subject at that age.
He finally said "By how they act."
Hammer, meet nail.
This guy's actions spoke volumes.
theotherwaldo
Member
What I saw in the video was a man that was totally infuriated because an arrogant SOB suckered him into probably ruining his life by responding to this idiotic robbery.
He should not have acted out his rage, but he probably figured that it was already too late to worry about that... .
He should not have acted out his rage, but he probably figured that it was already too late to worry about that... .
Phaedrus/69
Member
The city will probably be safer with the victim in the ground and the shooter in prison. Neither one of them displayed the self control to conform to the laws and behavioral standards of society.
It fascinates me we are on a pro-RKBA / pro-2A forum and there are a substantial number of posters nearly gleeful about the opportunity to toss this hero under the jail. The man wanted to just peacefully enjoy some chicken enchiladas, guacamole, and tacos with his pal. Was his response textbook perfect? Perhaps not.
We now know he eliminated a convicted murderer (out on early-release) who was doing the robbing, so even if not admissible in fancy-schmancy court, the hero sure deserves grace and compassion from normal people like us observing from the cheap seats. He hurt nobody else and even returned money/possessions of innocents.
We now know he eliminated a convicted murderer (out on early-release) who was doing the robbing, so even if not admissible in fancy-schmancy court, the hero sure deserves grace and compassion from normal people like us observing from the cheap seats. He hurt nobody else and even returned money/possessions of innocents.
This is why we only discuss what's legal, not what's right or moral here.......................This one is done.
Here is an analysis from two attorneys who practice self defense law in Houston Texas:
I'm going to open this thread back up with the provision that comments are restricted to the the tactical and legal aspects of this case. Anyone who comments on if it was right or moral will get 5 days off to think about the rules in this subforum. The attorneys do cover that in their video.
I'm going to open this thread back up with the provision that comments are restricted to the the tactical and legal aspects of this case. Anyone who comments on if it was right or moral will get 5 days off to think about the rules in this subforum. The attorneys do cover that in their video.
WTBguns10kOK
member
Another side note guys, the armed patron (saint) shooting until the threat went down was definitely the right strategically tactical and certainly legal move at the beginning of the firearm use. Some people would quickly stop after just a shot or two, if the suspect "seemed" to be going down. Our shooter was not right handed but did fall to his right side. Camera isn't clear but it's certainly possible that made the citizen uncomfortable not being able to see that right hand upon the suspect falling.
aaaaa
Member
Presumably the guy did not know if the BG was dead, so it would be murder if the BG were still alive, or attempted murder if the BG was already dead (you can't murder a dead guy
).
aaaaa
Member
That's what I was thinking but I suspect the guy did not start shooting until the BG was past being inline with the patron in the corner. Hard to tell with the camera not being directly inline with the shots.
It is neither tactically nor legally sound to shoot with out taking due care to not recklessly endanger persons behind the target.
Totally agree. My sense is he was not "counting shots" so much as shooting the robber down to the ground. Had the hero possessed a 5-shot revolver, for example, my guess is that would have likely been total number fired.
No one knows if he was dead and it’s doubtful the medical examiner would be able to say for sure which shot killed him.
aaaaa
Member
I am curious what gun he used, the mag capacity and if he was full mag plus 1. I think someone suggested he was racking one before he shot.
The Night Rider
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2022
- Messages
- 2,146
I'm very surprised that The Armed Attorneys advanced the theory that if the criminal was dead when the last shot was fired than it it's irrelevant to the overall case.
By the same theory that it doesn't matter that the criminal's gun was fake because the victim/shooter had a reasonable belief that it was a real gun, then (In my non attorney opinion) the victim/shooter had a reasonable belief that the criminal was alive when he fired the last shot. In fact I can't come up with a reasonable reason to shoot a dead body.
The video hasn't changed my opinion. If I was on the Grand Jury I don't think I could No Bill the Victim/shooter. I'd have to vote to indict
By the same theory that it doesn't matter that the criminal's gun was fake because the victim/shooter had a reasonable belief that it was a real gun, then (In my non attorney opinion) the victim/shooter had a reasonable belief that the criminal was alive when he fired the last shot. In fact I can't come up with a reasonable reason to shoot a dead body.
The video hasn't changed my opinion. If I was on the Grand Jury I don't think I could No Bill the Victim/shooter. I'd have to vote to indict
aaaaa
Member
Did they ever say how many bullet holes were in the body? Some went through the front door, maybe were misses or pass throughs. Good thing nobody was out front at the time.
The Night Rider
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2022
- Messages
- 2,146
How's that even relevant to the case?
aaaaa
Member
Probably not relevant to the case strictly from a courtroom perspective, but in the broader discussion it seems that misses, especially if they have potential to harm a bystander, are relevant.
EDIT: But surely basic stats such as number of rounds fired, number of hits, type of gun, etc. would be part of the case, part of the evidence, and so relevant to the trial whether used in argument or not.
Last edited:
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,660
So now some activists are complaining about the shooting, and they are doing it very cleverly. They start by saying the robber was commiting a crime and the erstwhile defender was justified with his first shots, but then continue by saying he was not justified with his later shots, and especially not with the last one. And they added that saying he was still afraid of the robber wouldn't hold water because after he picked up the robber's gun he turned his back to him and walked away to put the (fake) gun down before coming back for the final shot, IOW you don't turn your back to someone you fear is still a threat.
Watch here:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/houston-activists-arrest-armed-taqueria-shot-killed-robbery
Watch here:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/houston-activists-arrest-armed-taqueria-shot-killed-robbery
WTBguns10kOK
member
Interesting...that's similar to what some people in this thread have been complaining. Ah well, moral of the story is....stop the threat best you can with safe, accurate shots. People will always pick apart anything they perceive as a fault.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
