In the first instance, the rules of the defensive use of force apply. The other is different--no shots would be lawful.
Irrelevant.
Assess this recent in-the-news defensive shooting incident (Houston)
- Thread starter unclenunzie
- Start date
- Status
Why "presumably deceased"? What "need"?
WTBguns10kOK
member
Another great reminder from this robbery is how when you need it most, no one will come to your aid. That's why our hero citizen had to do everything he did, from fire his weapon, to return the money etc etc....all while everyone else just sat or laid there. He literally did the job of a good Samaritan and the police simultaneously.
Heroes do not murder, nor do good police officers.
One other thing--the Good Samaritan of Biblical fame gave aid and succor. Real Good Samaritans do not use deadly force.
Deadly force may be used lawfully or unlawfully. The difference is critical.
OP
OP
unclenunzie
Contributing Member
I have to say, it's hard to be dispassionate reviewing this case, partly because I eat in places like this not that far from Houston. I can relate to the people on a personal level. I think that's likely to be common in the area and why a conviction might be hard to obtain. Said another way though, if the finders of fact (jury) were not people but machines which evaluate only factual evidence against clear law as instructed by a judge, they probably would convict on some acts.
Also, for a justice system to be fair, the perp's now-known criminal history cannot be taken into account when someone else is on trial for killing him. It should make no difference if the perp was that guy or some theoretical sympathetic person (say a female nursing student who up to then had a perfect no-crime record). The law and treatment of facts should be the same in every case, or bias has crept in and distorts due process (and erodes trust in justice).
Also, for a justice system to be fair, the perp's now-known criminal history cannot be taken into account when someone else is on trial for killing him. It should make no difference if the perp was that guy or some theoretical sympathetic person (say a female nursing student who up to then had a perfect no-crime record). The law and treatment of facts should be the same in every case, or bias has crept in and distorts due process (and erodes trust in justice).
Presumably dead because most bystanders would anticipate that a robber shot eight times from a few feet away by the hero would be deceased or on their way to assuming room temperature.
I was not in the tacqueria nor do I know the hero or his mindset. My belief from viewing the video is he continued moving towards the robber to obtain the most accurate shots and to somehow get the robber's gun.
Lina Hidalgo the Present Harris County Commissioner...
Never a safe assumption.
Why?
A very bad thing to try to do.
luzyfuerza
Member
The problem you describe is a result of the most basic, fundamental, visceral difference between "good guys" and "bad guys". The defender in this case, who started out as a "good guy", only violated the law for the finishing shots. While a "bad guy" who shoots without justification violates the law for every shot.
theotherwaldo
Member
Why should a 'good guy' that does something wrong be punished more harshly than a 'bad guy' that does a similar wrong?
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,659
Thanks.
jmorris
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 24,212
Is there another way to look at it?
A “good guy” might take actions that at first are legal and justified, then, following that, do something bad. Would turn good into bad.
If a bad guy starts with murder, it’s still murder even if he kills someone too dead.
jmorris
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 24,212
There would be a lot more trust in the system if this were the case, that’s for sure.
theotherwaldo
Member
Oddly, a 'good guy' that does a bad shoot is far more likely (in some jurisdictions) to be prosecuted for his actions... .
jmorris
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 24,212
No argument here but that goes back to the erosion of trust in the “blind” Justice system.
bdickens
Member
None of us were there. None of us have any idea why the hero approached the robber. He clearly wanted to get to the robber's gun on the floor. The hero may have believed the robber was indeed still in the fight.
As far as realistic training, not everyone in this world are lifelong firearms enthusiasts.
Many are likely just competent, sober, and decent people who want a fair chance to remain alive in an occasionally cruel, harsh, and cold world. They see a firearm as a basic tool with a simple purpose.
Just like some people view cars only as a mode of transportation. By comparison, not all motorists attend a high-performance racing school, yet they still do a very adequate job safely driving the roads 95% of the time.
Apparently so. One wonders why. Trained, knowledgeable people understand that that is a bad idea.
He may have. It is now up to others to assess whether that bellie was reasonable.
Unrelated. Having the mindset and skillset to go with defensive tools is a matter of prudence, not enthusiasm.
WTBguns10kOK
member
Seems like lots of armchair quarterbacking when most people wouldn't do nearly as well as the armed hero did in this scenario. Bad laws come and go (many people seem to have forgotten), but trying to do your best is timeless and this guy did a perfect job of stopping the threat.
Unless, he gets charged. The politics of this is just starting. About training, that's a person's call but if avoids major mistakes, that's what is is for. If George Zimmerman had a modicum of realistic training he would have saved himself a world of grief, despite the trial outcome being positive (not to reopen that one).
BTW, if you don't like armchair analysis, please go back in time and stop Al Gore from inventing the Internet. There is more to it then just saying the emotional ATTABOY. If you do take some realistic training, the AAR analysis can be brutal to your perceived warrior status and that's to the good.
BTW, if you don't like armchair analysis, please go back in time and stop Al Gore from inventing the Internet. There is more to it then just saying the emotional ATTABOY. If you do take some realistic training, the AAR analysis can be brutal to your perceived warrior status and that's to the good.
jmorris
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 24,212
Well, to be fair, if the .gov could actually do their job all the time and protect us, there would be no instances like this.
These were not the first people the dead guy committed crimes against. He’s been arrested and convicted previously.
https://www.fox26houston.com/news/h...killed-by-customer-in-self-defense-spekas-out
I don’t have a PHD in mathematics but if he had served his prison sentence, I don’t he could have been there to rob the place and get killed.
Promises and wishes can’t keep people safe.
"Hero"? Nope.
The laws relevant here are date back many hundreds of years.
He did that, if you overlook his extremely unwise shooting when there were innocents behind his target. But he went on and did more than that, and therein lies the problem.
Persons who would praise the way this man handled the situation have a very flawed understanding of use of force law. It would behoove them to take the effort to remedy that.
Absolutely and it bears repeating. This hero visited the restaurant with his buddy hoping to peacefully enjoy guacamole, chicken enchiladas, and some tacos. The robber (who apparently served time for murder) dragged everyone into this horrible mess. Given all that, the hero successfully eliminated the threat, hurt no innocent bystanders, and even returned their money. He deserves grace and decency.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
