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

[unclenunzie]

Remember the context of the shooter's discovery that the robber's gun was fake, and upon discovery threw it against a wall. That to me is an indication of anger brought on by the realization - in that moment - that he had shot that robber (justly imo) for a fake.

I think anyone would be angered even more after that.

Only then as I recall did he approach the downed (and imo likely dead) robber and shoot again.

 

[MEHavey]

Again. . . . Can an new/different prosecutor use a new/different grand jury to indict for the existing/current information/evidence ?
i.e., Is the shooter still sitting under a criminal sword of Damocles -- suspended only by a whim ?

 

[PWC]

I read this the other day on FOX and they showed an abbreviated clip of the robbery/shooting, but they shut it off early.

When the robbery happened, the same clip was shown running longer and showed the robber go to the first booth, then walk to the back table to rob there. The shooter was trying to get his gun out and after the robber walked past him still with his gun, the shooter shot the robber. Then he got up walked over and shot the robber again, before walking out the door of the resturant.

I belive the last shot, after the robber was down, and the robbery was over, is the reason the prosecuter convened the grand jury. The shooter is very lucky the way it turned out.

The "new" FOX video doesn't show the last shot fired as the original did.

 

[wayneinFL]

If dire warnings about this type of behavior are off topic for strategies, tactics, and training, I'd love to hear the tactical or strategic advantage in shooting an attacker after the threat is neutralized.

It would be interesting if this thread had a poll, or a subsequent thread on the grand jury decision with a poll.
- I agree with the grand jury, he should not have been charged.
- I disagree with the grand jury and think he should have been charged.
Sadly, I think the 2nd option would have some votes.

I wouldn't agree with either option. According to the law, he should have been charged, but I'm glad for him that he wasn't.

I'm going to say one more time, I think the guy made some dumb moves.

First off he didn't have the gun accessible.

Second, he shouldn't have shot after the threat was neutralized. Even if you think it's legally and morally justified, what do you gain?

Third, there was no reason for him to leave the scene. Flight implies guilt. It doesn't help you to leave and turn yourself in the next day.

 

[Choctaw]

This is America, anybody can sue anyone for anything. As long as someone is willing to pay attorney fees and filing fees. About the only untouchable lawsuit is suing an attorney for malpractice. (The only sharks that don’t eat their own…)

Exactly.

 

[MEHavey]

Again. . . . Can an new/different prosecutor use a new/different grand jury to indict for the existing/current information/evidence ?
i.e., Is the shooter still sitting under a criminal sword of Damocles -- suspended only by a whim ?

Anyone want to actually answer the question?
(Maybe 3rd time's the charm)

 

[rust collector]

Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him to use a search engine and he too can be an internet expert.

https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/when-double-jeopardy-protections-take-hold.html

 

[MEHavey]

A simple "Yes" would suffice.

(especially none of the dialogue so far leads the Gentle Reader(s)
to understand that the Fat Lady has merely taken a break.)

 

[Jim Watson]

I think it was the grand jury equivalent of jury nullification. They concluded that some people just need to be killed. However.

But I foresee that tool of the establishment, the special prosecutor, to ram charges through.

 

[Phaedrus/69]

The guy's really lucky he had an activist grand jury.

 

[bdickens]

I belive the last shot, after the robber was down, and the robbery was over, is the reason the prosecuter convened the grand jury.

Absolutely incorrect. All homicides go to the Grand Jury in Texas.

The shooter is very lucky the way it turned out.

This is Harris County. The same jurisdiction that no-billed Joe Horn.


I hate to gloat but I called this a year ago.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I've been told to expect a self defense homicide to be presented to a grand jury. Period.

In the case of the "alleged armed robber" apparently the grand jury that returned no charge of homicide against the defender would have returned a charge of armed robbery against the robber if he had survived.

Presenting a fake gun that would put a reasonable person in fear of death or grievous bodily harm can justify use of lethal force in defense. A judge charging a fake gun robber might be inclined to show leniency in charging the robber if the robber stands trial but the person put in fear of death or grievous bodily harm has little way of knowing.

 

[The Night Rider]

The armed attorneys who are licensed practice law in Texas did a video on this right after it happened I thought I'd post it for information sake although I'm sure everybody's seen it.

Taqueria Takedown: Good Samaritan or Excessive Vengeance?

A video of an armed robber being shot inside a Houston taqueria has gone viral, with many questioning whether the shot was legal self-defense. Armed Attorney...

youtu.be

 

[luzyfuerza]

Presenting a fake gun that would put a reasonable person in fear of death or grievous bodily harm can justify use of lethal force in defense.

Actually, its not just fake guns.

Remember that a robber need not show a weapon (real or otherwise) to commit the crime of armed robbery.

Depending on the circumstances, a robber who simply presents a note, say, to a bank teller, that indicates that he is armed is enough.

A robber who simply says that he "has a gun" is likely enough.

Even a robber who simply shows a bulge in a hoodie pocket that looks like it is caused by a real gun (even if its really only a finger gun), and then threatens with that bulge is likely enough.

Defenders are under no obligation to verify that a robber has a real gun, that its loaded, that it has a round in the chamber, that it has the correct ammo, that a knife has a sharp edge, etc.

So, actually, any threat...

...that would put a reasonable person in fear of death or grievous bodily harm can justify use of lethal force in defense.

 

[rabid wombat]

So, actually, any threat

something about a reasonable person….

 

[luzyfuerza]

This line, of course, was intended to be an improved preamble to @Carl N. Brown 's quote. Was it confusing? If so, I apologize to you, OP, and to anyone else who missed the connection.

 

[lemaymiami]

One other minor point.... robbery (armed or not) is a crime against a specific person or persons. Everywhere that I know of a key element for the crime of robbery is that the victim(s) are placed in fear as a result of the actions of the offender. Anyone that's been the victim of a robbery will soon find out as they deal with law enforcers - and any subsequent prosecution that being placed in fear will be something that is required for any successful prosecution. As a supervisor (sergeant) this was something we insisted on in the paperwork generated by our officers or detectives from the very first contact - and when I later moved up in rank to watch commander, one of the review elements we had to have was that each element of a given crime be noted at all levels as it was dealt with by our agency - and you can be certain that was echoed in any subsequent prosecution...