Robber w/ AK47 shot by Waffle House customer....

[jmorris]

On what basis under the law would they decide to not send it to trial?

No idea, don't want to waste money/man power on a case they can't win a conviction? Lots of cases don't make it due to lack of evidence when there is more than in this situation. Like I said, if Mr.Cooper makes it off life support alive we may have more news. Until then, or video evidence, we have one mans story and if he has a decent lawyer he has said all he is going to say on the subject already.

I still don't have any takers on my bet....as long as we are speculating, might as well make it interesting.

Like I said I am not a gambler but the police let the shooter go and have done nothing since this thread started that would indicate he is going to be charged with anything much less go to trial.

 

[JohnKSa]

Like I said I am not a gambler but the police let the shooter go and have done nothing since this thread started that would indicate he is going to be charged with anything much less go to trial.

The shooter's story that he was protecting his wife who was expected at any second apparently provided sufficient justification in the eyes of the police. Perhaps that will also suffice to prevent him from being indicted.

Regardless, we don't have to know if he's going to be indicted or not to understand that it's generally inadvisable to follow an armed criminal who has completed a crime and left the scene. For one thing, the bad guy isn't always the one who ends up in the hospital on life support. Second, once the criminal has made it clear he's disengaging and that the crime is completed the justification for the use of deadly force no longer exists.

We also don't need to find out how the police handle this particular situation to know what the law says about deadly force and when it is and isn't justified.

Just to be clear, I'm not all broken up about the fact that an armed robber was shot as a consequence of his crime, but it would be a shame for someone to get the misguided idea that it's a good idea to chase down and kill a perpetrater after an armed robbery.

 

[jmorris]

Regardless, we don't have to know if he's going to be indicted or not to understand that it's generally inadvisable to follow an armed criminal who has completed a crime and left the scene. For one thing, the bad guy isn't always the one who ends up in the hospital on life support. Second, once the criminal has made it clear he's disengaging and that the crime is completed the justification for the use of deadly force no longer exists.

We also don't need to find out how the police handle this particular situation to know what the law says about deadly force and when it is and isn't justified.

Agreed except "disengaging" generally doesn't involve point a rifle at someone but it sounds like we both expect the same outcome, after the "police handling" was to let him go.

 

[CapnMac]

Sadly, it looks like Nice has pushed any local interest in this story out of the papers. So, we are unlikely to learn anything new or illuminating or clarifying on this case--that is until the case is, or is not, referred to the Grand Jury.

Any notice of that is unlikely to rate a column inch in the Morning News; the Star Telegram might print it, but it would be between the obits and the classifieds.

So, I'm sore afraid all we an do here is argue and pontificate upon our individual ideas of esoteric Texas regulations.

 

[old lady new shooter]

I guess my answer to that would be, do you really feel that's something you could, would, or should be killing someone over? Would you be able to kill someone because they discovered your home address? Should the law allow that?

If I'm writing the laws, no. But it would speak to the citizen's state of mind.

Since we're speculating, what if in the wallet there was something of great personal significance that was irreplaceable, does that qualify under that Texas law?

 

[old lady new shooter]

Interesting since, unless there is something significant going on indicating a person is still a threat, it is generally ill-advised and likely illegal to shoot a person after they are down.


*It's always possible a person on the ground can still shoot you, but typically and generally, if a person is shot or otherwise assailed and they go down, you probably shouldn't be shooting them. Watch them, keep your firearm on them, move to cover, escape further, etc, but shoot them where they lie...probably not.

BG can get up again after going down, I thought that's what was meant.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Just to clarify, although it's very interesting to speculate on all the points we don't know about, personally I would not have followed Mr AK47 out to the parking lot.

 

[JohnKSa]

Agreed except "disengaging" generally doesn't involve point a rifle at someone...

He was already done with the robbery and out of the building at that point. He had already disengaged.

The pointing of the rifle came during a second confrontation that was initiated not by the robber, but by the person who followed him out of the building.

That is part of why this is legally problematic. The shooter followed a person and then initiated an armed confrontation with that person. That is generally not legal. In the course of the confrontation, he states that he felt threatened and shot the person he followed and confronted. Legally justifying deadly force in an armed confrontation that you choose to initiate is problematic because you are the one who "started it", so to speak. It should be clear why it's not legal to go around initiating armed confrontations and then shooting people and claiming self-defense as soon as things get dicey for you.

In this case, he didn't claim self-defense (which would have been nonsense since if his goal was remain safe all he had to do was stay where he was), he claimed defense of a third party. That appears to have worked, at least so far.

 

[Old Guy]

First off, this armed robber is not playing with a full deck!

Going into a not expensive Café, at 2am, to rob the patrons, and the till, nuts!

With an AK 47, that can more or less guarantee, you will die, if shot in the body, anywhere, with a 7.62X39 (this is not a .25 ACP!) at extreme close range, 7m, max. The only control you, a legally armed Citizen, has, is to shoot him! Robber, Hi on drugs? Stops under a light in the parking lot, checks his cash take?

And decides to go back in, and take revenge? Does any one here, not think this person is NUTS! 2am, armed with really lethal weapon. He has to be stopped, period. And Texas is not NY/Maryland, or any other of those disarmed States, Police States.

Let us look at the DA, in order to Charge, and take in front of a Jury, this civvie shooter in Texas, he has to believe he can get a conviction? You think, in Texas? Is it shown anywhere what handgun was used?
Seems like it was an accurate weapon, used competently.

Witnesses? I wonder how many patrons were still under tables, locked in the Toilets? Mr. AK47's fingerprints, sent electronically, to NCIS?
He was a Boy Scout? Sure.

Good result.

 

[Kleanbore]

First off, this armed robber is not playing with a full deck!

That's patently obvious.

Going into a not expensive Café, at 2am, to rob the patrons, and the till, nuts!

Criminal, yes, but if in his mind he needed to rob people at that hour, that choice may not have been irrational.

The only control you, a legally armed Citizen, has, is to shoot him!

The duty of the citizen is not to exercise "control". It is to remain unharmed, to avoid doing anything reckless that could harm others, to provide information to law enforcement immediately, and to avoid becoming a criminal.

And decides to go back in, and take revenge?

Completely irrelevant.

Does any one here, not think this person is NUTS! 2am, armed with really lethal weapon. He has to be stopped, period.

I suggest that the judgment, if not the sanity, of anyone who ambles around in an urban environment with an unslung long arm is questionable, and that they may well pose danger. At that hour in particular.

But would you suggest shooting all of them on sight, or just the ones that you know to have previously committed offenses?

And Texas is not NY/Maryland, or any other of those disarmed States, Police States.

Yes, Texas is among the majority today.

Let us look at the DA, in order to Charge, and take in front of a Jury, this civvie shooter in Texas, he has to believe he can get a conviction?

Wothhout witnesses, the only actual evidence that we know about is that the person with the handgun went out and shot someone. The question is, what evidence of justification can the shooter produce? Absent sufficient evidence, the judge would have no basis for a self defense instruction, and the question of self defense would not come up at trial. Perhaps the shooter's story alone would suffice; perhaps not.

Witnesses? I wonder how many patrons were still under tables, locked in the Toilets? Mr. AK47's fingerprints, sent electronically, to NCIS?
He was a Boy Scout? Sure.

It should be easy to convict Mr. Cooper.

Good result.

Not over yet.

But the results so far are far better than they could have been.

 

[danez71]

He was already done with the robbery and out of the building at that point. He had already disengaged.

The pointing of the rifle came during a second confrontation that was initiated not by the robber, but by the person who followed him out of the building.

That is part of why this is legally problematic. The shooter followed a person and then initiated an armed confrontation with that person. That is generally not legal. In the course of the confrontation, he states that he felt threatened and shot the person he followed and confronted. Legally justifying deadly force in an armed confrontation that you choose to initiate is problematic because you are the one who "started it", so to speak. It should be clear why it's not legal to go around initiating armed confrontations and then shooting people and claiming self-defense as soon as things get dicey for you.

In this case, he didn't claim self-defense (which would have been nonsense since if his goal was remain safe all he had to do was stay where he was), he claimed defense of a third party. That appears to have worked, at least so far.

(Bolded by me)


I don't really agree with that at all.


He gave the reason of 'that because his wife was on her way, he followed the BG into the parking lot.

He's claiming the BG pointed the rifle at him and he shot the BG.

That's a self defense claim of one's self with out question.


I don't see anything about him claiming to shoot because 'his wife was on her way'. (which normally falls under self defense claws but that's besides the point)

How do you claim defense of a 3rd party that wasn't even there?





From the article/OP

"DeSoto police are hoping the public can help them identify the suspect in an aggravated robbery at a Waffle House last week......
Customers told police that the man had come into the restaurant, armed with an AK-47, and robbed numerous people as well as the business.....
One customer, who was legally carrying a concealed handgun, followed the robber into the parking lot because he was afraid for the safety of his wife, who was on her way to the Waffle House.
The customer called out to the robber, who turned and pointed the rifle at him, police said. The customer then shot the robber several times......"

 

[Old Guy]

Mr. Moderator, you seem to be on the side of this Nut Case Criminals demise?

If I would have been the shooter in this case (don't live in Texas) at 80 years of age, my first request would have been for transport to the nearest medical facility! Blood pressure would have been through the roof for sure.

What happened to my Pistol would have been dependent on who first arrived.
It would have been holstered for sure.

Paramedics, or Police. "I called 911, my name is" Holding chest (too dramatic? I have nitro cylinder on key ring!) my Wife is smart. She would be with me shortly.

 

[Kleanbore]

Mr. Moderator, you seem to be on the side of this Nut Case Criminals demise?

Last I saw, Mr. Cooper had not expired.

I have absolutely no sympathy for him.

I can tell you that I would never have even considered exposing myself to gunfire from someone with a rifle.

If I actually thought that a loved one might be arriving and I could not warn her by telephone, I might have considered leaving the facility--with great vigilance, staying out of sight as much as possible.

Otherwise I would have remained inside.

I certainly would never have followed man and called out to him.

The fact that the shooter in this case was not the shootee is the result of pure luck.

Perhaps his luck will hold, and in spite of his foolishness he will be spared he expense and strain of a lengthy legal defense process, and perhaps conviction.

But the case may well be referred to a Grand Jury, and if Cooper dies that's almost guaranteed.

I hope that the shooter has already availed himself of qualified legal representation.

 

[jmorris]

The question is, what evidence of justification can the shooter produce?

Like I said above, if he has a good lawyer he has already said all he is going to say on the subject.

This is Texas not the media he is innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around and the police at the location of the shooting that spoke with the shooter felt he was justified sufficiently to let him go home and not to jail.

 

[Kleanbore]

Like I said above, if he has a good lawyer he has already said all he is going to say on the subject.

No lawyer, not matter how "good", can create evidence that does not exist, or have evidence admitted unless a judge agrees, or have a jury receive a self-defense instruction unless the judge sees fit on the basis of evidence presented.

If there is a trial that does involve a defense of justification , the defense will have to present evidence in its behalf, and they may have nothing to present other than what the defendant (still) has to say.

This is Texas not the media he is innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around....

That is true in every state and in all US territories.

...and the police at the location of the shooting that spoke with the shooter felt he was justified sufficiently to let him go home and not to jail.

These virtual pages are full of accounts of people who were not arrested, and people who were not even taken in for questioning, who were ultimately charged.

That can still happen. Whether the case would go to trial, or be dismissed, or result in a guilty plea or a plea of nolo contendere by the defendant is completely unpredictable.

We obviously do not know everything about the incident. We know that there was an armed robbery, in which, fortunately, no one was killed or injured. We know that the robber departed from the premises. We know that a citizen left after the robber and shot him.

We know that the shooting could be excused on the basis of self defense, provided that the shooter had not threatened the victim first.

We also know that there are some possible nuances peculiar to the jurisdiction that might come into play if the robber had been trying to escape with property that had been taken from the shooter.

And it is at least conceivable that, even though the robber had not shot anyone during the robbery, his running around with an unslung rifle immediately after an armed robbery that had been witnessed by the shooter just might be considered evidence that the shooting of a fleeing felon could be justified. Or not.

 

[jmorris]

If there is a trial...

Yes, that seems to be the case and he has to be charged with something first.

At this point I don't see the shooter needing to produce anything more at least until the Civil trial takes place and we learn what a fine man Mr. Cooper was and how someday he could have cured cancer....

 

[Kleanbore]

The task of a Grand Jury would be to decide whether, on the basis of evidence available to the state, and without the defense presenting its own evidence, the state would likely prevail in proving guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, on some criminal charge, or on any of several.

We know only what has been reported. We do not know if the robber has yet said anything to the police. We do not know precisely what the shooter told the police at the scene; whether there were any eye witnesses or ear witnesses; whether there are any camera recordings; the number of shots fired; or the nature of the wounds.

Unless other evidence would indicate a rather clear-cut case of self defense, that last item could be dispositive. How many shots were fired? Where, and at what angle, did each of them enter the victim's body? Were any of them fired at point-blank range? Can anything be determined about the posture or direction of movement of the person shot during the incident? The importance of all of that is that it could indicate whether the shooter may have used more force than was necessary for self defense.

I don't know how long it would take to examine and evaluate and confirm the evidence on these points, but it is a cinch that the police did not do it at the scene.

Should any of that sound like overkill to anyone thinking of the kind of person the robber likely is, remember that Mr. Jerome Ersland was initially considered quite the hero after killing one robber and shooting at another in Oklahoma City, but the stories told by the security video and by the forensic medical examination ultimately put him away for life on a first degree murder conviction.

And the evidence revealed by the medical examination put eyewitness testimony in serious question after a police shooting in St. Louis County , MO some time ago, and led to a Grand Jury decision to not indict.

 

[jmorris]

I figured the evidence available was why the police let him go and did not arrest him.

Mr. Cooper could have talked to them before he was on life support but if they did and there was "evidence available" at that point they would have arrested the shooter if they felt criminal charges were going to be the next phase. They also would have at least identified him vs posting photos trying to identify him.

I am not familiar with the OK case but Joe Horn was no billed by a Texas Grand Jury after killing two outside a house that was not his, after the 911 operator he was talking to tool him not to even go outside.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy

Yet, another thing I would not have done

 

[alsaqr]

Mr. Jerome Ersland was initially considered quite the hero after killing one robber and shooting at another in Oklahoma City, but the stories told by the security video and by the forensic medical examination ultimately put him away for life on a first degree murder conviction.

Jerome Ersland was an idiot. He got before TV cameras and acted like he had saved the free world from evil. Ersland lied about his military service. Then the cops and prosecutor looked as the camera tapes: After that it was all downhill for Mr. Ersland.

BTW: Four people were found guilty of murder in the Ersland case: Ersland, the surviving perp and the two career criminals who talked the youngsters into robbing the store.

 

[danez71]

It looks like its going to the grand jury.

http://m.journal-news.com/news/news...ber-armed-ak-47-shot-man-concealed-pis/nrzBN/

Police did not arrest the armed customer. The case will be sent to a grand jury to determine whether any charges will be filed against the man.

 

[Red Wind]

It looks like its going to the grand jury.

I predict a no bill.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

I predict a no bill.

On what basis do you make this prediction?

 

[Red Wind]

On what basis do you make this prediction?

My gambling instincts. I'm a lifetime gambler and I rarely lose. Would you like a small friendly wager, Chief? Maybe a bushel of Florida oranges against a decorative Palmetto plant for my den?

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

My gambling instincts. I'm a lifetime gambler and I rarely lose. Would you like a small friendly wager, Chief? Maybe a bushel of Florida oranges against a decorative Palmetto plant for my den?

I rarely bet on things that aren't a certainty. And I wouldn't bet on a "no bill" here, either, if by this you mean no recommendation from a Grand Jury to take this to trial.

IF the initial media reports are in any way accurate as to what the guy did and how he went about it when he left the Waffle House after the bad guy, I wouldn't put up even a token bet for him not getting a recomendation for a trial.

 

[Kleanbore]

I am not familiar with the OK case but Joe Horn was no billed by a Texas Grand Jury after killing two outside a house that was not his, after the 911 operator he was talking to tool him not to even go outside.

Apparently you are not familiar with the Horn case, either.

A law enforcement officer who arrived at the scene witnessed the shooting and col the Grand Jury that Horn had been forced to fire in self defense. The decision hired on that.

Horn had gone outside under the mistaken belief that he would have been justified in using deadly force to prevent the taking of his neighbor's property. He had not been aware that he would have to show evidence that his neighbor had requested him to protect his property.