Houston robbery goes bad… for the bad guy.

[tvc184]

This has been discussed quite a bit in other forums and on Facebook. 

A guy goes into a Houston restaurant, waving a fake pistol around in an apparent robbery….
 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[bullets13]

F around and find out, I guess. 

[tvc184]

6 hours ago, bullets13 said:

F around and find out, I guess. 

Apparently (I didn't see it) the shooter could be in trouble, not for the shooting but the aftermath. Supposedly the shooter got people’s money back and started handing it out before he fled.

If true, that could potentially open him up to criminal charges for tampering with evidence.

He could be cleared by a grand jury by self defense yet be indicted for what happened afterwards. 

[mat]

Could he be charged with fleeing the scene? Is he a possible felon? Should be no charges either way in my opinion.

[tvc184]

7 minutes ago, mat said:

Could he be charged with fleeing the scene? Is he a possible felon? Should be no charges either way in my opinion.

There is no charge of fleeing from a crime scene that I have seen. 

I have said in other threads….. maybe he is a felon, maybe he has a warrant his arrest (even misdemeanor), is out on bail and not supposed to possess a handgun as a condition of bail, etc. 

[Bobcat1]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[tvc184]

He came in and gave a statement today. 

[bullets13]

19 hours ago, tvc184 said:

He came in and gave a statement today. 

What are the odds he gets charged in this one?? The second volley of four shots was borderline, but I think he gets away with them (although I could see a cop getting charged for them).  That coupe de grace at the end doesn't bode well.  

[tvc184]

5 hours ago, bullets13 said:

What are the odds he gets charged in this one?? The second volley of four shots was borderline, but I think he gets away with them (although I could see a cop getting charged for them).  That coupe de grace at the end doesn't bode well.  

My opinion is that the last shots (and especially the last one) was completely unnecessary, making it illegal. The penal code uses the phrase, “immediately necessary” to justify force or deadly force. In other words, had the threat ended?

Reaction time is such that even if the threat ended, a person may fire a couple more shots before the cease firing reaction is transmitted to the finger that is pulling the trigger.

When we learned driving in driver’s ed, most of us learned that there is a 1/2 to a 3/4 second reaction time before hitting the brakes. Even if you see something ahead such as a child running into the road, there will be a lag time before that is transmitted to you hitting the brake. Your eye saw the child instantly because of the speed of light but by time your brain processes it and sent the message/nerve impulse to your feet, you will travel a distance. 

I believe it is the same thing with shooting. While it may be easy to see a person going down, when you were pulling the trigger at 3 to 5 times a second, it will take a couple of shots before you stop shooting even if your eyes perceived the threat ending.

In a case like this, I understand a person pulling the trigger multiple times in a second or two. The people online that claimed it should’ve been one or two shots probably have no clue what they’re talking about. 

Using an electronic timer, about five years ago an officer was testing me on shooting skills. It was about 20 feet away and it all had to be head shots on target, not simply center mass. I could not start shooting until I got the audible beep from the timer and I could not be pointing at the target already. After the beep I had to the move the pistol on target and make the shots in the very small aiming point. The entire time was 2.3 seconds from the beep to the last shot. Counting the actual lag time between me hearing the beep and then having to move my hands into the shooting position, the five hits in the head size target was probably about 1 1/2 seconds. That is having to shoot a bit slower to try to make sure the pistol was on target.

The only point of that is, when shooting that fast and if it was a real human trying to hurt someone, I believe it would be extremely hard to stop shooting the moment the threat ends.

With that in mind, what appeared to me was that the shooter put multiple shots on the guy for a couple of of away and he went down. It looks like he dropped the gun and was no longer a threat. I have no issue at all with the number of rows fired while the guy was standing. But there was lag time with the shooter to perceive what was happening because he then got out of his chair and moved over to the now what appeared to be down and out of the fight robber. It looked like the shooter pumped a couple of rounds into him and that time. 

Even after that, it was a very obvious lag time and it looked like the shooter then made a final kill shot, probably to the head. 

Was that "immediately necessary"?

The two shots after the shooter moved in on the guy and shot him in the back while he was faced down (and I think dropped the gun behind him) was questionable but then with the pause and what appeared to be a headshot, was almost certainly not necessary.

In my opinion, the way, the Penal Code is worded, questionable actions are in the favor of the shooter going by the Penal Code definition of a defense to prosecution. 

The final shot however I did not appear to be questionable. It seemed clearly unnecessary. 

BUT…. will it cause an indictment? Part of me says absolutely not and part of me says absolutely yes.

The shooter under Texas law, and in my opinion, had the right to use the deadly forcethat likely killed the robber. Even if the last shot was unnecessary, can you kill a dead person? If the autopsy shows that he would have died within a few seconds regardless of the last three shots, would it, then be unlawful? I don’t have a clue. Probably not but who knows how the DA will present the case? 

There is that old saying in Texas, some people just need killin’.

So after that long winded reasoning, I don’t have a clue but I would probably lean toward a no-bill. 

 

[baddog]

I’m glad he’s dead, but that doesn’t help the shooter much. This needs to happen more often. I guess if this happened in New York, he could have robbed them all and escaped, and if apprehended, he could get out to do it again within hours. 

[5GallonBucket]

Well I see certain activists want him arrested.

 

[tvc184]

12 hours ago, 5GallonBucket said:

Well I see certain activists want him arrested.

 

By the letter of the law it appears that the shooter might have broken a couple of laws.

On an emotional basis I think a majority of the public would think that there is no issue with the robber causing his own death therefore any actions by the shooter to be justified. I think that the grand jury, being made up from the public, might no bill this case for that reason in a form of jury nullification. Kind of like, technically he should not have fired that last shot but……

 The “other side” wants to letter of the law upheld regardless. Well…. at least for this instance.  When the shoe is on the other foot, they will likely want discretion. Imagine if a Black guy shot and killed a White guy in the same situation. I am sure that some of the same people who want the shooter in this current case to be indicted, would want the case dismissed if the rolls were reversed. 

In many respects it is much like the political discussions on this website. “I want THE LAW FOLLOWED!”….   unless. 

 Such as, Trump had classified documents in his home that the FBI was aware of but he refused to turn them in under executive privilege but was negotiating for return anyway. The left including people in this forum, demanded that Trump be held accountable, probably even with jail time. When it turns out that the current Democratic president had the same kinds of files in three locations, some of which were likely not secured and the FBI did not know about it… nothing to see here, move along. 

I have said it many times in these discussions. When someone wants to make an example of a person from the other side, he better get ready because someone on his side will soon be found doing something worse. 

So in this case, should the grand jury go by the letter of the law of “immediately necessary” or should the grand jury go by the old Texas saying, some people need killin’?

I believe that the people supporting this guy either have a misunderstanding of the law and think you can shoot to your heart’s content or they know that technically the guy violated the law but the robber caused his own death so, oh well.

Then I think people on the other side demand absolutely the letter of the law be upheld, because…. a White guy killed a minority.

I suspect that if you swap the circumstances, both opinions would change.

I believe that it will be hard to get an indictment from a Texas grand jury, even in Harris County.  A lot will likely depend on how the DA presents the case.

[5GallonBucket]

Mi

3 hours ago, tvc184 said:

By the letter of the law it appears that the shooter might have broken a couple of laws.

On an emotional basis I think a majority of the public would think that there is no issue with the robber causing his own death therefore any actions by the shooter to be justified. I think that the grand jury, being made up from the public, might no bill this case for that reason in a form of jury nullification. Kind of like, technically he should not have fired that last shot but……

 The “other side” wants to letter of the law upheld regardless. Well…. at least for this instance.  When the shoe is on the other foot, they will likely want discretion. Imagine if a Black guy shot and killed a White guy in the same situation. I am sure that some of the same people who want the shooter in this current case to be indicted, would want the case dismissed if the rolls were reversed. 

In many respects it is much like the political discussions on this website. “I want THE LAW FOLLOWED!”….   unless. 

 Such as, Trump had classified documents in his home that the FBI was aware of but he refused to turn them in under executive privilege but was negotiating for return anyway. The left including people in this forum, demanded that Trump be held accountable, probably even with jail time. When it turns out that the current Democratic president had the same kinds of files in three locations, some of which were likely not secured and the FBI did not know about it… nothing to see here, move along. 

I have said it many times in these discussions. When someone wants to make an example of a person from the other side, he better get ready because someone on his side will soon be found doing something worse. 

So in this case, should the grand jury go by the letter of the law of “immediately necessary” or should the grand jury go by the old Texas saying, some people need killin’?

I believe that the people supporting this guy either have a misunderstanding of the law and think you can shoot to your heart’s content or they know that technically the guy violated the law but the robber caused his own death so, oh well.

Then I think people on the other side demand absolutely the letter of the law be upheld, because…. a White guy killed a minority.

I suspect that if you swap the circumstances, both opinions would change.

I believe that it will be hard to get an indictment from a Texas grand jury, even in Harris County.  A lot will likely depend on how the DA presents the case.

I could care less about the color of skin no matter how it’s flipped.

I didn’t even know the race of either man until I saw these activists took issue with the shooting…..and well…..I’m not surprised 

When “Possible deadly force “ meets deadly force……shoot to kill.  Extra slug in the guy means nothing….like you mentioned in earlier post can’t kill a dead guy.

I haven’t seen the complete video.  This situation or any type of situation where harm or death could take place….it’s best to make sure perp is no longer a threat…..but hey that’s me….and it’s my opinion.

the law is what it is and well my life or my family’s life comes before the law if in a similar situation.

no matter what the autopsy says by a medical examiner…” he would ve died from the two initial shots and the next three shots weren’t necessary” the common person with adrenaline in the situation isn’t going to know that.

 

 

 

[tvc184]

6 hours ago, 5GallonBucket said:

Mi

I could care less about the color of skin no matter how it’s flipped.

I didn’t even know the race of either man until I saw these activists took issue with the shooting…..and well…..I’m not surprised 

When “Possible deadly force “ meets deadly force……shoot to kill.  Extra slug in the guy means nothing….like you mentioned in earlier post can’t kill a dead guy.

I haven’t seen the complete video.  This situation or any type of situation where harm or death could take place….it’s best to make sure perp is no longer a threat…..but hey that’s me….and it’s my opinion.

the law is what it is and well my life or my family’s life comes before the law if in a similar situation.

no matter what the autopsy says by a medical examiner…” he would ve died from the two initial shots and the next three shots weren’t necessary” the common person with adrenaline in the situation isn’t going to know that.

 

 

 

Extra shots don’t really matter in my opinion if they are part of stopping a threat. If you give me three seconds from the holster at about 5 yards, I can probably get about 10 rounds on target. A person going back and watching a slow motion video in hindsight, could say, after the seventh shot the guy appeared to be going down. Maybe… but I can’t react that fast. 

 But if the guy goes down after those 10 shots and is clearly no longer a threat, should I be able to pause about 3 seconds and then walk up and shoot the guy the head… you know, just to make sure?

The law is that you can shoot to end the threat. That is why you will always hear the police say, I am not shooting to kill, I am shooting to end the threat. If a guy is coming at me with a knife and I shoot him a couple of times and he drops it and makes no effort to pick it up, should I lawfully be able to go ahead and just kill him because of what he did before?

If the guy was a threat to me and I lawfully stop him with deadly force and EMS gets there in time, saves his life and he gets to go to trial later, great. If they don’t, the bad guy made his own bed.

I saw some lawyers on YouTube mentioning the autopsy and discussing whether the robber was already dead. 

Do you want to see the full video? 

[5GallonBucket]

25 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

Extra shots don’t really matter in my opinion if they are part of stopping a threat. If you give me three seconds from the holster at about 5 yards, I can probably get about 10 rounds on target. A person going back and watching a slow motion video in hindsight, could say, after the seventh shot the guy appeared to be going down. Maybe… but I can’t react that fast. 

 But if the guy goes down after those 10 shots and is clearly no longer a threat, should I be able to pause about 3 seconds and then walk up and shoot the guy the head… you know, just to make sure?

The law is that you can shoot to end the threat. That is why you will always hear the police say, I am not shooting to kill, I am shooting to end the threat. If a guy is coming at me with a knife and I shoot him a couple of times and he drops it and makes no effort to pick it up, should I lawfully be able to go ahead and just kill him because of what he did before?

If the guy was a threat to me and I lawfully stop him with deadly force and EMS gets there in time, saves his life and he gets to go to trial later, great. If they don’t, the bad guy made his own bed.

I saw some lawyers on YouTube mentioning the autopsy and discussing whether the robber was already dead. 

Do you want to see the full video? 

Yes

[tvc184]

37 minutes ago, 5GallonBucket said:

Yes

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[5GallonBucket]

7 hours ago, tvc184 said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Ohhh. Yeah the two shots before the last may have been unnecessary but there is many factors to consider….did the perp still have gun in hand, the adrenaline of individual in given situation, the caliber of gun he was using(if small caliber well then I can understand the number of shots)

the last shot was definitely over kill(no pun intended)

 

[SmashMouth]

7 hours ago, 5GallonBucket said:

the last shot was definitely over kill(no pun intended)

Pretty good pun, nevertheless...

🤣

[5GallonBucket]

15 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

Pretty good pun, nevertheless...

🤣

🤷‍♂️😂

[bullets13]

I was explaining this on another site: I don't care that the guy is dead, and I don't care about any of the extra shots.  some people just need to be gone.  But that said, it definitely seems like there were some laws broken by the shooter.  

[tvc184]

15 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

I was explaining this on another site: I don't care that the guy is dead, and I don't care about any of the extra shots.  some people just need to be gone.  But that said, it definitely seems like there were some laws broken by the shooter.  

When people see the entire video, they typically seem kind of shocked. It is then that they understand what people are talking about.

 Like I have said (and most people), it doesn’t bother me that a robber was killed. If the shooter put 4 or more rounds into his back and he died from those wounds, oh well.

No matter, it is still wrong to shoot a person after he is clearly out of the fight. 

[CardinalBacker]

I remember when my Dad (Marine) told me that he didn't feel like he owned anything worth killing somebody over... and I found it odd.

I've reached an age where I'd defend myself or others, but I don't think I'd take a man's life over the contents of my wallet.  I don't know if that's age or having kids or what....  I haven't watched the video, but as described it seems like it didn't have to happen this way. 

[tvc184]

4 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

I remember when my Dad (Marine) told me that he didn't feel like he owned anything worth killing somebody over... and I found it odd.

I've reached an age where I'd defend myself or others, but I don't think I'd take a man's life over the contents of my wallet.  I don't know if that's age or having kids or what....  I haven't watched the video, but as described it seems like it didn't have to happen this way. 

I don’t disagree.

I have seen enough occasions where the robber panicked and shot people or killed witnesses.

If I am the victim of a robbery, I am worried about the weapon he is carrying, not the cash.

An example is an executed prisoner from Port Arthur. He robbed a store, shot the clerk and if I remember correctly, left but then came back and shot the two witnesses in the head.

So when you hear…. but he was going to leave…..
 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[SmashMouth]

18 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

I remember when my Dad (Marine) told me that he didn't feel like he owned anything worth killing somebody over... and I found it odd.

I've reached an age where I'd defend myself or others, but I don't think I'd take a man's life over the contents of my wallet.  I don't know if that's age or having kids or what....  I haven't watched the video, but as described it seems like it didn't have to happen this way. 

I'm in agreement to an extent. Luckily, I've not been in that situation. I would caution though that after the robbery, who's to say he doesn't shoot any/all of the eyewitnesses. As I get older, I can't see myself shooting someone to death if they are stealing my truck already backing out of my driveway. If they breach my house, I can see myself emptying the clip. There are definitely varying degrees as to my expected response to a robber/burglar.

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, SmashMouth said:

I'm in agreement to an extent. Luckily, I've not been in that situation. I would caution though that after the robbery, who's to say he doesn't shoot any/all of the eyewitnesses. As I get older, I can't see myself shooting someone to death if they are stealing my truck already backing out of my driveway. If they breach my house, I can see myself emptying the clip. There are definitely varying degrees as to my expected response to a robber/burglar.

This case might get the sympathy vote from people who are tired of  crime.

Although they do not directly say it, almost anything is acceptable, regardless of the law, if the bad guy is put away either in prison or by death.  To that I mean that many people will overlook what maybe a violation of the law as long as the person that they support wins. I have seen numerous comments of people that have no idea what the law says but are willing to send money for this guy‘s defense.

There was a case in the news maybe 8 to 10 years ago. A guy had his home broken into maybe once or twice or something like that. Maybe it was just a neighbor’s home, I don’t really remember. He set up cameras in his home to catch who may be breaking into homes. Sure enough, a teenage boy and girl broke into, I think his basement. He waited for them to come inside and I think the boy came first. The homeowner shot him and I think the kid fell on the steps walking up to the house from the basement. This kid did not make any threats and was unarmed. Shooting him during a burglary might have been lawful at the moment. I think the homeowner’s cameras was running and he recorded himself taunting the the teenage felon and then shot him in the head and killed him. He waited for a few minutes to see if anyone else entered  and the girl came inside through the window to see what was happening. Again the homeowner shot her and then started making fun of her and shot and killed her also.

The point being that using deadly force to stop, a burglary, might have been lawful in his state. The problem is that once they were down, he finished them off as it was clear by his own recording that that is what he did. They were clearly no longer a threat. If I remember correctly, I think the guy was convicted of murder on both counts.

I know people are making the issue in this situation that you can’t really tell by the camera. Let’s assume for the sake of argument, that there was a different camera with a completely different angle and it clearly showed that the robber had dropped the gun and was not moving. Under any rational thought, he was clearly no longer a threat.

Assuming that was true, how many people would vote to let the guy go in what would be murder because the other guy was committing a felony?

How many people think the guy that killed the two teenagers breaking into his home was justified, even though they were clearly no longer a threat?

In other words, do you get to empty your magazine and kill them, even when the incident is over, because they were committing a felony?