Taqueria robber shot dead by patron. video /bad shoot?

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Well lookee here. He decided to talk to the cops.

Taco shop customer who shot and killed possible armed robber agrees to meet with HPD investigators, officials say

An investigation is ongoing after a customer shot and killed a robbery suspect inside a taco shop in southwest Houston late Thursday, police said.

www.click2houston.com

Huh. Is this true in Indiana too?

"Nixon said the shooter had no obligation to stay at the scene and explain himself since he didn’t commit a crime. There are only two crimes in which someone has to stay on the scene under Texas law, he said, both involving vehicle accidents."

 

[two70]

TL;DR

All I know is that my medical expert will say that the first 3 to 4 shots killed him. If they want a plea for abuse of corpse, we'll talk.

IANAP, but it seems the prosecutor would be in the nearly impossible spot of arguing that the perp was both definitely not already dead at the time of the potentially problematic shot(s) but not lively enough to be construed as posing any kind of threat to the armed citizen.

 

[Denny347]

Huh. Is this true in Indiana too?

"Nixon said the shooter had no obligation to stay at the scene and explain himself since he didn’t commit a crime. There are only two crimes in which someone has to stay on the scene under Texas law, he said, both involving vehicle accidents."

Pretty much

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Pretty much

Interesting. I would assume if I were involved in a deadly force event, no matter how clear cut the situation was, I'd legally need to hang around.

 

[Denny347]

Interesting. I would assume if I were involved in a deadly force event, no matter how clear cut the situation was, I'd legally need to hang around.

The ONLY law I am aware of that specifically dictates that you must stay at the scene of the incident is in response to a vehicle collision. Nowhere else actually mentions this.

 

[HoughMade]

IANAP, but it seems the prosecutor would be in the nearly impossible spot of arguing that the perp was both definitely not already dead at the time of the potentially problematic shot(s) but not lively enough to be construed as posing any kind of threat to the armed citizen.

In order to kill someone, they have to be alive when you do whatever it is you do that is claimed killed him. Normally, that's not an issue in that its obvious.

In a case where it may be claimed that a righteous self defense shoot turned into an execution (allegedly), I believe the prosecution would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the guy was alive when any (allegedly) unjustified shots were fired.

In this case, I believe that is practically impossible as to the last shot and almost impossible for the 2 shots preceding the last, maybe more. BTW, they would not have to prove that he would have survived any justified shots, just that he was still alive when an additional shot (or shots) were fired and that (or those) contributed to his death. That's a tough putt with a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

 

[nonobaddog]

Interesting. I would assume if I were involved in a deadly force event, no matter how clear cut the situation was, I'd legally need to hang around.

Sometimes it might be unsafe to hang around so it makes sense (to me) to not make it a legal requirement.

 

[HoughMade]

Well, there's Ind. Code § 35-45-19-3.

 

[chipbennett]

Almost like he had read advice on INGO about keeping his mouth shut.

It is not like he was going to be hard to find with that distinctive truck.

View attachment 247220

How distinctive/unique is a truck like that, in Houston, though?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

The thing that bothers me is . . . 9 shots in the back?

Which shots are you talking about? They occur in different contexts.

The first 4 while the perp is an obvious threat?

The second 4 where the threat is iffy depending upon a number of factors including whether the defender knew the perp lost the gun, whether the perp made movements indicating he remained a threat, etc.

Or the last one which appears, emphasis on the appears, to be a coup de grace?

If it's all of them, including the first 4, then definitely watch some of the videos of how these things happen IRL. (Active Self-Protection has 100's of them) Perp turns around, or looks back over his shoulder, is the opening to draw and fire. Drawing to the drop while the perp is facing you or can see your draw motion... you will lose.

 

[chipbennett]

Ammo is the cheapest part of a self defense shooting.

This approach of lawyering up is the cheap part of pulling the trigger. If shooter hung around to chat with the police at the taco place the cost of a lawyer trying to undo his statements at trial would cost a lot more.

Preventive maintenance like changing your oil vs. rebuilding the engine after it seized up.

I don't always agree with Mas Ayoob, but often do. This is one such instance of the latter:

 

[chipbennett]

The ONLY law I am aware of that specifically dictates that you must stay at the scene of the incident is in response to a vehicle collision. Nowhere else actually mentions this.

See Mas Ayoob video I just posted. The relevant part in this aspect, IMHO, is "make sure you're the one who calls the police/the complainant". If you leave, you miss the prime opportunity to present the incident, and its context - especially, your status as the victim - to the police. "First impressions mean things."

 

[BJHay]

I think the only debate is whether the last shot...after the shooter clearly picked up the gun, was a body or head shot.

I'm curious why it matters. If the perp was dead then the shot had no effect on him. If he was alive then the question is whether it was justifiable. What am I missing?

 

[Denny347]

See Mas Ayoob video I just posted. The relevant part in this aspect, IMHO, is "make sure you're the one who calls the police/the complainant". If you leave, you miss the prime opportunity to present the incident, and its context - especially, your status as the victim - to the police. "First impressions mean things."

I agree, it is just not legally required.

 

[chipbennett]

I agree, it is just not legally required.

I meant to say that: not legally required, but usually wise.

 

[cg21]

It seems to me that the requirements to become a plumber are heavily influenced by unions. I have my doubts that it really takes three years for a person, with the necessary intelligence and aptitude, to be an apprentice for 3 years to be proficient in the trade. A plumber who makes an error, may have to make amends by re-doing a project and/ or reimbursing a customer financially. Generally, nobody makes a video of their work and puts it on social media to be scrutinized long after the project is completed. Police work isn't all about shooting incidents, and although armed encounters aren't rare, actual incidents, when a police officer has to fire his/ her weapon on duty, are. Being injured on the job (not due to a weapon) isn't uncommon during one's career, either. A police officer who is perceived as making an error, not only puts his/ her career on the line, he/ she may well be held to account criminally. Roughly, in Indiana, a plumber earns 44k-83k per annum. A police officer 56k-65k. Basically, it is comparing apples and oranges.

What I am comparing is the “thought” process into the training. It takes a plumber x amount of years to get full pay scale and you have to go through years of schooling. At the end you make a lot and you’re given the permission to perform your job. Police officers according to the post above are trained for a week and then given a gun and sent out? That’s what I was comparing.

 

[mark40sw]

Hero Customer Who Shot Armed Robber At Houston Taco Joint Ordered To Face Grand Jury By Soros-Funded DA​

Hero Customer Who Shot Armed Robber At Houston Taco Joint Ordered To Face Grand Jury By Soros-Funded DA | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

 

[HoughMade]

I don't know anything about the prosecutor, but I know a couple of things. First, the prosecutor could have charged him directly without a grand jury and apparently is not doing that. Second, there is enough debate, even on INGO, that it is not "clear cut", at least it won't be to a fair number of people.

True, there is nothing that compels the prosecutor to empanel a grand jury, but never forget- every county prosecutor, district attorney or whatever it is they call it is a politician. Rule of thumb for elected prosecutors- the grand jury is there for you to blame when the issue is controversial...regardless of what it ends up doing.

 

[mark40sw]

From link I posted above.

"The hero customer who shot and killed an armed robber at a Houston taco joint last week has been ordered to face a grand jury by District Attorney Kim Ogg, the Soros-funded prosecutor who appears to have let the career criminal he put down out on bond"

I would really like to come face to face with the prosecution that let the scum out who then proceeded to point a gun in my face.

 

[printcraft]

From link I posted above.

"The hero customer who shot and killed an armed robber at a Houston taco joint last week has been ordered to face a grand jury by District Attorney Kim Ogg, the Soros-funded prosecutor who appears to have let the career criminal he put down out on bond"

I would really like to come face to face with the prosecution that let the scum out who then proceeded to point a gun in my face.

Amazing, same exact thing I’m referencing in BBI’s Southside shooting thread.
They let the criminals out to cause havoc, and when you respond, they go after you.
Seems like a coordinated effort if you ask me…