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

[HoughMade]

Doesn't it still get put to the jury to decide?

Not unless there is competent evidence from which a jury could decide that he was alive. Juries don't get to "shoot from the hip" so to speak, and speculate on complex medical/scientific issues. There must be expert testimony.

 

[HoughMade]

"If he was dead, why'd you shoot the corpse?"

If he was dead, legally, why would that matter?

I hate to break it to you, but even if the shooter thought he was executing a guy who was still alive, if he actually wasn't alive, it's not homicide.

 

[bobzilla]

If he was dead, legally, why would that matter?

I hate to break it to you, but even if the shooter thought he was executing a guy who was still alive, if he actually wasn't alive, it's not homicide.

Stop with the facts. This guy EXECUTED someone and it hurt someone elses feelz.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I know just scary to think so many jump right to that conclusion on a pro self defense website I can only imagine the general public, sad. Sad this person who is willing to protect themselves and others needs to even be scrutinized like this.

That is exactly the point… if you draw your gun, if you shoot someone, if you kill someone… your actions will be scrutinized.

If your take away from this is that in a self defense or defense of others you can shoot the bad guy… then shoot him some more…. then walk up to him and allegedly pop him one more in the head just for good measure, irrespective of whether he remained an imminent threat… then you just might find yourself on the wrong side of the law and lose your freedom.

For this particular incident, would your opinion change if the perp, after the initial salvos, was crawling out the door? If the final shot, allegedly and for the sake of argument, to the head, took place after the perp had crawled out to the sidewalk?

Why or why not?

Regardless of what I think about the motives for the actual final five rounds - could be continued threatening movements by the perp - could be adrenaline - could be pure retribution - last one could have been ND or the corpse twitched and a startle reflex - this incident informs me how to train to avoid possibly being on the wrong side of the law and possibly losing my freedom.

 

[cg21]

That is exactly the point… if you draw your gun, if you shoot someone, if you kill someone… your actions will be scrutinized.

If your take away from this is that in a self defense or defense of others you can shoot the bad guy… then shoot him some more…. then walk up to him and allegedly pop him one more in the head just for good measure, irrespective of whether he remained an imminent threat… then you just might find yourself on the wrong side of the law and lose your freedom.

For this particular incident, would your opinion change if the perp, after the initial salvos, was crawling out the door? If the final shot, allegedly and for the sake of argument, to the head, took place after the perp had crawled out to the sidewalk?

Why or why not?

Regardless of what I think about the motives for the actual final five rounds - could be continued threatening movements by the perp - could be adrenaline - could be pure retribution - last one could have been ND or the corpse twitched and a startle reflex - this incident informs me how to train to avoid possibly being on the wrong side of the law and possibly losing my freedom.

To learn from the incident is one thing maybe scrutinized was the wrong word. Some on here are ready for pitchforks and torches. With very little information I was simply offering an alternative story to the “execution” story that is unambiguously a fact apparently.

 

[KLB]

If he was dead, legally, why would that matter?

I hate to break it to you, but even if the shooter thought he was executing a guy who was still alive, if he actually wasn't alive, it's not homicide.

Is this if they can determine which bullet killed him?

 

[Judamonster]

If he was dead, legally, why would that matter?

I hate to break it to you, but even if the shooter thought he was executing a guy who was still alive, if he actually wasn't alive, it's not homicide.

You are right, but it speaks to the intent. Was he afraid for his life or executing a dirtbag? Prosecutors are artists that will paint an image for a jury of a person who was looking for someone to kill. They will parade in irrelevant facts like how many firearms you own, are they "assault" weapons, how many rounds of ammo you own, how much time you spend training, etc. They will skew it in a way that makes you look like a cowboy vigilante seeking vengeance.

There is a video, and that sucks for the shooter. What's on the video?
1-The armed robber turns his back and moves toward the door, the shooter fires several rounds in the back of the robber.
2-The robber falls to the ground, several more rounds are fired while he is on the ground.
3-The shooter disarms the robber and fires an additional shot.

Did the robber deserve it? Yep. Is the shooter someone I think is a good example of an "good guy with a gun"? Nope.

 

[HoughMade]

Is this if they can determine which bullet killed him?

I think it becomes much more of a problem the further we go back. That is, it's easier to claim he was already dead for the last "execution" shot, than the earlier shots.

But then, the issue becomes which of the other 4 were justified as self-defense or defense of others. I think the first 4 easily are. After that, it become a bit more dicey. The mope was holding his head up until the 5th shot.

This is why I think this is a bad case to try to prosecute. You start with at least 4 shots (or more) that were clearly proper...then the state would have to prove at what point the shots were no longer "reasonable force", because he could only be prosecuted for those.

We've talked the last shot-already dead thing to death, but aside from when he died- here's a third issue, what if no shots after the first 4 or 5 killed him because they did not do fatal damage.

We could have a situation like this:

Shots 1-4 Justified, no criminal liability.
Shots 5-7 Did not cause damage that killed him, and
Shot 8 he was already dead.

This, of course, is all hypothetical (except that the first several shots were clearly justified). I will be interesting to see what the autopsy says...but I hope the shooter has a lawyer and consideration should be given to an independent autopsy, though forensic pathologists who do this type of expert work can do a good job from reports and photos.

We haven't even gotten to the issue of whether a person can be prosecuted for attempted murder when it would be impossible to kill the "victim". Whole other can of worms.

 

[Alamo]

Annnnnd here it is:

Houston taqueria shooting: Mother of taqueria suspect killed by customer in self-defense speaks out

In an ominous phone call Thursday morning hours before the robbery at El Ranchito that would end his life, 30-year-old Eric Eugene Washington promised his mother, Corine Goodman, he would do better.

www.fox26houston.com

 

[AndreusMaximus]

We haven't even gotten to the issue of whether a person can be prosecuted for attempted murder when it would be impossible to kill the "victim". Whole other can of worms.

Maybe too off-topic, but wasn't there a famous case where a guy running an illegal drug site on the dark web got conned out of many thousands of dollars by someone pretending to be a hit man? IIRC, the con man staged a whole elaborate setup and even went so far as to stage bodies with fake blood and stuff, and made the first guy think he had paid to have someone killed. When the authorities caught the guy who paid for it all they wanted to charge him with something, but it turned out it had all been made up, and the same guy was pretending to be both the hit man and the guy who was supposed to be killed by the hit, along with some other side characters who were supposed to have caused the mess that made the original guy want someone killed in the first place. I don't know if they ever caught the fake hit man guy or not.

 

[bobzilla]

I love the “bUt hE sHoT hIm iN tHE bAcK!” As if we are playing a game in the school yard. Apparently those people forgot the church shooting where the first armed citizen tries to pull his gun while the shooter is facing him. That went well.

It’s not a game to play fairly. You are in it to win. Period.

 

[two70]

I wouldn't want to be in front of a judge and jury defending myself because I shot someone after I disarmed them. None of the other circumstances matter. That one would scare me.

I'd much less rather be surprised by someone I only thought I'd completely disarmed.

 

[bobzilla]

I'd much less rather be surprised by someone I only thought I'd completely disarmed.

Make sure they have a good chance to kill you for sure. Got to be fair.

 

[bobzilla]

Annnnnd here it is:

Houston taqueria shooting: Mother of taqueria suspect killed by customer in self-defense speaks out

In an ominous phone call Thursday morning hours before the robbery at El Ranchito that would end his life, 30-year-old Eric Eugene Washington promised his mother, Corine Goodman, he would do better.

www.fox26houston.com

So let me get this straight… he was involved in a robbery that the owner was killed, he went to jail, he got out early and while on parole beat his wife and got sent back in and then gets out and tries another armed robbery. But “he’s not the monster people think he is”.

I don’t think mom has a clue what a monster is.

 

[tackdriver]

... you're not allowed to do that. Bugging out and not turning himself in tells me he knows it.

Or/and he has warrants out on him, is a prohibited possessor, and just came across the southern border for the third time.

Maybe he didn't know he should have stopped shooting. Maybe this is just how everyone does it where he's from. ???

 

[bobzilla]

Or/and he has warrants out on him, is a prohibited possessor, and just came across the southern border for the third time.

Maybe he didn't know he should have stopped shooting. Maybe this is just how everyone does it where he's from. ???

Tell me you didn’t read the whole thread without telling me you didn’t read the whole thread.

 

[tackdriver]

Tell me you didn’t read the whole thread without telling me you didn’t read the whole thread.

I'll take the Fifth...

 

[red_zr24x4]

You are right, but it speaks to the intent. Was he afraid for his life or executing a dirtbag? Prosecutors are artists that will paint an image for a jury of a person who was looking for someone to kill. They will parade in irrelevant facts like how many firearms you own, are they "assault" weapons, how many rounds of ammo you own, how much time you spend training, etc. They will skew it in a way that makes you look like a cowboy vigilante seeking vengeance.

There is a video, and that sucks for the shooter. What's on the video?
1-The armed robber turns his back and moves toward the door, the shooter fires several rounds in the back of the robber.
2-The robber falls to the ground, several more rounds are fired while he is on the ground.
3-The shooter disarms the robber and fires an additional shot.

Did the robber deserve it? Yep. Is the shooter someone I think is a good example of an "good guy with a gun"? Nope.

Not seen it mentioned, but might have missed it
#1 what if the robber was moving to the door to block the exit before shooting the customers?
For everyone bitching about him shooting the robber in the back, can you guarantee that's not the plan?
And don't say the robbers gun wasn't real, that fact wasn't known until after the shooting

 

[Sigblitz]

---

That is exactly the point… if you draw your gun, if you shoot someone, if you kill someone… your actions will be scrutinized.

If your take away from this is that in a self defense or defense of others you can shoot the bad guy… then shoot him some more…. then walk up to him and allegedly pop him one more in the head just for good measure, irrespective of whether he remained an imminent threat… then you just might find yourself on the wrong side of the law and lose your freedom.

For this particular incident, would your opinion change if the perp, after the initial salvos, was crawling out the door? If the final shot, allegedly and for the sake of argument, to the head, took place after the perp had crawled out to the sidewalk?

Why or why not?

Regardless of what I think about the motives for the actual final five rounds - could be continued threatening movements by the perp - could be adrenaline - could be pure retribution - last one could have been ND or the corpse twitched and a startle reflex - this incident informs me how to train to avoid possibly being on the wrong side of the law and possibly losing my freedom.

Exactly

I have no skin in the game. I don't care if they charge him or not, it's justified or not. The video is a good look at a self defense situation that brings a lot of discussion, with the bonus of a Soros prosecutor and a mother who's son was just turning his life around. All things to give thought to. What a perfect mess

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I love the “bUt hE sHoT hIm iN tHE bAcK!” As if we are playing a game in the school yard. Apparently those people forgot the church shooting where the first armed citizen tries to pull his gun while the shooter is facing him. That went well.

It’s not a game to play fairly. You are in it to win. Period.

I agree and have no problem with this scenario of shooting the perp in the back.

For those that have some visceral or nagging issue with "shooting him in the back", look at it this way. He still had the gun. He was still in the restaurant. He was still waving it around. He was still pointing it at patrons. In short, he was still a threat.

For those with an issue with it, think about why you have an issue with it? Is it some old Western "John Wayne" ethos of "only a dirty rotten' varmint" would shoot a man in the back instead of facing him? That's Hollywood showdown gun fighting claptrap. Are you analogizing this to an "assassin" who might slip in behind his target unnoticed and pop him in the back of the head? or something along those lines?

This is not any on those.

Is it some sense of it not seeming fair?

I would encourage you to watch some of the ASP channel videos on Youtube that analyze hundreds, if not thousands, of these interactions. If the bad guy has a gun, you have to "wait your turn". The 1.5 second draw to first shot time is not to "outdraw" him while he has the drop on you... it's to take advantage of a short window of time when he might be distracted and focused elsewhere... the mother of all distractions is if he turns his back to you.