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

[chipbennett]

Murder..... at the time of last shot the guy wasnt a threat.
I asked the same question to a LEO I know and that was his answer!
He also said a dead man can't testify.

Can one commit murder against a corpse? How can one murder what is already dead?

 

[KLB]

Can one commit murder against a corpse? How can one murder what is already dead?

So if 5 people all shoot someone at about the same time, I guess no one gets charged because you don't know which bullet killed him?

I think there is a lot more to it than that. There are also a lot more things prosecutors can charge people with.

If he gets charged, it will be interesting to see how the trial goes.

 

[chipbennett]

So if 5 people all shoot someone at about the same time, I guess no one gets charged because you don't know which bullet killed him?

I think there is a lot more to it than that. There are also a lot more things prosecutors can charge people with.

If he gets charged, it will be interesting to see how the trial goes.

Why change the circumstances to change the calculus? If five people all used deadly force against a living person, and that use of deadly force wasn't justified, it wouldn't matter which person's round actually killed the person. With respect to this situation, that's a straw man.

 

[KLB]

Why change the circumstances to change the calculus? If five people all used deadly force against a living person, and that use of deadly force wasn't justified, it wouldn't matter which person's round actually killed the person. With respect to this situation, that's a straw man.

Your comment was a general one, not a specific one.

 

[bobzilla]

Sister, brother, nieces and nephews there, all through the state. Very familiar with Texas. But man it's a day, and another day to drive through it.

Made the drive from Texarkana to El Paso before. 871 miles. Even with parts of it being 80mph speed limits that's a friggin haul.

 

[chipbennett]

Your comment was a general one, not a specific one.

The comment thread was specific to charges that may be brought against this shooter, based on these circumstances. I was responding to someone who claimed that the last shot fired constituted murder.

 

[CTC B4Z]

Go downtown Chicago

That's exactly what I'm saying. I was in Houston, Galveston and surrounding areas.

It's absolute trash as far as freedoms go.

 

[KLB]

The comment thread was specific to charges that may be brought against this shooter, based on these circumstances. I was responding to someone who claimed that the last shot fired constituted murder.

So why would it only apply there? I'm curious how you see that actually working. Does knowledge of whether the target was already deceased play into it? Is it then attempted murder?

 

[chipbennett]

So why would it only apply there? I'm curious how you see that actually working. Does knowledge of whether the target was already deceased play into it? Is it then attempted murder?

It applies here in that one cannot commit murder against a corpse. One cannot attempt to commit murder against a corpse. Perhaps some other charge (desecration or something?) could be brought related to shot #9, but murder would be nearly impossible to prove. The prosecution would have to prove that none of the first 8 shots was fatal.

To clarify: any charges here would related to excessive use of deadly force. There seems little controversy that the first four shots were entirely justified in self-defense. There is some question about the second four shots. There is some extreme concern (for some) regarding shot #9. One such person with extreme concern about shot #9 stated that it constituted "murder". It was in that context that the discussion was/is taking place.

 

[KLB]

It applies here in that one cannot commit murder against a corpse. One cannot attempt to commit murder against a corpse. Perhaps some other charge (desecration or something?) could be brought related to shot #9, but murder would be nearly impossible to prove. The prosecution would have to prove that none of the first 8 shots was fatal.

To clarify: any charges here would related to excessive use of deadly force. There seems little controversy that the first four shots were entirely justified in self-defense. There is some question about the second four shots. There is some extreme concern (for some) regarding shot #9. One such person with extreme concern about shot #9 stated that it constituted "murder". It was in that context that the discussion was/is taking place.

I don't know. If you do not KNOW it is a corpse, it might apply.

If you shoot a dummy thinking it is a person, is that attempted murder? I think it might be. I am sure it all boils down to the laws of the state you are in and the prosecutor that is looking at the case.

 

[GregD]

WoW one post in 7 years

 

[Quiet Observer]

Can one commit murder against a corpse? How can one murder what is already dead?

Why do you keep indicating the robber was dead before the headshot? As I mentioned above, we have no proof of when he died. We do not know what shots hit him or if any of the initial ones were instantly fatal. The raw video does not provide enough information to make a definitive decision, one way or another.

 

[chipbennett]

I don't know. If you do not KNOW it is a corpse, it might apply.

If you shoot a dummy thinking it is a person, is that attempted murder? I think it might be. I am sure it all boils down to the laws of the state you are in and the prosecutor that is looking at the case.

To prove murder/attempted murder, the state must produce a living, human body that was murdered/attempted to be murdered.

 

[chipbennett]

Why do you keep indicating the robber was dead before the headshot? As I mentioned above, we have no proof of when he died. We do not know what shots hit him or if any of the initial ones were instantly fatal. The raw video does not provide enough information to make a definitive decision, one way or another.

That's an evidentiary problem for the prosecution, not for the accused. The shooter is presumed innocent.

 

[Cameramonkey]

WoW one post in 7 years

More likely a compromised account. I'll bet thats not the real user posting that.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Changing the circumstances/facts commensurately changes the calculus.

Exactly.

While it is valuable to use a situation such as this one as a learning/reflection opportunity, be careful not to create straw men by which to judge the situation itself.

Not a straw man at all.... several on this thread have put out opinions that sound very much like once the perp commenced the arm robbery, any and all actions against him were just hunky-dory.

Adrenaline has also been invoked. Sure. But when does adrenaline become "heat of the moment?" IMO, the final shot looks very much like a purposeful coup de grace with no other context than the video. Also, IMO that crosses the line from "adrenaline" to "heat of the moment". JMO and just based on video, nothing else.

Thankfully, the good counselor @HoughMade has thrown us a lifeline, a legit lifeline, that the perp would have to be without a reasonable doubt still alive for that shot to be anything more than abusing a corpse. And, make no mistake, were I on a jury for this, I would cling to that lifeline with a "not guilty" come **** or high water.

So, my hypothetical, if the perp was unmistakably still alive AND crawling away, unmistakably leaving or left the fight, and unmistakably without the gun the defender retrieved, would that final shot still be ok?

What about a scenario the same as what actually happened, but where the perp sees it coming and utters, and is heard by a witness uttering, "Please, no..."? I.e. unmistakably still alive?

Or, any statements by witnesses that the perp "appeared" to still be alive and "slumped" lifeless after the "finishing" shot.

This is not a straw man argument but goes to the heart of the matter... that final shot was a BAD idea.

If the prosecutor wants an indictment out of the grand jury, he can likely get it just based upon that final shot.

 

[KLB]

Exactly.


Not a straw man at all.... several on this thread have put out opinions that sound very much like once the perp commenced the arm robbery, any and all actions against him were just hunky-dory.

Adrenaline has also been invoked. Sure. But when does adrenaline become "heat of the moment?" IMO, the final shot looks very much like a purposeful coup de grace with no other context than the video. Also, IMO that crosses the line from "adrenaline" to "heat of the moment". JMO and just based on video, nothing else.

Thankfully, the good counselor @HoughMade has thrown us a lifeline, a legit lifeline, that the perp would have to be without a reasonable doubt still alive for that shot to be anything more than abusing a corpse. And, make no mistake, were I on a jury for this, I would cling to that lifeline with a "not guilty" come **** or high water.

So, my hypothetical, if the perp was unmistakably still alive AND crawling away, unmistakably leaving or left the fight, and unmistakably without the gun the defender retrieved, would that final shot still be ok?

What about a scenario the same as what actually happened, but where the perp sees it coming and utters, and is heard by a witness uttering, "Please, no..."? I.e. unmistakably still alive?

Or, any statements by witnesses that the perp "appeared" to still be alive and "slumped" lifeless after the "finishing" shot.

This is not a straw man argument but goes to the heart of the matter... that final shot was a BAD idea.

If the prosecutor wants an indictment out of the grand jury, he can likely get it just based upon that final shot.

Reminds me of the guy in Minn that lured the burglars into his house and ended up executing them.

 

[chipbennett]

Not a straw man at all.... several on this thread have put out opinions that sound very much like once the perp commenced the arm robbery, any and all actions against him were just hunky-dory.

Not to belabor the point, but assessing what actually happened by comparing it to a situation in which the attacker was crawling out the door is an invalid comparison. I'll explain below.

Adrenaline has also been invoked. Sure. But when does adrenaline become "heat of the moment?" IMO, the final shot looks very much like a purposeful coup de grace with no other context than the video. Also, IMO that crosses the line from "adrenaline" to "heat of the moment". JMO and just based on video, nothing else.

Thankfully, the good counselor @HoughMade has thrown us a lifeline, a legit lifeline, that the perp would have to be without a reasonable doubt still alive for that shot to be anything more than abusing a corpse. And, make no mistake, were I on a jury for this, I would cling to that lifeline with a "not guilty" come **** or high water.

And, as I've already pointed out would get me excused during voir dire, I would (in a vacuum) hold to all deadly force used being justified if the initial deadly force was justified, with respect to number of rounds expended.

So, my hypothetical, if the perp was unmistakably still alive AND crawling away, unmistakably leaving or left the fight, and unmistakably without the gun the defender retrieved, would that final shot still be ok?

No. Because in that scenario, the aggressor has clearly demonstrated intent to end the aggression (and, therefore, the threat).

What about a scenario the same as what actually happened, but where the perp sees it coming and utters, and is heard by a witness uttering, "Please, no..."? I.e. unmistakably still alive?

Assuming the aggressor, as above, had clearly demonstrated intent to end the aggression (and, therefore, the threat), then further use of deadly force would no longer be justified as self-defense.

Or, any statements by witnesses that the perp "appeared" to still be alive and "slumped" lifeless after the "finishing" shot.

They are not medical experts, and would merely be speculating about whether the aggressor was "lifeless" but still alive.

This is not a straw man argument but goes to the heart of the matter... that final shot was a BAD idea.

If the prosecutor wants an indictment out of the grand jury, he can likely get it just based upon that final shot.

That is possible, but it is also an assessment based on an imperfect view of what was going on with shot #9. Or, as I said up-thread: perhaps my eyesight is just that poor, and others can discern details from the video that I can't.

 

[cg21]

No one forced the robber to rob. The patron was forced to decide to defend his life. If there was over penetration and hit a bystander I think the robber should be charged with that crime also.

 

[Cameramonkey]

No one forced the robber to rob. The patron was forced to decide to defend his life. If there was over penetration and hit a bystander I think the robber should be charged with that crime also.

They would be. At least in IN.

I know if perps A and B try to rob a store and store owner shoots A and B; A dies on scene and B runs away and seeks medical treatment. B would be arrested for robbery of the store and a form of homicide for A.

I cant imagine that if in the same scenario, A and B are both injured and a customer was killed in the crossfire that the robbers wouldnt be charged in the death of the customer, not the clerk that actually shot her.