shoud this guy be charged (Texas taqueria robbery)

[dead0man]

NBC News

An armed masked robber who stormed a Texas taqueria demanding money was stopped by a patron who brandished his own gun, fatally shot the suspect, and handed the cash back to shaken diners, police said.

A Texas grand jury will consider the case, officials said Monday.

The shooting happened around 11:30 p.m. Thursday when a man in a mask with what appeared to be a pistol was holding up customers, Houston police said.

A 46-year-old patron pulled out a gun and shot the alleged robber multiple times, witnesses reported to investigators, according to police.

Houston police Lt. R. Willkens has said that the alleged robber had what is believed to have been a “plastic gun," NBC affiliate KPRC of Houston has reported.

<snip>

As he was collecting the money, one of the patrons, described as a white or Hispanic male, “produced a gun of his own and shot the suspect multiple times,” police said.

The patron then collected the stolen money from the suspect, and returned it to the other diners, police said. He and other diners then fled the scene.

the shooting part is at this age restricted YouTube link (the news media won't show it)

[RINO Tom]

Eh, I’ll leave it to the lawyers?  But if you are an ARMED robber, you’re signing up for a serious risk to be justifiably shot by someone else to protect people who, ya know, are not armed robbers.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I'm undecided, but the charge should have nothing to do with the robber's possession of a fake gun. That in my opinion imposes an extraordinary burden on those victim to or witness to a violent crime (which robbery categorically is, regardless of how real the gun is).

[Ferguson97]

Unless I'm missing something, I don't see any scenario where this guy should be charged. It's not like the robber left, and this guy chased him down and shot him, this is a clear case of having a reasonable fear for his life (and for the lives of the other patrons).

But if they're even considering charging this guy in Texas of all places, then there has to be more to the story, right?

[Mr. Reactionary]

They should give the shooter a medal.

[Storr]

Unless I'm missing something, I don't see any scenario where this guy should be charged. It's not like the robber left, and this guy chased him down and shot him, this is a clear case of having a reasonable fear for his life (and for the lives of the other patrons).

But if they're even considering charging this guy in Texas of all places, then there has to be more to the story, right?

The reason he might be charged is that after the initial 8 shots which leave the robber motionless on the ground, the customer with a gun takes the gun of the robber away, and shoots one final close range headshot to the robber. It could be argued the robber was no longer a deadly threat once his gun was taken away.

I don't think it would have mattered as the robber was probably dead after the initial shots. Is it illegal to shoot a dead body? So no, in my opinion this guy should not be charged. If the robber had an obviously fake gun (like a brightly colored water gun) then there might be a case for manslaughter.

[LBJer]

I voted no charges.  But even if his actions weren't completely legally justified, he certainly doesn't deserve to go to prison.  

[ingemann]

Unless I'm missing something, I don't see any scenario where this guy should be charged. It's not like the robber left, and this guy chased him down and shot him, this is a clear case of having a reasonable fear for his life (and for the lives of the other patrons).

But if they're even considering charging this guy in Texas of all places, then there has to be more to the story, right?

The reason he might be charged is that after the initial 8 shots which leave the robber motionless on the ground, the customer with a gun takes the gun of the robber away, and shoots one final close range headshot to the robber. It could be argued the robber was no longer a deadly threat once his gun was taken away.

I don't think it would have mattered as the robber was probably dead after the initial shots. Is it illegal to shoot a dead body? So no, in my opinion this guy should not be charged. If the robber had an obviously fake gun (like a brightly colored water gun) then there might be a case for manslaughter.

That’s a pretty important fact, which was lacking at first. It’s hard to argue that a wounded guy without a gun is a threat anymore, and even if he’s dead, it’s usually illegal to shoot or mutilate dead human bodies.

[LBJer]

Unless I'm missing something, I don't see any scenario where this guy should be charged. It's not like the robber left, and this guy chased him down and shot him, this is a clear case of having a reasonable fear for his life (and for the lives of the other patrons).

But if they're even considering charging this guy in Texas of all places, then there has to be more to the story, right?

The reason he might be charged is that after the initial 8 shots which leave the robber motionless on the ground, the customer with a gun takes the gun of the robber away, and shoots one final close range headshot to the robber. It could be argued the robber was no longer a deadly threat once his gun was taken away.

I don't think it would have mattered as the robber was probably dead after the initial shots. Is it illegal to shoot a dead body? So no, in my opinion this guy should not be charged. If the robber had an obviously fake gun (like a brightly colored water gun) then there might be a case for manslaughter.

That’s a pretty important fact, which was lacking at first. It’s hard to argue that a wounded guy without a gun is a threat anymore

What if he had a knife as well?  He could have thrown it into the guy.  And he could have had a second, concealed gun as backup. 

[LBJer]

Yeah man, what if the guy lying prone on the floor who you just shot eight times suddenly sat up and managed to nail you in the throat with a throwing star. Can't rule out the possibility.

Last shot here certainly looks like murder to me.

I don't think it would have mattered as the robber was probably dead after the initial shots. Is it illegal to shoot a dead body?

Can be, yes. There's a famous case called Dlugash where the defendant was charged after shooting a dead body. Court said it was still attempted murder because he still intended to kill a living person and believed he was alive when he shot him. Couldn't be convicted of murder, because he was dead already, but attempted murder, yes.

Morally speaking, I think it's ridiculous to call an armed robber a "murder victim" in the sense that, say, Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman were murder victims of O.J.  When you indicate to other people that you have no problem taking their lives for bad reasons, the amount your life should matter to them goes at least way down.

And as to the first point, IIRC there was a 911 call in which an intruder seemed to be dead on the floor, yet went on to get up and kill the person who made the call.  

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Yeah man, what if the guy lying prone on the floor who you just shot eight times suddenly sat up and managed to nail you in the throat with a throwing star. Can't rule out the possibility.

Allow me to save you 2 hours and change and advise you to not watch "White Noise" if you are unwilling to entertain the possibility.

Not exactly what happens but close enough.

[LBJer]

If I were a prosecutor, I'd want to be known as someone who protects the public from dangerous criminals, not as someone who uses the letter of the law to go after people who don't deserve to be in prison.  This case isn't a hill I'd want to die on. 

[LBJer]

Update:

https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/houston/2024/01/03/473455/grand-jury-declines-criminal-charges-against-houston-taqueria-customer-who-fatally-shot-attempted-robber/

[lfromnj]

Texas has pretty wide self defense laws including the right to protect property using deadly force and not only life in certain conditions. However I am pretty sure they also have a law requiring all homicides to have at least a grand jury.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

No charges

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

the last shot was probably too much, by then the robber had been successfully incapacitated and the gun had been taken away. Of course, they might've died anyway, but it was entirely justifiable up to that point.

I could see the argument for still being fearful, though. Don't know if he has another gun on him that they hadn't found, or something. Voted "wouldn't charge but actions done that I don't support" but kinda on the fence between that and "last shot was way too much"

[Independents for Nihilism]

Was the last shot straight-up execution style into his head? I don't think that should be sanctioned on an obviously incapacitated assailant, even if he was armed and dangerous a few seconds prior. The first four shots were enough. The next few were pushing it. The last begs my question.

[LBJer]

Was the last shot straight-up execution style into his head? I don't think that should be sanctioned on an obviously incapacitated assailant, even if he was armed and dangerous a few seconds prior. The first four shots were enough. The next few were pushing it. The last begs my question.

Firstly, it's not at all clear that "the first four shots were enough" from a defensive standpoint.  Someone can be on the ground and severely wounded, but still able to kill or severely wound others.  

Secondly, it's hardly realistic to demand that someone in that situation--with all the fear and adrenaline pumping through them--use logical reasoning.  The human instinct in that situation is to put their all into the fight, not stop and say: "Okay, that's enough--I don't want to hurt my assailant any more than I have to."  When you put it that way, it's downright ridiculous.

Thirdly, while I can understand your position, it's not at all clear to me that it's in the public interest to hold someone's life as sacred who was a lethal threat a mere "few seconds prior."  Suppose the shooter "stopped short," and called the police and an ambulance, and the man recovered.  And then what?  Doing that could have gotten other innocent people killed in the future.  This isn't wild conjecture--the robber had been charged with capital murder in a previous robbery, was later convicted of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, and had been let out before serving his full sentence.

The grand jury made the right decision.

[LBJer]

you're not allowed to kill someone because you think there's a possibility he might commit a crime in the future

Legally yes, but morally that's not necessarily true.  But in this case, it was not even clear from a legal standpoint that a crime was committed. 

[LBJer]

you're not allowed to kill someone because you think there's a possibility he might commit a crime in the future

Legally yes, but morally that's not necessarily true.

tf?

Just what I said. There's a difference between the law and morality.  What if a woman kills a psychopath who's been terrorizing her?  Do you really think she deserves to go to prison because "you're not allowed to kill someone because you think there's a possibility he might commit a crime in the future?"

[DK_Mo82]

I am not watch video, the way it reads, the "patrone" was not involved until he got himself involved in to-be robbery, then shot dude four times.  I am no expert on Texas law, many gun states are permissive. But this permissive? I cannot imagine blanket right to intervene in situations, be they crimes, and start fatally shooting. Voluntary Manslaughter

[dead0man]

I am not watch video, the way it reads, the "patrone" was not involved until he got himself involved in to-be robbery, then shot dude four times.  I am no expert on Texas law, many gun states are permissive. But this permissive? I cannot imagine blanket right to intervene in situations, be they crimes, and start fatally shooting. Voluntary Manslaughter

a guy waving "what appears to be a pistol" around in a threatening way is a deadly threat to everyone around, every* state in America lets anyone around use deadly force to stop the threat.


*there are some "duty to retreat" states if you're in public, but then it falls to the local DA and how good a lawyer you get as to whether you'll go to prison for it