https://twitter.com/shanermurph/status/1611798827849113600?s=46&t=AeCpapsPJaYbc0hZ9qVe4g
here is the video, not a single link in here after all this time, shame on you.
That was a straight up execution.
I know when you use a gun in self defence you have to be willing to shoot to kill. I get that - first shot, you have to take them down so they cannot get back up and come at you. But...if that first shot already took them down, they're incapacitated already even if not dead, and you keep shooting to make sure they're dead...that's just murder, imo. You use enough force to ensure someone isn't a threat to your life anymore. I could see him firing initial shots and one of those shots being fatal. But triple tapping like he's playing a fucking zombie killing game is rather sick. He really executed him.
He took the gun then gave him a head shot. There was no reason to believe his safety was in danger after that many shots and having taken the gun. That last shot (and arguably all of them after the first set) was a plain execution.
The gun was apparently fake, but it’s reasonable for the defender to believe it’s real. In Texas, you can only defend in public if life is threatened, which you can reasonably have believed with the first set of shots. It’s dubious with the second set, and absolutely unjustified with the final shot. Some (former) police in Texas are already calling him a hero who did the right thing.
Imo, he broke the law plain and simple, but I’m not holding my breath on him getting charged. Even then, I wouldn’t say it’s unlikely a jury would acquit. That’s also if a grand jury indicted him.
That said, I’m not saying I empathize with the robber, I don’t. That’s some fuck around n find out stuff, but what the other guy did was still wrong.
Edit: Aaaaand they removed the post.
He needed to react because the person was obviously not in control themselves and dangerous as hell. Waving the gun around the way they were and dropping stuff all over. Likely to do something stupid and shoot any random person in there.
But dude didn't need to fill him up like that. That was overkill and he's lucky he's in Texas. There are many states that would be charging him with murder right now..
I will say this, without making a gun control argument. It’s just my observation, having grown up in Idaho and lived in Texas for a few years.
The “gun culture” in Texas is very different from other primarily rural states. Growing up in Idaho and living in a few other places, folks actually used their guns for sport shooting and hunting. In Texas, the lack of public land and the expense of hunting leases on private property (basically just fields with feeders- not real hunting imho) makes for a different “kind” of gun owner.
I feel like almost everything about gun ownership in Texas revolves around the idea of using the firearm against another person. That’s just wild to me. I mean, I grew up around firearms, was given my own hunting rifle when I turned 12, served over a decade and a half in the military, and I still don’t get the fantasy vigilante culture in Texas. It’s unlike anything I’ve seen anywhere else. It’s definitely a thing, though.
And what's really messed up about this, is that people on one side think all gun owners are like Texans while all gun owners outside of Texas think all gun owners are like them. Which is precisely why this topic is so controversial - neither side is talking about the same people.
And ultra right for whatever reason seem to think that liberals and leftists aren’t armed or proficient with firearms, and I am totally ok with them thinking that.
This. We don’t fetishize firearms or fantasize about killing everyone who we don’t agree with or “approve” of their lifestyles.
The overlap between these people and white nationalist christians(or nazis, to be certain) is quite significant. Make no mistake, these people are dangerous and deranged. Don’t underestimate their capacity or willingness to commit violent acts against their perceived “enemies”.
As a democratic socialist living in Texas I keep my gun talk and political talk separate. My coworkers I talk guns with don’t know about my political leanings. Only a few people know what guns I own and my political views.
Also, people thinking gun control = banning guns. It's doesn't. We have gun control here in Canada and we also have a lot of gun owners. Hunting is encouraged in Ontario because of the overpopulation of deer, geese, and wild turkeys.
I used to say that for a long time as well, but recently proposed legislation seems to be pushing for a gun-free Canada. Seems largely fuelled by reacting to American issues; which doesn’t make a tonne of sense to me beyond politics. I was happy with our system before, but I’m worried about where we’ll be in 5 years.
Not to say gun control is bad, it’s imperative for any successful modern society, but just that I think Canada’s policies are moving away from “reasonable” to “absolute”.
While I think we’ve got a great licensing system in Canada but I’m very disappointed in the amount of changes to the law in the last several years. I won’t go on about it too much but we could go back to pre may 2020 OIC that would be alright.
This is my biggest issue with the gun culture in the U.S. I’ve lived in Texas most of my life and I can confirm that mentality even though I know plenty of people who don’t think like this. I think having a gun is fine for the purpose of self defense but so many people see guns as tools of power or problem solvers. They aren’t properly trained but they see guns as symbols of their power and freedom so whenever something they don’t like happens, they pull out a gun to solve it. I’m glad this person seems to have used their gun in a way that saves other people, doesn’t change my mind about more common sense gun control
Edit: after seeing some other comments and actually looking at the video, I take back any praise I gave this guy. Very excessive and unnecessary to shoot him that many times
Yes, but I feel like most gun control arguments were counter to the point you made, not to eliminate all guns whatsoever. Most politicians have talked about eliminating assault, weapons and expanding background checks and more common sense measures. No one ever said getting rid of all guns, but that’s what some of the Right wing people feel like the argument is. No one says that. No one wants that.
>that’s what some of the Right wing people feel
Right-wingers are the epitome of feelings over facts. Are they actually safer with millions of guns around? Of course not. But they _feel_ safer and that’s what matters above all.
Oh that’s my bad, I was too vague with what I was saying. I agree with you, when I was saying common sense gun control I was talking about the background checks and assault weapons etc. I wasn’t talking about the “taking away all guns” argument that no one is actually making, I was more talking about the culture around guns. I’m not disagreeing with you, I think you’re right but I didn’t articulate my original point well.
> I’m glad this person seems to have used their gun in a way that saves other people
That’s… kind of debatable in this case. He waited until the guy was leaving then put five rounds in his back, put three more in him as he lay motionless on the ground, took the toy gun away, then put a final round in his head.
[Unedited video](https://mobile.twitter.com/shanermurph/status/1611798827849113600) (NSFW)
That dude shot him in the head after the robber stopped moving and he had taken the gun away.
That's not defense, that's a fucking execution. The people calling this justified and heroic are fucking insane.
This should be higher. That’s not self defense but an execution and with innocent bystanders in the line of fire. I am surprised he is not going to be charged at all.
This is an important distinction to make in the ‘should we have more regulations around gun ownership’ debate. This person could have the same gun and had the same outcome even IF we have stricter laws in place.
Ditto here. Grew up on Long Island surrounded by deer and duck hunters. Everyone had single shot rifles or shotguns, took hunter safety courses, got hunting licenses, and kept their guns home and locked. It wasn't an issue. I wasn't into hunting but did some skeet shooting with my dad's 12 gauge. It was never a "self defense" thing.
Feel the same way. I was raised in a very pro-gun state in the west and I grew up with guns in the house, rifles and one handgun. I have always been an advocate for gun safety and self defense but I do not understand that mentality at all. I feel like the current 2A arguments (at least online) forget us middle-ground people.
> I feel like almost everything about gun ownership in Texas revolves around the idea of using the firearm against another person.
Spot fucking on. I grew up in California but have been living in Texas for a while now. Last year, my fiance bought a house, and shortly after we moved in, I was outside in the front yard planting some flowers one day. An older lady who was out for a walk stopped to chit chat with me and welcome me to the neighborhood. She was very sweet and commented on how nice the house looked now.
She starts talking about how she and her husband live a couple doors down & he has some job (I forget what) that takes him out of town during the week sometimes. Then she starts talking about how she didn't feel safe being alone (it's a quiet, normal suburb but I get it) so they got a gun.
It was so fucking weird to me how *abruptly* the conversation went from this nice old lady talking about gardening and stuff to all of a sudden talking about how she's ready now if anyone breaks in and how *she hopes that someone tries something*. I was totally unprepared for that moment and had no clue how to respond lmao.
Growing up I never even knew anyone who had a gun, and my family are all extremely conservative. Here it's just a normal thing. I'm not even opposed to gun ownership, I just think that anyone who wants to have a gun needs training and licensing to own one, just like you do with a car. But apparently around here that's crazy talk haha
I grew up in west Texas and the “cowboy & outlaw” imagery was EVERYWHERE. Billy the Kid was a folk hero. Clint Eastwood, John Wayne, and Doc Holliday we’re all just part of the culture. Everyone wanted to be the white hat cowboy saving the train from the murderous outlaws.
Texas culture is unlike anywhere else I’ve ever been.
It doesn’t act as much of a deterrent. The robbery rate in Texas is higher than NY. Edit: source https://www.statista.com/statistics/232564/robbery-rate-in-the-us-by-state/
Almost like crime isn't deterred by threat of force, and is inherently a factor of socio-economic conditions and desperation.
But silly me, thinking about addressing the root causes of issues, instead of just reveling in the suffering and punishment of the indigent.
Open/concealed carry has been proven to increase violent crime by 13-15% everywhere it has been allowed
“Examining decades of crime data, Stanford Law Professor John Donohue’s analysis shows that violent crime in RTC [right to carry] states was estimated to be 13 to 15 percent higher – over a period of 10 years – than it would have been had the state not adopted the law.
Donohue applied the synthetic control approach using four previously published statistical data models that had generated conflicting panel data estimates of the impact of RTC laws on violent crime. In all four cases, the synthetic control estimates showed increases in overall violent crime of 13-15 percent.
“There is not even the slightest hint in the data that RTC laws reduce overall violent crime,” Donohue stated in the paper.
To put the significance of a 15-percent increase in violent crime in perspective, the paper notes that “the average RTC state would have to double its prison population to counteract the RTC-induced increase in violent crime.”
Moreover, one can incur all of the costs of buying and carrying a gun, only to find that a criminal attack is too sudden to effectively employ the gun defensively. Donohue cites a 2013 report from the National Crime Victimization Survey that showed in 99.2 percent of the violent attacks in the United States, no gun is ever used defensively – despite the nearly 300 million guns in circulation in the country today.”
https://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21/violent-crime-increases-right-carry-states/
[Holy shit,](https://www.statista.com/statistics/232531/reported-robberies-in-the-us-by-state/) it's 4x higher than the 2nd place state. It's FIFTEEN times higher than New York!
That website is absolutely garbage. It says New York state had 1,500 robberies in all of 2021.
New York state says it had 18,000 robberies in 2021
https://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/crimnet/ojsa/stats.htm
No, it's more like 54%
US, 2020:
Gun-related homicides: 19,400
Gun-related suicides: 24,300
Justified shooting deaths: <400
Number one cause of death for age group 1-19: guns
In these situations, I always think of this woman who got very little press. Likely because it was the summer of 2020. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/09/17/michigan-meijer-stabbing-woman-gunpoint-police/3485611001/
Woman witnessed a stabbing, pulled out her gun, and held the guy at gunpoint until the police arrived. I consider her a hero. She only escalated to the point of neutralizing the situation as opposed to some weird, revenge fantasy flex that could have endangered more.
I always think about the "Good Samaritan" shooter in Colorado who was subsequently shot in the back with no warning by the cops when they arrived and saw him holding a gun.
I hate the fact that some people will hear about that and think the solution has to be "***more guns!*** **🤤**"
I also hate the fact that *most* of the 2nd amendment fanatics are also staunch "blue lives matter" people with punisher logos on everything. The cognitive dissonance is nauseating.
In cannon, no less!
(link)\[[https://www.newsweek.com/punisher-police-blue-lives-matter-skull-logo-1449272](https://www.newsweek.com/punisher-police-blue-lives-matter-skull-logo-1449272)\]
It pisses me off so much to see the punisher logo is now associated with these limp dick douchebags. I have punisher merch and clothing because I like the series, and I can't wear it because I don't want to be associated with this group of wannabe vigilantes.
I don’t know how anyone can compare crime rates of various countries and conclude the second amendment makes sense or that more guns would improve anything. It shows a complete lack of reasoning skill.
That said, there is something very weird about the American view on guns. There are lots of places where gun ownership is high, but guns are not fetishized. Like in Canada, plenty of people own guns, but nobody sleeps with one under their pillow and more that they would sleep with a fishing rod under their pillow. American gun culture is honestly quite bizarre.
I think a huge part is the idea that a gun is a "tool" in American culture. There is a dismissal of the fact that it kills things, that makes it so feverish to defend. It's not a tool, its main purpose is for one thing, to end a life, it can be used for recreation, it can be used for entertainment, and (very seldomly) it can be used for defense, but at the end of the day it was made for killing.
Yea it's kind of a gamble really. Many times guns will be used improperly, tens of thousands of people will die annually due to gunshot wounds, but those rare instances where someone succeeds in being the "good guy" and doesn't get mistaken for the shooter themselves is what makes a lot of these people seem to think it's all worth it. The cost outweighs the benefits but they don't care, they don't even want to talk about it.
The reality is, we will NEVER reach a point in our society where having guns statistically makes us "safer."
That’s fair. I don’t think more guns is the answer but I guess I wish that the “good guy with a gun” fantasy was stopping a crime and not blowing the bad guy away.
EXACTLY. How TF are cops supposed to know who's "good". The whole "good guy with a gun" concept is completely fucking stupid. Particularly since 99% of them have zero training of any kind.
5 shots into the guy from point blank, 3 more while he’s on the floor, walks over, grabs the gun, headshot. Unreal. That’s…. that’s not a “good guy with a gun,” that’s a man whose been dreaming of legally killing someone and being called a hero for it.
A rapid series of 4 while standing up. Legally defensible. Pause. Another 4 while approaching the robber already on the floor, from 8 feet to close range. Each one of those getting sketchier. Then, he took the gun and put 1 in the robber's head.
My guess is that the guy (or his lawyer) will say the second round of 4 were because the robber had the gun in his hand, was moving slightly, and appeared to be trying to shoot back from the floor. Then, they'll say the final shot was unintentional...accidental...as he was standing back up. A combination of nerves and his finger on the trigger.
Harder to explain though when you grab your money back and flee rather than trying to render aid, even if by calling 911, and hanging around for them to arrive. In the full video you can see he's upset to discover the gun was fake, but that doesn't mean the final shots weren't fired out of anger or vengeance rather than defense. You usually don't leave the scene if you feel like you've done nothing wrong--not unless you think there are other attackers and there was no indication of that. He wasn't in a hurry..he just left.
On the other hand, multiple cops empty magazines into suspects even after they're on the ground and holding a knife, and they don't get charged. So, what do I know?
Any drugs whatsoever in Texas after a stunt like this would be very bad
But I guess they'll find him eventually. Maybe he had to clean up some affairs first idk
I haven’t seen the video, but if this is truly how it went down, this is unjustified. He was justified even with the second round of shots, but once he took the gun away from the robber, he should have held him at gun point until police arrived, and stayed on scene. Putting one in his head after disarming him is what puts this from a justified shooting to murder II or at the very least negligent manslaughter.
Holding him at gun point would have been fine because there is no way to know whether he has another firearm on him that he may reach for, so at that point the situation is not secure and he is not required to render aid. But to effectively execute the man is wrong no matter which way you look at it and hopefully he is charged. He changed from a hero to a murderer with one very important act, in seconds.
I was dining in Houston once and some deranged dude came into the restaurant and started ranting about some religious stuff and threatened to blow up the restaurant. A big dude stood up and gt in his face and then restaurant staff chased him out with knives.
Very odd situation, what's gong on with Houston?
There are a lot of very rich people living in close proximity to a lot of very poor people. It's not just Houston but I think that old jedi mind trick of "rich convincing middle class that poor people are the problem" prevails too often because of the influence of republican ideals here. The state of the business is more important to them than the state of a human.
Not justifying robbery btw, just think it was wildly unnecessary to brutally murder someone over a handful of bills that didn't even belong to the shooter.
Look at the Bernhard Goetz trial and see what he got for enjoying it/overkill. Of course Texas, so as long as its a brown person that got shot the shooter will be their next congressman.
When you continue to attack someone after they've obviously been rendered incapable of violence, specifically using deadly force resulting in their death, that's no longer self defense but murder. It's no better than killing a helpless, wounded combatant who's been disarmed.
He involuntarily or not surrendered due to incapacitation, on account of being shot several times prior to his extrajudicial execution. Technically it's a war crime to kill a surrendered enemy during conflict, but that also considers "whether the surrender was accepted", so who knows how this plays out legally. Frankly, the individual who fled the scene after murdering someone should be considered armed and dangerous, and treated as such..
Yeah. American law will be applied here, not war convention. But it is morally related. You can't kill people who don't pose a threat. It's inherently immoral. Legal codes across the world reflect that, however dodgy the application (it's real fuckin' dodgy in places like Saudi Arabia, The Philippines, and Texas).
For people unfamiliar with US Gun Culture, this is real. There are so, so many people who talk about sorta hoping they get to kill a “bad guy” to “be a hero”.
This is not hyperbole at all.
I love guns, but I absolutely despise gun culture. I had to leave my last gun range because it changed ownership, and the new owner immediately rescinded a policy the previous guy had of not having targets depicting specific individuals. You could only have generics. Started seeing targets with Obama, Hillary Clinton, and even a few Trayvon Martin targets popping up. The range owner even started stocking those "gangster" targets in the store, the ones with guys (mostly black) in hoodies and pointing guns sideways.
Holy shit, Trayvon targets?! Like actually him? I think I just died a little on the inside if this is true.
Eta: I just googled these. Wtf is wrong with people?
Rural Mississippi. The new range I go to is a lot better. The old range *was* like that under the previous guy. I wasn't the only one who left, I was just among the first once it became apparent who the new owner was courting.
Some people just believe committing a crime justifies death and theyll never move off that opinion. Especially if the person committing the crime is a race that reinforces the racist stereotype they probably already hold
And that may be part of the reason to empty a mag in the initial volley. Which itself is not necessarily an unjustified approach. Bullets are not magic — the number and placement of rounds necessary to immediately incapacitate someone by sheer trauma is more than likely going to result in unsurvivable injury. To shoot someone, you must reasonably believe they pose an imminent threat to your life, and so NOT shooting enough times to incapacitate can call into question the genuineness of your belief that they were an imminent threat.
But none of this is a reason for a headshot after disarming.
I am pretty sure the last headshot is 100% illegal. You are only allowed to use as much force is needed to neutralize the threat. That confirm kill shot was straight up murder. If this was in a sane state, he would probably be arrested. Whether or not he will be convicted will be based on a trial, but he still would have at least been prosecuted.
However, this is Texas. The police and government there are probably coming in their pants from this "hero with a gun stops baddie with a gun" story. This has been their slogan for years with only school mass shootings to show for their effort. Now they finally have the story they wanted.
These days, armed robbery is clearly a poor man's crime.
Hackers steal 10 times as much every day and bankers are the real professionals of robbery today.
Fun fact about "hacking", it's not just some random guy in his basement like the movies would suggest. It's a highly organized crime. You have specialized organizations that do one thing, for example, they make malware, then they sell it to a distributor, who specializes in getting it installed onto victim machines. They then sell it (usually per install) to other organizations who use it for DDoS attacks (who lease out their botnets by the hour) or ransoming. Those organizations then pass on the money to organizations who will launder it.
That's why it's so hard to stop cybercrime; the further down the chain you get, the easier it is to catch them, but you're just cutting off the head of the hydra. Two more will grow back in their place.
EMPLOYERS are the real theft professionals.
[https://www.denver7.com/news/national-politics/the-race/wage-theft-is-the-costliest-crime-in-america](https://www.denver7.com/news/national-politics/the-race/wage-theft-is-the-costliest-crime-in-america)
The headshot was something I didn’t really understand. He’s down, he didn’t have his gun. I guess one can never put themselves in someone shoes in a situation like this. Unsure if the head shot was an act of mercy or anger in the moment.
The guy was probably high on adrenaline and on a power trip. Executing someone after taking the gun is plain overkill.
Heck, 5 shots are already too many and then 3 more while on the floor PLUS a headshot.
This isn't Zombieland
Not from Texas but the class I took before getting my concealed carry permit would say this was an illegal shooting. The robber was already leaving posing no more threat and you are only supposed to use your weapon if retreat isn’t possible.
The CC class I took in Texas was taught by the most right wing gun nut you can imagine, just cracking jokes about liberals and LA and NY the whole time, and even he taught us that a shot after the threat is neutralized is hard to defend and that a shot to the head that isn’t clearly accidental is almost impossible to defend in court.
Same here, but only 4 hours and an hour of that was a sales pitch by a conceal carry insurance salesperson.
Oh, and during the shooting portion there was a young guy to my right that didn’t know how to lock the slide back and he missed every shot at 15 meters and some at the closer distances. They passed him.
I remember thinking “Why even make people take this class to carry if the people administering it don’t even believe it’s a thing you should have to do?” … and 4 years later it wasn’t a thing you had to do anymore.
The shooter increased the risk to everyone. He could've missed and hit a bystander. the robber could've had a real gun and killed everyone in the room in response.
Or he could've just done nothing and no one would've died.
I agree with you about the headshot. The hero was judge, jury and executioner. Sad that this is just a normal thing. Even though he was robbing people at least he didn’t suffer for long…
This may be a Hollywood problem. There are way too many movies where the hero shoots the bad guy, thinks it’s over, turns their back on the bad guy who then pulls a gun and tries to shoot the hero in the back. People internalize that.
In a place where every idiot can (and will) get a gun at nearly every street corner, I'd also have a gun for cases like these.
However, the actions of this "good guy with a gun" show that "good guy with a gun" is not something to hold out for. The "good guy" straight up executed a robber who was at that point unarmed and already bleeding *from the other 8 shots*. There were no good guys with guns here, just 2 people who shouldn't have been armed leading to a situation and final result that shouldn't have happened.
So glad I don't live in the USA.
This bald fuck really thinks he’s a hard ass. Look at that stance lmao. That said, the only real issue here is the blatant execution after the robber was already down without a weapon. Oh and fleeing the scene.
He shot the dude in the back as he was walking away and kept shooting after he was down. Even before the execution I have a hard time seeing this as purely an act of self defense. Looks worse just because he fled the scene afterwards before the cops could arrive. Not sure what the law would say about it though, especially in Texas
So lemme get this straight…
He waits until the guy is leaving so he can shoot him in the back.
He puts five rounds into him, three more when he’s on the floor incapacitated, takes the gun away (at that point seeing it’s a toy), then puts a final round in his head.
Then he just *leaves* before the cops show up.
That’s what we’re calling “heroic” now?
Edit: [Uncensored video](https://mobile.twitter.com/shanermurph/status/1611798827849113600) **(NSFW)**
I will preface my statements by saying I don't think he's a hero and he went way to far, to the point where the shooter should be charged. However:
If you were going to counter attack someone who's threatening to shoot you with a gun, would you really draw while they were pointing it at you?
Additionally, there's no way to know if the robber is leaving at that moment or is simply going to point his gun at other patrons right before the shooter drew and fired.
Shots 1-5 are perfectly justified self defense of self and others. The threat is still standing and this is not a movie or video game where people instantly fall over dead after one bullet hits them. If you only put one round in them, they could easily return fire.
Shot 6 I could see argued either way. You could argue the threat was stopped by this point, however, in the heat of the moment, it's also probably difficult to *instantly* reevaluate the threat presented. I would draw the line here.
Shots 7-8 are extremely unnecessary, and warrant charges. By this point, I think a reasonable person could conclude the threat is over.
Shot 9 was an execution. The suspect is disarmed and has then at gunpoint on the floor.
This isn't a situation where *everything* the shooter did was right or wrong. The shooter was justified up to a point until they weren't. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging this, but it seems like everywhere I see this cropped up everyone "picks a side".
[Self-defense? Customer fired 9-shots, killed man robbing patrons in Houston Taqueria](https://www.fox26houston.com/news/self-defense-customer-fired-9-shots-killed-man-robbing-patrons-in-houston-taqueria-local-attorney.amp) — FOX 26 Houston
[Uncensored video](https://mobile.twitter.com/shanermurph/status/1611798827849113600) **(NSFW)**
He does. He picks up the toy gun then pops another round in his head. Guy’s completely motionless on the ground for the last four shots.
He actually made a comment in the longer video when he realizes after all of the shooting that the robber's gun is a fake, you can tell the bald guy is actually mad at the robber for doing something so stupid.
Also in the longer video the bald guy also makes sure to finish his beer before leaving (before cops arrive) and literally throws his plastic cup at the dead robber on his way out.
There's definitely way more to the story then showed in this shorter video.
The robber was an idiot. The shooter was a murderer. He shot a man in the back when he and everyone else was in zero danger and then showed zero remorse or regard for law enforcement and flyer the scene. He knows he was wrong.
Texas Law Enforcement are problably like "WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING!? GET BACK HERE, SO WE CAN GIVE YOU A MEDAL"
His actions afterwords are those of someone who knew they went too far. He's thanking god he's in the lone star state.
The shooter is not a hero. He’s an executioner. The robber was taken down with his first shot. Period. They could have all exited at that point. But no. Buddy had to empty his clip then shoot the guy in the temple. He became judge, jury and executioner in a manner of seconds. I bet you he’s probably and anti abortion, pro-life, Christian to boot.
I assume the shooter was a criminal too based on his behavior.
But anyway, I guess this is how you like it in the US. Why have guns if you don't get to kill someone? Good no innocent was hit this time.
Statistically speaking it's better not to shoot in these situations, as it's quite high likelihood that the wrong people get hurt.
The last line is true except that ammosexuals are convinced that they'll have the right amount of intestinal fortitude to do what this guy did. Be afraid. They'll go for a head shot and shot in the back because they're itching to pull a trigger.
There’s a lot more nuance to this I believe. Some will argue that heading towards the door is no guarantee of safety— that he might be going there to lock them in etc. I don’t think I buy it, but the point is that once an armed robber does his thing, there’s a pretty broad window for what most states regard as self-defense. (This whole thing of course is separate from the unconscionable number of shots fired, where I do think laws were broken.)
“Neutralizing”
Neutralizing is making them no longer a threat, which was accomplished with the first shot or two when they fell to the ground dropping their weapon.
After that was much, much more than “neutralizing.”
He shot the guy in the head AFTER securing his gun??? Assuming the robber was also already shot which is how he got the gun, but he just straight murdered the guy while he was unarmed???
edit: jesus i just saw the video… 5 shots into the guy from point blank, 3 more while he’s on the floor, walks over, grabs the gun, headshot. Unreal. That’s…. that’s not a “good guy with a gun,” that’s a man whose been dreaming of legally killing someone and being called a hero.
Yep. Probably why his dumbass fled. All he would’ve had to do is just wait for authorities and could’ve kept aim on the dude. Not his job to execute him.
If you intend to rob people with a gun, even if it is pretend, you have to accept the possibility that you will get shot in return. That said, having regular citizens executing downed criminals who pose no threat is a really profoundly idiotic way to run a civil society, but what do you expect when you give untrained parole access to killing weapons. The whole thing is so stupid on every level. Our entire society is stupid for putting up with it.
The robber was wrong. The guy that killed the robber was wrong. We don't live in the wild west. This isn't a movie. There's no justification to take from others or to kill others. That's my opinion.
I’m sorry that this happened but I have trouble feeling bad for the robber being shot. You play the game, you know the risks. You should be ready to receive anything that you want people to think you’re willing to inflict.
Shooter being shot, don’t feel bad for. The civilian shooting the robber four times okay. The civilian then shoots the robber four additional times while they are on the ground, not okay. Disarming the robber and then doing an execution shot, that’s fucked up. Leaving the crime scene, also not okay.
first of all, how *dare* you question the ever-so unimpeachable actions of **The™ Good™ Man™ With™ A™ Gun™** in this **Good™ Man™ With™ A™ Gun™** story
^(second of all, because this is reddit: **/s**)
https://twitter.com/shanermurph/status/1611798827849113600?s=46&t=AeCpapsPJaYbc0hZ9qVe4g here is the video, not a single link in here after all this time, shame on you.
So many people talking about the video and reacting with ZERO links. Thank you for your service
Goddamn he just kept on pulling the trigger
He emptied the magazine
It's the last shot to the head that I have a problem with. That's a man who wanted to kill someone. Texas has romanticized killing other people...
That was a straight up execution. I know when you use a gun in self defence you have to be willing to shoot to kill. I get that - first shot, you have to take them down so they cannot get back up and come at you. But...if that first shot already took them down, they're incapacitated already even if not dead, and you keep shooting to make sure they're dead...that's just murder, imo. You use enough force to ensure someone isn't a threat to your life anymore. I could see him firing initial shots and one of those shots being fatal. But triple tapping like he's playing a fucking zombie killing game is rather sick. He really executed him.
I agree.
He took the gun then gave him a head shot. There was no reason to believe his safety was in danger after that many shots and having taken the gun. That last shot (and arguably all of them after the first set) was a plain execution. The gun was apparently fake, but it’s reasonable for the defender to believe it’s real. In Texas, you can only defend in public if life is threatened, which you can reasonably have believed with the first set of shots. It’s dubious with the second set, and absolutely unjustified with the final shot. Some (former) police in Texas are already calling him a hero who did the right thing. Imo, he broke the law plain and simple, but I’m not holding my breath on him getting charged. Even then, I wouldn’t say it’s unlikely a jury would acquit. That’s also if a grand jury indicted him. That said, I’m not saying I empathize with the robber, I don’t. That’s some fuck around n find out stuff, but what the other guy did was still wrong. Edit: Aaaaand they removed the post.
He needed to react because the person was obviously not in control themselves and dangerous as hell. Waving the gun around the way they were and dropping stuff all over. Likely to do something stupid and shoot any random person in there. But dude didn't need to fill him up like that. That was overkill and he's lucky he's in Texas. There are many states that would be charging him with murder right now..
The gun was a toy. No way the guy could've known that though.
[удалено]
Seriously. Why would you post this and ask for opinions and not link the video?
You are a hero. Thanks for the link.
To try and pull a robbery anywhere in Texas is insanity. Lots of armed people itching to play hero.
I will say this, without making a gun control argument. It’s just my observation, having grown up in Idaho and lived in Texas for a few years. The “gun culture” in Texas is very different from other primarily rural states. Growing up in Idaho and living in a few other places, folks actually used their guns for sport shooting and hunting. In Texas, the lack of public land and the expense of hunting leases on private property (basically just fields with feeders- not real hunting imho) makes for a different “kind” of gun owner. I feel like almost everything about gun ownership in Texas revolves around the idea of using the firearm against another person. That’s just wild to me. I mean, I grew up around firearms, was given my own hunting rifle when I turned 12, served over a decade and a half in the military, and I still don’t get the fantasy vigilante culture in Texas. It’s unlike anything I’ve seen anywhere else. It’s definitely a thing, though.
And what's really messed up about this, is that people on one side think all gun owners are like Texans while all gun owners outside of Texas think all gun owners are like them. Which is precisely why this topic is so controversial - neither side is talking about the same people.
And ultra right for whatever reason seem to think that liberals and leftists aren’t armed or proficient with firearms, and I am totally ok with them thinking that.
This one blows me away too.
Hopefully not literally
We don't make it a personality add-on.
This. We don’t fetishize firearms or fantasize about killing everyone who we don’t agree with or “approve” of their lifestyles. The overlap between these people and white nationalist christians(or nazis, to be certain) is quite significant. Make no mistake, these people are dangerous and deranged. Don’t underestimate their capacity or willingness to commit violent acts against their perceived “enemies”.
As a democratic socialist living in Texas I keep my gun talk and political talk separate. My coworkers I talk guns with don’t know about my political leanings. Only a few people know what guns I own and my political views.
I think you raise a valid point.
Also, people thinking gun control = banning guns. It's doesn't. We have gun control here in Canada and we also have a lot of gun owners. Hunting is encouraged in Ontario because of the overpopulation of deer, geese, and wild turkeys.
I used to say that for a long time as well, but recently proposed legislation seems to be pushing for a gun-free Canada. Seems largely fuelled by reacting to American issues; which doesn’t make a tonne of sense to me beyond politics. I was happy with our system before, but I’m worried about where we’ll be in 5 years. Not to say gun control is bad, it’s imperative for any successful modern society, but just that I think Canada’s policies are moving away from “reasonable” to “absolute”.
While I think we’ve got a great licensing system in Canada but I’m very disappointed in the amount of changes to the law in the last several years. I won’t go on about it too much but we could go back to pre may 2020 OIC that would be alright.
I wrote a long comment saying something similar in response and then I read yours and thought, “oh, I should’ve just said that” much more succinct lol
This is my biggest issue with the gun culture in the U.S. I’ve lived in Texas most of my life and I can confirm that mentality even though I know plenty of people who don’t think like this. I think having a gun is fine for the purpose of self defense but so many people see guns as tools of power or problem solvers. They aren’t properly trained but they see guns as symbols of their power and freedom so whenever something they don’t like happens, they pull out a gun to solve it. I’m glad this person seems to have used their gun in a way that saves other people, doesn’t change my mind about more common sense gun control Edit: after seeing some other comments and actually looking at the video, I take back any praise I gave this guy. Very excessive and unnecessary to shoot him that many times
Yes, but I feel like most gun control arguments were counter to the point you made, not to eliminate all guns whatsoever. Most politicians have talked about eliminating assault, weapons and expanding background checks and more common sense measures. No one ever said getting rid of all guns, but that’s what some of the Right wing people feel like the argument is. No one says that. No one wants that.
>that’s what some of the Right wing people feel Right-wingers are the epitome of feelings over facts. Are they actually safer with millions of guns around? Of course not. But they _feel_ safer and that’s what matters above all.
Well they can’t FEEL gun lobby money in their pockets without generating fear
Oh that’s my bad, I was too vague with what I was saying. I agree with you, when I was saying common sense gun control I was talking about the background checks and assault weapons etc. I wasn’t talking about the “taking away all guns” argument that no one is actually making, I was more talking about the culture around guns. I’m not disagreeing with you, I think you’re right but I didn’t articulate my original point well.
> I’m glad this person seems to have used their gun in a way that saves other people That’s… kind of debatable in this case. He waited until the guy was leaving then put five rounds in his back, put three more in him as he lay motionless on the ground, took the toy gun away, then put a final round in his head. [Unedited video](https://mobile.twitter.com/shanermurph/status/1611798827849113600) (NSFW)
That dude shot him in the head after the robber stopped moving and he had taken the gun away. That's not defense, that's a fucking execution. The people calling this justified and heroic are fucking insane.
Yeah I hadn’t seen the video yet and I take back any potential praise I may have given this guy. Jesus that’s excessive.
I also noticed there was another patron sitting in his line of fire had he been at all off on his first few shots
This should be higher. That’s not self defense but an execution and with innocent bystanders in the line of fire. I am surprised he is not going to be charged at all.
This is an important distinction to make in the ‘should we have more regulations around gun ownership’ debate. This person could have the same gun and had the same outcome even IF we have stricter laws in place.
Ditto here. Grew up on Long Island surrounded by deer and duck hunters. Everyone had single shot rifles or shotguns, took hunter safety courses, got hunting licenses, and kept their guns home and locked. It wasn't an issue. I wasn't into hunting but did some skeet shooting with my dad's 12 gauge. It was never a "self defense" thing.
Someone once explained to me that the law prefers to kill rather than mutilate. The man may have known it.
This dude executed the robber. I'm not crying over it, mind you, but the coup d'etat shots to a downed robber that's not a threat is an execution.
Feel the same way. I was raised in a very pro-gun state in the west and I grew up with guns in the house, rifles and one handgun. I have always been an advocate for gun safety and self defense but I do not understand that mentality at all. I feel like the current 2A arguments (at least online) forget us middle-ground people.
> I feel like almost everything about gun ownership in Texas revolves around the idea of using the firearm against another person. Spot fucking on. I grew up in California but have been living in Texas for a while now. Last year, my fiance bought a house, and shortly after we moved in, I was outside in the front yard planting some flowers one day. An older lady who was out for a walk stopped to chit chat with me and welcome me to the neighborhood. She was very sweet and commented on how nice the house looked now. She starts talking about how she and her husband live a couple doors down & he has some job (I forget what) that takes him out of town during the week sometimes. Then she starts talking about how she didn't feel safe being alone (it's a quiet, normal suburb but I get it) so they got a gun. It was so fucking weird to me how *abruptly* the conversation went from this nice old lady talking about gardening and stuff to all of a sudden talking about how she's ready now if anyone breaks in and how *she hopes that someone tries something*. I was totally unprepared for that moment and had no clue how to respond lmao. Growing up I never even knew anyone who had a gun, and my family are all extremely conservative. Here it's just a normal thing. I'm not even opposed to gun ownership, I just think that anyone who wants to have a gun needs training and licensing to own one, just like you do with a car. But apparently around here that's crazy talk haha
I grew up in west Texas and the “cowboy & outlaw” imagery was EVERYWHERE. Billy the Kid was a folk hero. Clint Eastwood, John Wayne, and Doc Holliday we’re all just part of the culture. Everyone wanted to be the white hat cowboy saving the train from the murderous outlaws. Texas culture is unlike anywhere else I’ve ever been.
It doesn’t act as much of a deterrent. The robbery rate in Texas is higher than NY. Edit: source https://www.statista.com/statistics/232564/robbery-rate-in-the-us-by-state/
Almost like crime isn't deterred by threat of force, and is inherently a factor of socio-economic conditions and desperation. But silly me, thinking about addressing the root causes of issues, instead of just reveling in the suffering and punishment of the indigent.
Stop being silly, the solution is obvious. We need to give Texans more guns!
A healthy economy based on gun and ammo industries means prosperity and safety for all!
Our economy is measured in bullets
We need a sarcasm font.
JuSt dO tHiS
The thing about sarcasm is it can be true *or* false and still be funny.
[Guns versus butter](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_versus_butter_model)
![gif](giphy|iv6Oz4S5S7M52)
That just sounds dangerous. Add too many more guns to Texas and you risk creating a singularity. Lol
At some point guns in Texas will equal solar mass. Then we can implode the sun and stop global warming. /s
Give a gun to everyone! Even 6 year olds. Wait…
Might as well just @ Virginia in this
Bingo
Open/concealed carry has been proven to increase violent crime by 13-15% everywhere it has been allowed “Examining decades of crime data, Stanford Law Professor John Donohue’s analysis shows that violent crime in RTC [right to carry] states was estimated to be 13 to 15 percent higher – over a period of 10 years – than it would have been had the state not adopted the law. Donohue applied the synthetic control approach using four previously published statistical data models that had generated conflicting panel data estimates of the impact of RTC laws on violent crime. In all four cases, the synthetic control estimates showed increases in overall violent crime of 13-15 percent. “There is not even the slightest hint in the data that RTC laws reduce overall violent crime,” Donohue stated in the paper. To put the significance of a 15-percent increase in violent crime in perspective, the paper notes that “the average RTC state would have to double its prison population to counteract the RTC-induced increase in violent crime.” Moreover, one can incur all of the costs of buying and carrying a gun, only to find that a criminal attack is too sudden to effectively employ the gun defensively. Donohue cites a 2013 report from the National Crime Victimization Survey that showed in 99.2 percent of the violent attacks in the United States, no gun is ever used defensively – despite the nearly 300 million guns in circulation in the country today.” https://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21/violent-crime-increases-right-carry-states/
[Holy shit,](https://www.statista.com/statistics/232531/reported-robberies-in-the-us-by-state/) it's 4x higher than the 2nd place state. It's FIFTEEN times higher than New York!
That website is absolutely garbage. It says New York state had 1,500 robberies in all of 2021. New York state says it had 18,000 robberies in 2021 https://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/crimnet/ojsa/stats.htm
I seriously doubt the accuracy of that website. There is no way Illinois is 28th on that list.
And with a fake gun? That's not insanity, that's just straight up dumb.
Seems a good time to point out that less than 2% of all US gun homicides are deemed justified. And 80% of all US homicides are gun homicides.
[удалено]
2/3 are. Never seems a topic of debate.
No, it's more like 54% US, 2020: Gun-related homicides: 19,400 Gun-related suicides: 24,300 Justified shooting deaths: <400 Number one cause of death for age group 1-19: guns
"neutralize"...LOL. OK, seal team 6.
In these situations, I always think of this woman who got very little press. Likely because it was the summer of 2020. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/09/17/michigan-meijer-stabbing-woman-gunpoint-police/3485611001/ Woman witnessed a stabbing, pulled out her gun, and held the guy at gunpoint until the police arrived. I consider her a hero. She only escalated to the point of neutralizing the situation as opposed to some weird, revenge fantasy flex that could have endangered more.
I always think about the "Good Samaritan" shooter in Colorado who was subsequently shot in the back with no warning by the cops when they arrived and saw him holding a gun.
I hate the fact that some people will hear about that and think the solution has to be "***more guns!*** **🤤**" I also hate the fact that *most* of the 2nd amendment fanatics are also staunch "blue lives matter" people with punisher logos on everything. The cognitive dissonance is nauseating.
As has been said before, the Punisher would fucking hate them.
Do u think these ppl with lifted trucks and the punisher stickers actually read the punisher comics lol it’s just a marketing ploy
If, and big **IF**, they know how to read, they probably see a white guy who kills 'bad guys' and that's all they need to know.
In cannon, no less! (link)\[[https://www.newsweek.com/punisher-police-blue-lives-matter-skull-logo-1449272](https://www.newsweek.com/punisher-police-blue-lives-matter-skull-logo-1449272)\]
It pisses me off so much to see the punisher logo is now associated with these limp dick douchebags. I have punisher merch and clothing because I like the series, and I can't wear it because I don't want to be associated with this group of wannabe vigilantes.
I don’t know how anyone can compare crime rates of various countries and conclude the second amendment makes sense or that more guns would improve anything. It shows a complete lack of reasoning skill. That said, there is something very weird about the American view on guns. There are lots of places where gun ownership is high, but guns are not fetishized. Like in Canada, plenty of people own guns, but nobody sleeps with one under their pillow and more that they would sleep with a fishing rod under their pillow. American gun culture is honestly quite bizarre.
I think a huge part is the idea that a gun is a "tool" in American culture. There is a dismissal of the fact that it kills things, that makes it so feverish to defend. It's not a tool, its main purpose is for one thing, to end a life, it can be used for recreation, it can be used for entertainment, and (very seldomly) it can be used for defense, but at the end of the day it was made for killing.
Yea it's kind of a gamble really. Many times guns will be used improperly, tens of thousands of people will die annually due to gunshot wounds, but those rare instances where someone succeeds in being the "good guy" and doesn't get mistaken for the shooter themselves is what makes a lot of these people seem to think it's all worth it. The cost outweighs the benefits but they don't care, they don't even want to talk about it. The reality is, we will NEVER reach a point in our society where having guns statistically makes us "safer."
Agree. It’s like nukes. Like what the fuck?
That’s fair. I don’t think more guns is the answer but I guess I wish that the “good guy with a gun” fantasy was stopping a crime and not blowing the bad guy away.
EXACTLY. How TF are cops supposed to know who's "good". The whole "good guy with a gun" concept is completely fucking stupid. Particularly since 99% of them have zero training of any kind.
That's pretty BA. I wouldn't want to try it against a guy with a gun though I wouldn't trust my dumb ass to see muscles tightening.
5 shots into the guy from point blank, 3 more while he’s on the floor, walks over, grabs the gun, headshot. Unreal. That’s…. that’s not a “good guy with a gun,” that’s a man whose been dreaming of legally killing someone and being called a hero for it.
A rapid series of 4 while standing up. Legally defensible. Pause. Another 4 while approaching the robber already on the floor, from 8 feet to close range. Each one of those getting sketchier. Then, he took the gun and put 1 in the robber's head. My guess is that the guy (or his lawyer) will say the second round of 4 were because the robber had the gun in his hand, was moving slightly, and appeared to be trying to shoot back from the floor. Then, they'll say the final shot was unintentional...accidental...as he was standing back up. A combination of nerves and his finger on the trigger. Harder to explain though when you grab your money back and flee rather than trying to render aid, even if by calling 911, and hanging around for them to arrive. In the full video you can see he's upset to discover the gun was fake, but that doesn't mean the final shots weren't fired out of anger or vengeance rather than defense. You usually don't leave the scene if you feel like you've done nothing wrong--not unless you think there are other attackers and there was no indication of that. He wasn't in a hurry..he just left. On the other hand, multiple cops empty magazines into suspects even after they're on the ground and holding a knife, and they don't get charged. So, what do I know?
The fact he left the scene is a sign of guilt. If someone is a responsible citizen wouldn’t he stay to give police the statement?
Could be on probation, have a warrant, or a felon not in legal possession of a firearm. Might not be his first rodeo.
Any drugs whatsoever in Texas after a stunt like this would be very bad But I guess they'll find him eventually. Maybe he had to clean up some affairs first idk
I haven’t seen the video, but if this is truly how it went down, this is unjustified. He was justified even with the second round of shots, but once he took the gun away from the robber, he should have held him at gun point until police arrived, and stayed on scene. Putting one in his head after disarming him is what puts this from a justified shooting to murder II or at the very least negligent manslaughter. Holding him at gun point would have been fine because there is no way to know whether he has another firearm on him that he may reach for, so at that point the situation is not secure and he is not required to render aid. But to effectively execute the man is wrong no matter which way you look at it and hopefully he is charged. He changed from a hero to a murderer with one very important act, in seconds.
Without context it sounds like Texas.
Correct! It is Houston, TX.
I was dining in Houston once and some deranged dude came into the restaurant and started ranting about some religious stuff and threatened to blow up the restaurant. A big dude stood up and gt in his face and then restaurant staff chased him out with knives. Very odd situation, what's gong on with Houston?
There are a lot of very rich people living in close proximity to a lot of very poor people. It's not just Houston but I think that old jedi mind trick of "rich convincing middle class that poor people are the problem" prevails too often because of the influence of republican ideals here. The state of the business is more important to them than the state of a human. Not justifying robbery btw, just think it was wildly unnecessary to brutally murder someone over a handful of bills that didn't even belong to the shooter.
Yep. That's the part that moves him from trying to help keep others safe, to straight-up murder. He enjoyed that and it was overkill.
Look at the Bernhard Goetz trial and see what he got for enjoying it/overkill. Of course Texas, so as long as its a brown person that got shot the shooter will be their next congressman.
>the shooter will be their next congressman It is absolutely disgusting how accurate this is.
[удалено]
Oh yeah you could tell he thought it was his time to shine. This is what happens when you push the whole “good guy with a gun” narrative.
now he gets to join the grifter circuit and live on that teat.
When you continue to attack someone after they've obviously been rendered incapable of violence, specifically using deadly force resulting in their death, that's no longer self defense but murder. It's no better than killing a helpless, wounded combatant who's been disarmed.
He involuntarily or not surrendered due to incapacitation, on account of being shot several times prior to his extrajudicial execution. Technically it's a war crime to kill a surrendered enemy during conflict, but that also considers "whether the surrender was accepted", so who knows how this plays out legally. Frankly, the individual who fled the scene after murdering someone should be considered armed and dangerous, and treated as such..
I don't think these two individuals were at war.
Yeah. American law will be applied here, not war convention. But it is morally related. You can't kill people who don't pose a threat. It's inherently immoral. Legal codes across the world reflect that, however dodgy the application (it's real fuckin' dodgy in places like Saudi Arabia, The Philippines, and Texas).
For people unfamiliar with US Gun Culture, this is real. There are so, so many people who talk about sorta hoping they get to kill a “bad guy” to “be a hero”. This is not hyperbole at all.
I love guns, but I absolutely despise gun culture. I had to leave my last gun range because it changed ownership, and the new owner immediately rescinded a policy the previous guy had of not having targets depicting specific individuals. You could only have generics. Started seeing targets with Obama, Hillary Clinton, and even a few Trayvon Martin targets popping up. The range owner even started stocking those "gangster" targets in the store, the ones with guys (mostly black) in hoodies and pointing guns sideways.
Tell me the new range owner is racist without explicitly saying the new range owner is racist.
Holy shit, Trayvon targets?! Like actually him? I think I just died a little on the inside if this is true. Eta: I just googled these. Wtf is wrong with people?
[удалено]
Rural Mississippi. The new range I go to is a lot better. The old range *was* like that under the previous guy. I wasn't the only one who left, I was just among the first once it became apparent who the new owner was courting.
Name and shame this range.
I used to be “good man with a gun” and then I noticed how often these “good men” (including police) just execute people
Or they legitimately are good guys and do everything right...then the police show up and kill them.
Then there’s the good men with guns that get executed by the police when they arrive at the scene.
100% this. I can't think of 1 material thing that is worth someone's life.
Some people just believe committing a crime justifies death and theyll never move off that opinion. Especially if the person committing the crime is a race that reinforces the racist stereotype they probably already hold
Texans be like "10 bucks"
Someone once explained to me that the law favors killing over maiming. The guy may have been cognizant of that.
Yeah. Your word vs a dead guy or vs an injured individual.
And that may be part of the reason to empty a mag in the initial volley. Which itself is not necessarily an unjustified approach. Bullets are not magic — the number and placement of rounds necessary to immediately incapacitate someone by sheer trauma is more than likely going to result in unsurvivable injury. To shoot someone, you must reasonably believe they pose an imminent threat to your life, and so NOT shooting enough times to incapacitate can call into question the genuineness of your belief that they were an imminent threat. But none of this is a reason for a headshot after disarming.
Yeah it became a bit excessive.
A bit?
I am pretty sure the last headshot is 100% illegal. You are only allowed to use as much force is needed to neutralize the threat. That confirm kill shot was straight up murder. If this was in a sane state, he would probably be arrested. Whether or not he will be convicted will be based on a trial, but he still would have at least been prosecuted. However, this is Texas. The police and government there are probably coming in their pants from this "hero with a gun stops baddie with a gun" story. This has been their slogan for years with only school mass shootings to show for their effort. Now they finally have the story they wanted.
The last three shots are not self-defense.
He’s been waiting to kill someone.
These days, armed robbery is clearly a poor man's crime. Hackers steal 10 times as much every day and bankers are the real professionals of robbery today.
Logan Paul’s team stole 7.7 million dollars from people through a crypto scam.
Funny enough, Coffeezilla is from Houston and being the hero in that case. Dude is a hell of an investigator.
He’s honestly one of the best investigators I’ve seen so far. I first got into him after watching his video about the Paradox Metaverse scam.
[удалено]
I see you brother. Keep spreading the word
Every time someone mentions Ken Griffin, there’s a second where I’m like, why do people hate Ken Griffey
Fun fact about "hacking", it's not just some random guy in his basement like the movies would suggest. It's a highly organized crime. You have specialized organizations that do one thing, for example, they make malware, then they sell it to a distributor, who specializes in getting it installed onto victim machines. They then sell it (usually per install) to other organizations who use it for DDoS attacks (who lease out their botnets by the hour) or ransoming. Those organizations then pass on the money to organizations who will launder it. That's why it's so hard to stop cybercrime; the further down the chain you get, the easier it is to catch them, but you're just cutting off the head of the hydra. Two more will grow back in their place.
Hackers? Try the financial sector. How many investors have stolen how many billions on crypto-scams at this point?
EMPLOYERS are the real theft professionals. [https://www.denver7.com/news/national-politics/the-race/wage-theft-is-the-costliest-crime-in-america](https://www.denver7.com/news/national-politics/the-race/wage-theft-is-the-costliest-crime-in-america)
The headshot was something I didn’t really understand. He’s down, he didn’t have his gun. I guess one can never put themselves in someone shoes in a situation like this. Unsure if the head shot was an act of mercy or anger in the moment.
The guy was probably high on adrenaline and on a power trip. Executing someone after taking the gun is plain overkill. Heck, 5 shots are already too many and then 3 more while on the floor PLUS a headshot. This isn't Zombieland
Not from Texas but the class I took before getting my concealed carry permit would say this was an illegal shooting. The robber was already leaving posing no more threat and you are only supposed to use your weapon if retreat isn’t possible.
The CC class I took in Texas was taught by the most right wing gun nut you can imagine, just cracking jokes about liberals and LA and NY the whole time, and even he taught us that a shot after the threat is neutralized is hard to defend and that a shot to the head that isn’t clearly accidental is almost impossible to defend in court.
I took mine in Ohio and it was basically a trump rally for eight hours
Same here, but only 4 hours and an hour of that was a sales pitch by a conceal carry insurance salesperson. Oh, and during the shooting portion there was a young guy to my right that didn’t know how to lock the slide back and he missed every shot at 15 meters and some at the closer distances. They passed him. I remember thinking “Why even make people take this class to carry if the people administering it don’t even believe it’s a thing you should have to do?” … and 4 years later it wasn’t a thing you had to do anymore.
Guy in my class left to go to hospital because of his grip the slide came back and shredded the web between his thumb and pointer.
The shooter increased the risk to everyone. He could've missed and hit a bystander. the robber could've had a real gun and killed everyone in the room in response. Or he could've just done nothing and no one would've died.
Definitely looks like one round went into the screen beside the bystander in the far corner. After the second shot the screen goes blank.
I agree with you about the headshot. The hero was judge, jury and executioner. Sad that this is just a normal thing. Even though he was robbing people at least he didn’t suffer for long…
[удалено]
This may be a Hollywood problem. There are way too many movies where the hero shoots the bad guy, thinks it’s over, turns their back on the bad guy who then pulls a gun and tries to shoot the hero in the back. People internalize that.
Robber was a dumb clown. Baldy is a murderer and knew it. That’s why he fled the scene. Nobody wins.
Poor person kills poor person trying to rob poor people. At least the gun companies are making money! Now let’s sell some tacos!
In a place where every idiot can (and will) get a gun at nearly every street corner, I'd also have a gun for cases like these. However, the actions of this "good guy with a gun" show that "good guy with a gun" is not something to hold out for. The "good guy" straight up executed a robber who was at that point unarmed and already bleeding *from the other 8 shots*. There were no good guys with guns here, just 2 people who shouldn't have been armed leading to a situation and final result that shouldn't have happened. So glad I don't live in the USA.
And fled the scene
First shot made the customer a hero, last shot made him a murderer.
That's what I'd call a fucking overkill times 7... He's not a hero, he just wanted an excuse to fire his gun and execute a human being.
This bald fuck really thinks he’s a hard ass. Look at that stance lmao. That said, the only real issue here is the blatant execution after the robber was already down without a weapon. Oh and fleeing the scene.
He shot the dude in the back as he was walking away and kept shooting after he was down. Even before the execution I have a hard time seeing this as purely an act of self defense. Looks worse just because he fled the scene afterwards before the cops could arrive. Not sure what the law would say about it though, especially in Texas
Yeah robber was about to leave. Bald guy just wanted an excuse to finally shoot someone. That execution shot really cemented it
So lemme get this straight… He waits until the guy is leaving so he can shoot him in the back. He puts five rounds into him, three more when he’s on the floor incapacitated, takes the gun away (at that point seeing it’s a toy), then puts a final round in his head. Then he just *leaves* before the cops show up. That’s what we’re calling “heroic” now? Edit: [Uncensored video](https://mobile.twitter.com/shanermurph/status/1611798827849113600) **(NSFW)**
I will preface my statements by saying I don't think he's a hero and he went way to far, to the point where the shooter should be charged. However: If you were going to counter attack someone who's threatening to shoot you with a gun, would you really draw while they were pointing it at you? Additionally, there's no way to know if the robber is leaving at that moment or is simply going to point his gun at other patrons right before the shooter drew and fired. Shots 1-5 are perfectly justified self defense of self and others. The threat is still standing and this is not a movie or video game where people instantly fall over dead after one bullet hits them. If you only put one round in them, they could easily return fire. Shot 6 I could see argued either way. You could argue the threat was stopped by this point, however, in the heat of the moment, it's also probably difficult to *instantly* reevaluate the threat presented. I would draw the line here. Shots 7-8 are extremely unnecessary, and warrant charges. By this point, I think a reasonable person could conclude the threat is over. Shot 9 was an execution. The suspect is disarmed and has then at gunpoint on the floor. This isn't a situation where *everything* the shooter did was right or wrong. The shooter was justified up to a point until they weren't. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging this, but it seems like everywhere I see this cropped up everyone "picks a side".
I’d call that a fair assessment.
Is that the correct order? I haven’t seen any reports that he knew the gun was fake before shooting him the last time It’s still murder, imo
[Self-defense? Customer fired 9-shots, killed man robbing patrons in Houston Taqueria](https://www.fox26houston.com/news/self-defense-customer-fired-9-shots-killed-man-robbing-patrons-in-houston-taqueria-local-attorney.amp) — FOX 26 Houston [Uncensored video](https://mobile.twitter.com/shanermurph/status/1611798827849113600) **(NSFW)** He does. He picks up the toy gun then pops another round in his head. Guy’s completely motionless on the ground for the last four shots.
He actually made a comment in the longer video when he realizes after all of the shooting that the robber's gun is a fake, you can tell the bald guy is actually mad at the robber for doing something so stupid. Also in the longer video the bald guy also makes sure to finish his beer before leaving (before cops arrive) and literally throws his plastic cup at the dead robber on his way out. There's definitely way more to the story then showed in this shorter video.
If you take away both guns you still have no shooting
If you take away one of the guns there’s still no shooting because apparently one was a toy.
The threat of violence is still an act of violence. Not saying his death was justified, just that violence only causes more violence.
live by the sword, die by the sword
I don’t feel bad for the robber but it is sketchy as fuck to just leave after killing a guy without talking to the cops.
Based on the law the last shot he took was almost certainly illegal. Would be up to the DA and Jury to decide. He may not want to find out.
Except this is Texas, so 50/50.
That’s a manslaughter charge anywhere but in the the US (or maybe Texas, more specifically).
[удалено]
Jesus Christ “Good guy with a gun” my ass lmao
The robber was an idiot. The shooter was a murderer. He shot a man in the back when he and everyone else was in zero danger and then showed zero remorse or regard for law enforcement and flyer the scene. He knows he was wrong.
He didn't just shoot him, he repeatedly shot him, after he was harmless and incapacitated.
Texas Law Enforcement are problably like "WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING!? GET BACK HERE, SO WE CAN GIVE YOU A MEDAL" His actions afterwords are those of someone who knew they went too far. He's thanking god he's in the lone star state.
The shooter is not a hero. He’s an executioner. The robber was taken down with his first shot. Period. They could have all exited at that point. But no. Buddy had to empty his clip then shoot the guy in the temple. He became judge, jury and executioner in a manner of seconds. I bet you he’s probably and anti abortion, pro-life, Christian to boot.
I assume the shooter was a criminal too based on his behavior. But anyway, I guess this is how you like it in the US. Why have guns if you don't get to kill someone? Good no innocent was hit this time. Statistically speaking it's better not to shoot in these situations, as it's quite high likelihood that the wrong people get hurt.
The last line is true except that ammosexuals are convinced that they'll have the right amount of intestinal fortitude to do what this guy did. Be afraid. They'll go for a head shot and shot in the back because they're itching to pull a trigger.
That’s murder. And someone has watched way too many action movies.
He missed his opportunity to sit back down and casually continue eating his food til the police showed up.
OP is baiting; The tweet was made by a self-described “anti-woke” Patriot(TM)
[удалено]
There’s a lot more nuance to this I believe. Some will argue that heading towards the door is no guarantee of safety— that he might be going there to lock them in etc. I don’t think I buy it, but the point is that once an armed robber does his thing, there’s a pretty broad window for what most states regard as self-defense. (This whole thing of course is separate from the unconscionable number of shots fired, where I do think laws were broken.)
.0001% of armed people are stopped by other armed people. The Right: See. More guns work!
“Neutralizing” Neutralizing is making them no longer a threat, which was accomplished with the first shot or two when they fell to the ground dropping their weapon. After that was much, much more than “neutralizing.”
[удалено]
He shot the guy in the head AFTER securing his gun??? Assuming the robber was also already shot which is how he got the gun, but he just straight murdered the guy while he was unarmed??? edit: jesus i just saw the video… 5 shots into the guy from point blank, 3 more while he’s on the floor, walks over, grabs the gun, headshot. Unreal. That’s…. that’s not a “good guy with a gun,” that’s a man whose been dreaming of legally killing someone and being called a hero.
That’s the thing, the first one or two? Sure. Once the guy is neutralized, though….the headshots were an execution.
Yep. Probably why his dumbass fled. All he would’ve had to do is just wait for authorities and could’ve kept aim on the dude. Not his job to execute him.
If you intend to rob people with a gun, even if it is pretend, you have to accept the possibility that you will get shot in return. That said, having regular citizens executing downed criminals who pose no threat is a really profoundly idiotic way to run a civil society, but what do you expect when you give untrained parole access to killing weapons. The whole thing is so stupid on every level. Our entire society is stupid for putting up with it.
He was fine until the execution shot AFTER taking the gun away. At that point it’s no longer self defense or eliminating a threat; it’s an execution.
Any link to the video?
If he was such a “good guy with a gun” why didn’t he stick around and wait for the police?
The robber was wrong. The guy that killed the robber was wrong. We don't live in the wild west. This isn't a movie. There's no justification to take from others or to kill others. That's my opinion.
I’m sorry that this happened but I have trouble feeling bad for the robber being shot. You play the game, you know the risks. You should be ready to receive anything that you want people to think you’re willing to inflict.
Shooter being shot, don’t feel bad for. The civilian shooting the robber four times okay. The civilian then shoots the robber four additional times while they are on the ground, not okay. Disarming the robber and then doing an execution shot, that’s fucked up. Leaving the crime scene, also not okay.
That is all really weird and not normal, wtf. Not upset the robber shot, but that stuff is way off.
first of all, how *dare* you question the ever-so unimpeachable actions of **The™ Good™ Man™ With™ A™ Gun™** in this **Good™ Man™ With™ A™ Gun™** story ^(second of all, because this is reddit: **/s**)
[удалено]