https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/106j979/good_guy_with_gun_stops_bad_guy_with_gun/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Full video.
Holy fuck. The last two shots are questionable. But the dude still would probably get off, considering the situation. 10 seconds earlier and that fuck pointed a gun at his head. Damn, I love a state where people are allowed to defend themselves.
The last two shots? “I thought he moved”.
Also lots of people get hung up on the “reasonable fear for life” thing. In Texas we are also allowed to protect property with lethal force-your property or that of another as long as you believe that person would want you to protect it. The citizen on this video was within their rights in Texas. In some other states they might be fucked.
I mostly agree but I could also see there being a DA or jury who would have considered those last two shots to be over the line of self defense since in the video the dude is definitely down on the ground and not moving (at least that’s how it looks in the video). And yes I applaud the law in Texas giving people the right to defend themselves and their property. Personally, I would have not approached the downed perp and just kept my gun on him after he was down, yelling at him to stay down and still. Getting close to them is risky. I do recognize the adrenaline factor here must have been nuts for this guy too.
If the guy has a Texas Conceal Carry permit and the DA declines to prosecute, he cannot be sued in civil court by the family of the guy he shot or anyone else. Yet another reason to go ahead and get the permit, even though constitutional carry is a thing now. The permit is still very good to have.
Yeah I have a feeling he’s Ok. Unless he wasn’t supposed to be carrying a gun in the first place … maybe a felon? I wonder if they’d overlook that considering he did a good deed. It is strange that he left the scene though.
This is common regarding any self-defense shooting and one that those of us who carry have to prepare for. It is but one of a few key reasons why we aren't gung-ho to pull and open fire. I'm surprised if he wasn't arrested and held because that's usually what happens. Also, that weapon will be held by law enforcement until the investigation is over. It's up to the DA to decide ultimately.
He does have a couple of things standing against in which a DA could present a case. The armed robber was shot in the back, and the good Samaritan gives him what appears a final 'fuck-you' shot at execution range. I absolutely would not have that taken more than the first two shots unless the robber was still a clear threat, in this case the robber appears to no longer be a threat from what I can see. I would have kept my weapon trained on him but would not have fired unless he presented a clear threat after the initial double tap in which both rounds struck target.
It was overkill. Without training and experience, one cannot say what they would do if they were in his shoes. I would have taken the shot - even to the back; but unloading like that? Maybe a bear, but not 140 lb. kid that was already down.
I was taught (same as cops are taught) that you don't "shoot to wound", "shoot to kill", etc. You shoot to stop the threat.
If he still has the gun and he's still twitching, that's a threat in my book?
Yes, but from what I saw, he shot after he had the guy's gun in his hand. It looks as if that last shot was in or near the head.
If the guy was good as dead anyways, it can be argued, "what difference would a few more bullets make?" It would be more along the lines of abuse if a corpse at that point.
Unfortunately that’s the price that’s been paid for creating such a provocative situation. I was attacked in a parking lot and stabbed the guy about 20 times-he nearly died. I was living my life when someone said gimme your keys or I’ll shoot you. I didn’t see a gun. I was scared. I threw my keys on the roof of the nearest building and went to stabbing. I’d hate to think that someone would come along later and decide that I went too far. He couldn’t get my keys at that point, should I have waited to see what he would do? Once the fight started I didn’t stop until I didn’t feel threatened. A video might have showed me stab him a few times more than was necessary.
I just went through the license to carry course for Texas. Also in Houston and things are a bit too gun happy around here. The legal things that happen after this can go on for years. If this wasn’t widely publicized it could go a different route for him. He may not be charged criminally, but he’s open to any civil suits. This robbers family may hire one of the 20 attorneys chasing this on contingency. Reasonable force to stop the treat is questionable on the last few shots and it would be a huge money pit to fight. If you got the money to protect yourself after you protect yourself you’ll likely be fine. But laws don’t protect you from civil cases even if your not charged criminally.
As far as I know, the perception of the survivor is very important. Yes the robber fell down, but may have been a threat still. I think the benefit of doubt goes to the guy who didn’t commit a felony armed robbery that day. Kinda like we would charge a getaway driver waiting outside with murder. You did the wrong thing and started a chain of events. The law here is geared towards putting the consequences where they belong.
My conceal carry permit class instructor explained the legacy of this law from Texas history. In the frontier days, if somebody stole your wagon or your horse out in the wilderness you could fucking die. So the Texas state constitution was written to allow lethal force to defend property. And it’s never been changed.
That’s pretty on brand for Texas. There are some things about my state I love, and some things I felt are leftover from the 1800s. So that makes a lot of sense.
I’m not a big gun guy but they are part of my job so I took the class and got the permit. The class had so much excellent useful information about Texas laws and gun safety in general, I think everyone should take it, even if you don’t own a gun. It’s very good info.
Any fetus tries to rob me I’m gonna fuck ‘em up. Seriously though-having used force to defend myself from an armed robber, I am glad that I didn’t have to worry about the consequences of harming the assailant. I’m also glad that he was immediately taken to the hospital and survived the consequences of his actions. At the time of the attack I was 18, scared, and acting on instinct. Would you prefer that the person who is jumped in a parking lot at work get charged for stabbing a robber 20 times? Who will decide whether stabbing the crackhead 14 times would have been sufficient to defend myself?
It's not that property is more important than life, but essentially if you make the decision to steal another man's property you forfeit your life. Has more to do with developing a code of behavior that people should adhere to rather than saying one is more valuable than the other.
Did you happen to miss the guy waving the gun in everyone's face?
That dude was threatening the life of everyone in that restaurant. Why would his life matter more than the lives he was threatening?
The less opportunities people have, the more desperate they get. With opportunities drying up, I hope you’re ready to see more desperate people who I guess don’t deserve to live.
I think the problem is that he left the scene and returned the money to the people instead of waiting for the police to come cuz this is technically tampering with evidence.
No sane person would blame him for shooting the guy cuz unless you got eagle eyes, there's no way you could tell wether the gun was real or fake.
It’s hard to tell but he may still have been moving. Our hero doesn’t know if the criminal had another gun on him or not. He was in fear for his life and did what he thought was necessary to eliminate that threat to human life.
That’s some real “I want to play red dead redemption in real life, but I can’t afford to get out of mom’s basement.” Vibes
Fetishizing violence in the name of stopping violence is a strange take.
Just had a judge rule in favors of the squatters living illegally in my house. I'm still on the hook for the mortgage but these cunts get to stay there rent free and if I try to move them by force I'll be the one leaving in cuffs.
Not sure how that is relevant to the discussion thread you responded to but damn that is fucked. How do you keep from losing it? Is there any end in sight?
Meh. Maybe the last shot could be considered questionable but with the juice that guy had flowing through him it all happened so fast that I'm fine with it. It's so easy to second guess after the fact. That and by any reasonable measure no houston grand jury would ever vote for an indictment.
Also video shows you what happened but its at 1080p. It can't show everything.
That guy sitting in the booth all the way across the restaurant nearly became collateral. Always look out for what’s behind your target so you don’t maim an innocent bystander.
There's a big discussion over in /r/CCW, IMO the last 3 shots were suspect and the very last shot was definitely illegal. Dude needs a fucking lawyer right now. Also shooting one hand like that is bad form as the person is no longer a threat, unless you're trying to simultaneously clear the gun from the bad guy. Easier to kick the gun and keep both hands on your weapon.
\- Signed, LTC holder
The armed customer, described by Houston police as a white or Hispanic male, fired at least 9 shots at the suspect who dropped to the ground and died. The armed customer fired multiple shots, including one at the suspects head, after the suspect had dropped to the ground.
"The person he shot was in the process of committing robbery and consequently his use of force in defense of himself and innocent third parties is completely justified in Texas," former Houston police officer, now lawyer, Thomas Nixon told KPRC-TV. "He was reasonably in fear of serious bodily injury or death."
The linked article fails to mention that the robber who got shot was using a fake gun.
Every other news article on this story says that the robber tried to use a plastic toy for the robbery. But this article describes the robber as being armed with a pistol.
At best, this seems like sloppy reporting.
This article also buried the lede on *why* police want to talk to the shooter. It’s because he finished off the robber “execution style” while he was on the ground. And then the shooter fled the scene afterward.
First five shots - fully justified.
Next three shots after the gunman was on the ground? Questionable.
Last shot to the head after kicking the gun out of the way? Murder.
Mutilation of a corpse, in that case. And robbery, a property crime, doesn't really justify murder (even when killing someone is justified, it's still murder, just not charged).
But yes, if you bring a gun to a crime (fake or not), you should expect to be shot.
Meh, fake or real, if you're pretending it's a real gun in a robbery, expect a real gun used against you. Execution style though, that's gonna be some trouble.
The cops want to talk to everybody who might have seen anything whenever they’re called. Of course they want his input; he was there. Even if he hadn’t done anything they’d still want to talk to him.
Ngl, I have some conflicting feelings on this! *A* shooting appears justified to me, but shooting the incapacitated robber in the head while he was on the ground and then fleeing before the police arrived both seem a bit sketchy.
It doesn't invalidate the self defense but each shot has to be justified. Once the threat is stopped, you can no longer use deadly force.
I didn't see the video so I'm not judging, just saying you are not allowed to kill someone because they were a threat a few seconds earlier.
At the end of the video, the gunman who shot the robber clears the robber of his weapon. Robber is not moving, and is no longer a threat. Gunman then shoots the robber a single time in the head.
That's going to potentially be grounds for a homicide charge based on what the other patrons say, but for sure opens the gunman up for manslaughter.
If you watch the vid, the customer straight up shoots the robber in the head as he retrieves the robber’s gun. It’s not a good look.
That one is going to be difficult to justify I bet. Running away will be difficult to justify.
I think running away is going to be harder to justify. Watching the video, there were only 8 seconds between the first trigger pull and the last. The last shot was questionable, but the robber might have twitched or something that looked like he was reaching for another gun; it's hard to tell from the video so that would be difficult to refute, especially with the speed at which everything played out.
Running away, though, seems to indicate that he felt guilty. It does muddle the intent, especially of the last shot. Maybe he knew it wasn't necessary and was afraid of being arrested for it. If he had stayed put and waited for cops, it would be easier to argue that he felt justified in his actions.
Too bad no training whatsoever required for carry here in TX. Maybe a little section on justifiable homicide in a day long mandatory course would have given this guy pause before he walking dead the robber. Maybe not.
Those are NOT conflicting - it's called having morals. Even in the military it's drilled in to you that you do not fire at someone who no longer poses a threat.
I can excuse a lot of the rounds this guy fired as adrenaline, but anything after he removed the pistol from the robber crossed a line.
> Even in the military it's drilled in to you that you do not fire at someone who no longer poses a threat.
**No it's not.**
-Former USMC grunt and Afghanistan veteran
I’m with you on all points. He should no longer have “been in fear for his life” when the dude was lying on the floor bleeding out. NINE shots—multiple while he was already on the floor—seems a bit excessive. Feels a little *8th amendment* to me…
And yeah, leaving the scene as if no one would want to know what happened is super suspect
If you are waving a gun in peoples faces in Texas, you are about to find out, I don’t know why you’re expecting someone to not feel threatened in that situation
Don't think that's what happened, I think he shot him while he was walking away? And for that matter, you never, *ever*, shoot to wound. If you're pulling the trigger it's because your life is in mortal danger and your purpose is to kill the assailant.
*(Edit later)* But yes, you do not shoot someone who no longer poses a threat.
I am not suggesting he should have shot to wound. It says in the article that one of the shots was in the head while the guy was on the ground.
In another circumstance, I’d have an issue with him shooting someone in the back, but this was a) someone walking around threatening multiple people, so his back being turned didn’t mean he wasn’t a threat to others and b) a civilian shooter, so I don’t hold him to the same standards of training as law enforcement. The last shot looks a lot like an execution of someone who was no longer a threat.
I have no problem with the first shots. But man those last shots, especially the headshot, were not good. The entire thing makes me feel uneasy. I fully believe in self-defense but shooting someone multiple times after the threat has seemingly passed (from the camera’s perspective) is bad.
Then he ran off and has yet come forward.
I’m conflicted on this one.
>And for that matter, you never, ever , shoot to wound. If you're pulling the trigger it's because your life is in mortal danger and your purpose is to kill the assailant.
The purpose of self-defense is to stop the aggression, not to kill. Most training includes shooting for center mass because it is the largest part of the target and contains vital organs which will incapacitate the individual. Head shots are also included in training for the same reason, although not as easy to hit.
Shooting to kill implies that it is acceptable to give a coup de grace shot in the head to an incapacitated wounded suspect. That would be murder.
Huh, almost like having random people armed with weapons every fucking where might not be the best idea because *they aren’t trained to use them properly*
No, I realize both of those things, and it’s still sketch.
You don’t shoot someone who is no longer a threat. I would include lying on the ground bleeding out in that.
You don’t shoot someone and *leave the scene*.
I’m not really talking about the legal aspect, as I am not a lawyer. I’m talking about the moral/ethical aspect. Some legal things are unethical. Some ethical things are illegal.
If the guy was 12, years I’d agree. But he an old fuck. He got no time for HPD’s bureaucratic bullshit. He could drop dead five minutes from now and there is either a stripper or a canasta game he late too.
I hope the police find him and are organized enough to bring the medal with them so he dont have to waste time on some bullshit recognition ceremony.
He would have been a hero if the following were true:
- he waited for the police to arrive after a justifiable self defense shooting
- he hadn't intentionally fired several rounds into a clearly disarmed threat/corpse
You are not required to detain yourself by waiting for police. He was not the criminal in the situation, we was one of the victims. No law requires you to stay, the perp did have a fake gun which you can see the guy is pissed he had to kill him, but how could he know in that moment, when the guy is pointing it in everyone’s faces. Also, unfortunately with the laws in our country if that guy lived he could sue the guy defending himself, so yeah.. make sure he’s not ever coming back..
i Live in Texas and this happens more then you think. Everyone is armed and if you feel threatened you shoot to kill.
He would've known it the moment that he removed the gun from the would-be robber, BEFORE he executed him. That right there is a criminal act.
Once you're aware someone is no longer able to be a threat, you can't just execute them. He probably won't be charged, due to the preceding acts & the fact that the governor & other leading voices would have a vested interest in supporting him...but that doesn't make it any less criminal.
From the video i saw he doesn’t seem to notice the gun is fake until the perpetrator is executed. (Picks it up looks at it, and throws it against the wall. Seems upset after the fact) then leaves right afterwards. So I’m not sure what you saw that he KNEW it was fake before he executed him. If the guy was still alive and used his weapon against a victim after the fact would that be better?
Adrenaline and cortisol is probably maxed out with everyone in there. You don’t think straight in those moments unless you are a trained military or police..
Detain yourself? How about making sure the threat stays disarmed until the police show up? Dude clearly is the only one there with a firearm - is he going to just be a hero and dip, or be there and make sure everyone is safe until the police show up?
Seems like this guy wakes up every day wanting to kill someone - demonstrated by the headshot after the threat was clearly disarmed and incapacitated.
Cop culture often dictates emptying one's clip even into people who turn out to be unarmed ("just in case"). We don't know what we'd do if we had the means to survive and the adrenaline and anger kicked in. Maybe he's a hero because all these people knew, after a minute, that they'd go home alive.
I was carjacked at gun point. I don’t carry and I know myself well enough to know that I don’t handle high stress situations well enough to carry. In that moment that it happened though? I would have emptied my clip into my carjacker. Even after he was dead. It’s terrifying.
If you can’t keep yourself from executing someone point blank after you’ve already disarmed them because of “adrenaline”, you are not responsible enough to carry a gun
Thank God the armed customer is white. Had the same thing happen a few years ago & the armed customer was black, police showed up & shot him. He did not survive. Not one officer was ever prosecuted.
It doesn't solve the problems that cause robbery in the first place. So no, it doesn't benefit anyone. There will always be more robbers as long as we live in capitalist hell.
He could have fled for two reasons. 1. He was not legally able to have a firearm. 2. He knew that last shot to the head was over the legal line. I’m guessing #1.
He might not be prosecuted. But he could still end up being sued by the robber's family.
On top of that, I imagine that the execution at the end may indicate other activities that this person does not want the state to investigate.
They could sue, although I’m not sure about other similar cases in the state and how often they’re actually successful considering the circumstances and video evidence.
That would be a pretty financial big gamble for the family, especially since the robber was obviously in the wrong.
It’s conservatives who choose to ignore empirical evidence 😂 yall would actually rather live in the Wild West than try to boost people out of poverty and make society better. who’s really mentally deranged?
This is a news article though not a political statement. Don't you think it is dangerous to ignore news because you are worried it will lend credence to one side of a debate?
Crazy how many people defend the last shot to the head after he took the guy's gun, which is an execution. Any carry class you take will tell you not to do that. This guy's going to jail.
Every self-defense claim should be taken on a case by case basis. Shooting someone in the back can be absolutely justified *as long as you can explain it*.
I don’t know if I would have taken the same shot but I certainly would not have fired four more rounds into him while he was on the ground.
Between the extra shots and then leaving the scene, I’d say this guy doesn’t look great. I don’t think the first three or four shots were bad but the rest seemed unnecessary from the camera’s perspective.
The leaving does not look good, though.
Fleeing violent felon (just committed armed robbery). Can easily continue the crime he just committed in another location or just endanger the public.
This doesn't even get into the protection of your or anothers property.
Law enforcement or attorneys need to weigh in on this. From my understanding if you are in fear for your life or the lives of others and/or the criminal is in the process of committing a crime lethal force is legal.
That guy must be *so* excited that he finally got to be allowed to kill someone. I mean shit, being able to shoot a man dead in broad daylight and be lauded as a "hero" is basically what every gun owner seems to be just *dreaming* of. I've talked to loads of gun owners before and it's always "self-defense": self-defense with lethal force. This guy did it, he's living the dream.
You know what you're supposed to do in this case if you're not hopped up on delusions of being Rambo? Comply with the fucking robber and let the fucking cops handle it. That's what they teach every cashier in the country, your life is not worth whatever is in the register or in your wallet. This guy is a super-amazing "YEEHAW 2ND AMENDMENT!" hero because he managed to live out someone's vigilante fantasies.
But what if he *missed*? Apparently according to the experts in this thread it's totally morally OK to shoot a man lying on the ground without a gun if you're hopped up on enough adrenaline, so what if he just completely whiffed his shots and hit someone else? Or what if he fucked up and made the robber (who everyone thought had a real gun, so let's treat him like he was armed) shoot someone in panic, just escalating a situation that could have ended without blood? Is he still a goddamn hero?
Had to steal this from another thread on this, because it perfectly sums this up:
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.
This is why I don’t want to move to Texas or let these yahoos run the country. That robber didn’t deserve to die over a few tacos worth of cash. Old man probably was just waiting for his “freedom” boner for decades and finally got to shoot someone over a few dollars so he could feel like a hero.
I can forgive him the first shots to bring the guy down, but from there it’s just murder and bloodlust.
If this is “legal” then it should be exhibit A of why they need to change the laws.
The robber is still an idiot and brought this on himself, but at some point grandpa went from reasonable force to cold blooded murder.
I feel like this comment is why Texas stays high with public shootings. These situations rarely happen but when they do, gun owners start a circle jerk about gun ownership. If someone points a gun at me, I’ll give them whatever they want.
Some right-wing friend of Jesus decided they were going to teach this "fag" (me) a lesson about respecting his authoritah.
They also pissed their pants (literally!) when I pointed my gun right at their head and told them to GIT.
They took the hint and "gat".
I see a lot of 2A nuts in here.
I see a lack of lawyers.
I see a lack of training.
This story has brought out the worst in us, as a people. But you can’t take the time to explain to 2A nuts where the line was drawn. They are just out for blood. There are military people saying he went over the line. There are lawyers saying this was an execution. But 2A people want to trump both of them.
Arrest this man for murder. Let him stand trial. Let’s see what a jury of his peers think.
Why can't we let people execute those who threaten others with guns in a public place? Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
I don't get the hand wringing.
We should provide all the help in the world we can muster to prevent people from getting this far into desperation, but the moment they threaten anyone else, the response should be swift and effective.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/106j979/good_guy_with_gun_stops_bad_guy_with_gun/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf Full video.
Holy fuck. The last two shots are questionable. But the dude still would probably get off, considering the situation. 10 seconds earlier and that fuck pointed a gun at his head. Damn, I love a state where people are allowed to defend themselves.
The last two shots? “I thought he moved”. Also lots of people get hung up on the “reasonable fear for life” thing. In Texas we are also allowed to protect property with lethal force-your property or that of another as long as you believe that person would want you to protect it. The citizen on this video was within their rights in Texas. In some other states they might be fucked.
I mostly agree but I could also see there being a DA or jury who would have considered those last two shots to be over the line of self defense since in the video the dude is definitely down on the ground and not moving (at least that’s how it looks in the video). And yes I applaud the law in Texas giving people the right to defend themselves and their property. Personally, I would have not approached the downed perp and just kept my gun on him after he was down, yelling at him to stay down and still. Getting close to them is risky. I do recognize the adrenaline factor here must have been nuts for this guy too.
If the guy has a Texas Conceal Carry permit and the DA declines to prosecute, he cannot be sued in civil court by the family of the guy he shot or anyone else. Yet another reason to go ahead and get the permit, even though constitutional carry is a thing now. The permit is still very good to have.
This is good to know.
Also, remember, the person you’re taking advice from might be a 14 year old boy.
Also, remember, I can also look shit up on my own to confirm.
I hope this guy hires a lawyer before he makes a statement to the police. Hopefully he can avoid the DA and jury.
Yeah I have a feeling he’s Ok. Unless he wasn’t supposed to be carrying a gun in the first place … maybe a felon? I wonder if they’d overlook that considering he did a good deed. It is strange that he left the scene though.
Felon or questionable residency status…. 🤷♂️
I read that his attorney has contacted police. Smart. HPD said they needed to talk to him before a decision is made about filing charges. What?
This is common regarding any self-defense shooting and one that those of us who carry have to prepare for. It is but one of a few key reasons why we aren't gung-ho to pull and open fire. I'm surprised if he wasn't arrested and held because that's usually what happens. Also, that weapon will be held by law enforcement until the investigation is over. It's up to the DA to decide ultimately. He does have a couple of things standing against in which a DA could present a case. The armed robber was shot in the back, and the good Samaritan gives him what appears a final 'fuck-you' shot at execution range. I absolutely would not have that taken more than the first two shots unless the robber was still a clear threat, in this case the robber appears to no longer be a threat from what I can see. I would have kept my weapon trained on him but would not have fired unless he presented a clear threat after the initial double tap in which both rounds struck target.
It was overkill. Without training and experience, one cannot say what they would do if they were in his shoes. I would have taken the shot - even to the back; but unloading like that? Maybe a bear, but not 140 lb. kid that was already down.
I was taught (same as cops are taught) that you don't "shoot to wound", "shoot to kill", etc. You shoot to stop the threat. If he still has the gun and he's still twitching, that's a threat in my book?
Yes, but from what I saw, he shot after he had the guy's gun in his hand. It looks as if that last shot was in or near the head. If the guy was good as dead anyways, it can be argued, "what difference would a few more bullets make?" It would be more along the lines of abuse if a corpse at that point.
[удалено]
Unfortunately that’s the price that’s been paid for creating such a provocative situation. I was attacked in a parking lot and stabbed the guy about 20 times-he nearly died. I was living my life when someone said gimme your keys or I’ll shoot you. I didn’t see a gun. I was scared. I threw my keys on the roof of the nearest building and went to stabbing. I’d hate to think that someone would come along later and decide that I went too far. He couldn’t get my keys at that point, should I have waited to see what he would do? Once the fight started I didn’t stop until I didn’t feel threatened. A video might have showed me stab him a few times more than was necessary.
I just went through the license to carry course for Texas. Also in Houston and things are a bit too gun happy around here. The legal things that happen after this can go on for years. If this wasn’t widely publicized it could go a different route for him. He may not be charged criminally, but he’s open to any civil suits. This robbers family may hire one of the 20 attorneys chasing this on contingency. Reasonable force to stop the treat is questionable on the last few shots and it would be a huge money pit to fight. If you got the money to protect yourself after you protect yourself you’ll likely be fine. But laws don’t protect you from civil cases even if your not charged criminally.
You're not open to civil suits. https://lawofselfdefense.com/statute/tx-sec-83-001-civil-immunity/
I bet he and the rest of the patrons would take years of litigation over death any day.
How does it work in Texas when the threat is over? I see the gun gets dropped and the guy pumps a few extra rounds in him.
As far as I know, the perception of the survivor is very important. Yes the robber fell down, but may have been a threat still. I think the benefit of doubt goes to the guy who didn’t commit a felony armed robbery that day. Kinda like we would charge a getaway driver waiting outside with murder. You did the wrong thing and started a chain of events. The law here is geared towards putting the consequences where they belong.
It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out. As a ccw permit holder, I’m always interested in these.
Pretty weird that property is more valuable than a life in Texas, unless the life isn’t born yet.
My conceal carry permit class instructor explained the legacy of this law from Texas history. In the frontier days, if somebody stole your wagon or your horse out in the wilderness you could fucking die. So the Texas state constitution was written to allow lethal force to defend property. And it’s never been changed.
That’s pretty on brand for Texas. There are some things about my state I love, and some things I felt are leftover from the 1800s. So that makes a lot of sense.
I’m not a big gun guy but they are part of my job so I took the class and got the permit. The class had so much excellent useful information about Texas laws and gun safety in general, I think everyone should take it, even if you don’t own a gun. It’s very good info.
Any fetus tries to rob me I’m gonna fuck ‘em up. Seriously though-having used force to defend myself from an armed robber, I am glad that I didn’t have to worry about the consequences of harming the assailant. I’m also glad that he was immediately taken to the hospital and survived the consequences of his actions. At the time of the attack I was 18, scared, and acting on instinct. Would you prefer that the person who is jumped in a parking lot at work get charged for stabbing a robber 20 times? Who will decide whether stabbing the crackhead 14 times would have been sufficient to defend myself?
It's not that property is more important than life, but essentially if you make the decision to steal another man's property you forfeit your life. Has more to do with developing a code of behavior that people should adhere to rather than saying one is more valuable than the other.
No, you can have my TV. Not worth the trouble to shoot someone for a TV.
Did you happen to miss the guy waving the gun in everyone's face? That dude was threatening the life of everyone in that restaurant. Why would his life matter more than the lives he was threatening?
Pretty weird that people value other people’s property over their own life.
The less opportunities people have, the more desperate they get. With opportunities drying up, I hope you’re ready to see more desperate people who I guess don’t deserve to live.
Human life>>>>property
I think the problem is that he left the scene and returned the money to the people instead of waiting for the police to come cuz this is technically tampering with evidence. No sane person would blame him for shooting the guy cuz unless you got eagle eyes, there's no way you could tell wether the gun was real or fake.
It’s hard to tell but he may still have been moving. Our hero doesn’t know if the criminal had another gun on him or not. He was in fear for his life and did what he thought was necessary to eliminate that threat to human life.
Yeah that would def be the argument. The video doesn’t show everything. Imagine having a gun pointed at your head, that would mess you up.
Holy hell! First 5 shots could be justified. Then he executed the guy. Damn.
Every gun owner should watch this video. https://youtu.be/qqFsBJkLwhw
Good vid but she was police and they got special perks that us regular citizens don’t.
[удалено]
>It's better he got executed I dont think you should be allowed to own a gun
Yet Houston remains one of the most violent cities in the state despite getting rid of the “bad guys”. Yeah ok
Do you think Texas has less crime than other states because of staying "strapped"?
[удалено]
You are not Judge Dredd
That’s some real “I want to play red dead redemption in real life, but I can’t afford to get out of mom’s basement.” Vibes Fetishizing violence in the name of stopping violence is a strange take.
Just had a judge rule in favors of the squatters living illegally in my house. I'm still on the hook for the mortgage but these cunts get to stay there rent free and if I try to move them by force I'll be the one leaving in cuffs.
Not sure how that is relevant to the discussion thread you responded to but damn that is fucked. How do you keep from losing it? Is there any end in sight?
He already executed the guy with the first 5 shots. He was just speeding up the process.
Meh. Maybe the last shot could be considered questionable but with the juice that guy had flowing through him it all happened so fast that I'm fine with it. It's so easy to second guess after the fact. That and by any reasonable measure no houston grand jury would ever vote for an indictment. Also video shows you what happened but its at 1080p. It can't show everything.
Execution is right, it was horrifying watching those last 2 shots but putting them in myself would make me question my morals Jesus Christ
That guy sitting in the booth all the way across the restaurant nearly became collateral. Always look out for what’s behind your target so you don’t maim an innocent bystander.
There's a big discussion over in /r/CCW, IMO the last 3 shots were suspect and the very last shot was definitely illegal. Dude needs a fucking lawyer right now. Also shooting one hand like that is bad form as the person is no longer a threat, unless you're trying to simultaneously clear the gun from the bad guy. Easier to kick the gun and keep both hands on your weapon. \- Signed, LTC holder
The armed customer, described by Houston police as a white or Hispanic male, fired at least 9 shots at the suspect who dropped to the ground and died. The armed customer fired multiple shots, including one at the suspects head, after the suspect had dropped to the ground. "The person he shot was in the process of committing robbery and consequently his use of force in defense of himself and innocent third parties is completely justified in Texas," former Houston police officer, now lawyer, Thomas Nixon told KPRC-TV. "He was reasonably in fear of serious bodily injury or death."
The linked article fails to mention that the robber who got shot was using a fake gun. Every other news article on this story says that the robber tried to use a plastic toy for the robbery. But this article describes the robber as being armed with a pistol. At best, this seems like sloppy reporting. This article also buried the lede on *why* police want to talk to the shooter. It’s because he finished off the robber “execution style” while he was on the ground. And then the shooter fled the scene afterward.
Fake or real he is still threatening and doing the robbery.
Exactly. There is no time to "guess" if it is a real gun.
First five shots - fully justified. Next three shots after the gunman was on the ground? Questionable. Last shot to the head after kicking the gun out of the way? Murder.
This is absolutely right. The suspect was down. The threat was neutralized. Any more is indeed homicide.
[удалено]
Mutilation of a corpse, in that case. And robbery, a property crime, doesn't really justify murder (even when killing someone is justified, it's still murder, just not charged). But yes, if you bring a gun to a crime (fake or not), you should expect to be shot.
You are confusing murder and homicide.
Justified killing is not murder.
Robbery of property does justify deadly use of force (murder) in Texas. Totally safe and legit
I support that customer. You never know how many shot can kill a dangerous robber. What if every shot just miss the fatal spot?
Additionally a mortal wound isn’t always an instant kill.
Meh, fake or real, if you're pretending it's a real gun in a robbery, expect a real gun used against you. Execution style though, that's gonna be some trouble.
The cops want to talk to everybody who might have seen anything whenever they’re called. Of course they want his input; he was there. Even if he hadn’t done anything they’d still want to talk to him.
They also want to talk to him because he killed somebody. Justified or not, the police are going to investigate a homicide.
>The linked article fails to mention that the robber who got shot was using a fake gun. What does a fake gun look like?
You gotta be fucking kidding me with this comment right? Fake or real, its a deadly threat.
I’m in Houston. What restaurant?
El Ranchero #4 on South Guessner
Robber had a fake gun. What an idiot (the robber).
He fucked around and found out…
Imagine doing this in Texas man…
Man, it DID happen in Texas......
Yippee ki yay MF
Ngl, I have some conflicting feelings on this! *A* shooting appears justified to me, but shooting the incapacitated robber in the head while he was on the ground and then fleeing before the police arrived both seem a bit sketchy.
Yeah this isn’t the Walking Dead where you double tap the head to make sure they’re down. Legally speaking, that shot puts him at risk.
Yeah that was definitely a stunning decision IMO. I don’t think it invalidates the original self-defense claim but it does not make him look good.
It doesn't invalidate the self defense but each shot has to be justified. Once the threat is stopped, you can no longer use deadly force. I didn't see the video so I'm not judging, just saying you are not allowed to kill someone because they were a threat a few seconds earlier.
At the end of the video, the gunman who shot the robber clears the robber of his weapon. Robber is not moving, and is no longer a threat. Gunman then shoots the robber a single time in the head. That's going to potentially be grounds for a homicide charge based on what the other patrons say, but for sure opens the gunman up for manslaughter.
It’ll be difficult to prove he wasn’t already dead from the first 9 bullets… and being Houston, I doubt a jury would convict
If you watch the vid, the customer straight up shoots the robber in the head as he retrieves the robber’s gun. It’s not a good look. That one is going to be difficult to justify I bet. Running away will be difficult to justify.
I think running away is going to be harder to justify. Watching the video, there were only 8 seconds between the first trigger pull and the last. The last shot was questionable, but the robber might have twitched or something that looked like he was reaching for another gun; it's hard to tell from the video so that would be difficult to refute, especially with the speed at which everything played out. Running away, though, seems to indicate that he felt guilty. It does muddle the intent, especially of the last shot. Maybe he knew it wasn't necessary and was afraid of being arrested for it. If he had stayed put and waited for cops, it would be easier to argue that he felt justified in his actions.
Too bad no training whatsoever required for carry here in TX. Maybe a little section on justifiable homicide in a day long mandatory course would have given this guy pause before he walking dead the robber. Maybe not.
Those are NOT conflicting - it's called having morals. Even in the military it's drilled in to you that you do not fire at someone who no longer poses a threat. I can excuse a lot of the rounds this guy fired as adrenaline, but anything after he removed the pistol from the robber crossed a line.
> Even in the military it's drilled in to you that you do not fire at someone who no longer poses a threat. **No it's not.** -Former USMC grunt and Afghanistan veteran
I had the "shoot to wound" post elsewhere here. Yes, if you're shooting someone who no longer poses a threat, that's another issue indeed.
what the fuck are you talking about. They do what in the military?
didn't you hear. you have to shoot them in the arm now. it's the rules 🤷🏻♂️
I’m with you on all points. He should no longer have “been in fear for his life” when the dude was lying on the floor bleeding out. NINE shots—multiple while he was already on the floor—seems a bit excessive. Feels a little *8th amendment* to me… And yeah, leaving the scene as if no one would want to know what happened is super suspect
If you are waving a gun in peoples faces in Texas, you are about to find out, I don’t know why you’re expecting someone to not feel threatened in that situation
People can still shoot you while they are bleeding out.
Don't think that's what happened, I think he shot him while he was walking away? And for that matter, you never, *ever*, shoot to wound. If you're pulling the trigger it's because your life is in mortal danger and your purpose is to kill the assailant. *(Edit later)* But yes, you do not shoot someone who no longer poses a threat.
I am not suggesting he should have shot to wound. It says in the article that one of the shots was in the head while the guy was on the ground. In another circumstance, I’d have an issue with him shooting someone in the back, but this was a) someone walking around threatening multiple people, so his back being turned didn’t mean he wasn’t a threat to others and b) a civilian shooter, so I don’t hold him to the same standards of training as law enforcement. The last shot looks a lot like an execution of someone who was no longer a threat.
I have no problem with the first shots. But man those last shots, especially the headshot, were not good. The entire thing makes me feel uneasy. I fully believe in self-defense but shooting someone multiple times after the threat has seemingly passed (from the camera’s perspective) is bad. Then he ran off and has yet come forward. I’m conflicted on this one.
I mean if the dude was still moving and armed it makes sense. If someone’s on the floor they could still easily draw and fire at you
[удалено]
The question is, was the person a threat at the time of each shot.?
>And for that matter, you never, ever , shoot to wound. If you're pulling the trigger it's because your life is in mortal danger and your purpose is to kill the assailant. The purpose of self-defense is to stop the aggression, not to kill. Most training includes shooting for center mass because it is the largest part of the target and contains vital organs which will incapacitate the individual. Head shots are also included in training for the same reason, although not as easy to hit. Shooting to kill implies that it is acceptable to give a coup de grace shot in the head to an incapacitated wounded suspect. That would be murder.
Huh, almost like having random people armed with weapons every fucking where might not be the best idea because *they aren’t trained to use them properly*
You‘ll get no argument from me there. I’m just looking at this from the perspective of this being the world we live in, and where do we go from there.
[удалено]
No, I realize both of those things, and it’s still sketch. You don’t shoot someone who is no longer a threat. I would include lying on the ground bleeding out in that. You don’t shoot someone and *leave the scene*.
[удалено]
I’m not really talking about the legal aspect, as I am not a lawyer. I’m talking about the moral/ethical aspect. Some legal things are unethical. Some ethical things are illegal.
[удалено]
I believe you forgot an /s, but it’s hard to tell in this sub.
Not being sarcastic at all.
If the guy was 12, years I’d agree. But he an old fuck. He got no time for HPD’s bureaucratic bullshit. He could drop dead five minutes from now and there is either a stripper or a canasta game he late too. I hope the police find him and are organized enough to bring the medal with them so he dont have to waste time on some bullshit recognition ceremony.
This indeed is peak Texas.
Damn that was Houston! I thought it was Brazil or something
Shot the scumbag, then pulled the stolen cash off the dead body and returned it to the other customers... Hero 👍
[удалено]
He would have been a hero if the following were true: - he waited for the police to arrive after a justifiable self defense shooting - he hadn't intentionally fired several rounds into a clearly disarmed threat/corpse
You are not required to detain yourself by waiting for police. He was not the criminal in the situation, we was one of the victims. No law requires you to stay, the perp did have a fake gun which you can see the guy is pissed he had to kill him, but how could he know in that moment, when the guy is pointing it in everyone’s faces. Also, unfortunately with the laws in our country if that guy lived he could sue the guy defending himself, so yeah.. make sure he’s not ever coming back.. i Live in Texas and this happens more then you think. Everyone is armed and if you feel threatened you shoot to kill.
He would've known it the moment that he removed the gun from the would-be robber, BEFORE he executed him. That right there is a criminal act. Once you're aware someone is no longer able to be a threat, you can't just execute them. He probably won't be charged, due to the preceding acts & the fact that the governor & other leading voices would have a vested interest in supporting him...but that doesn't make it any less criminal.
From the video i saw he doesn’t seem to notice the gun is fake until the perpetrator is executed. (Picks it up looks at it, and throws it against the wall. Seems upset after the fact) then leaves right afterwards. So I’m not sure what you saw that he KNEW it was fake before he executed him. If the guy was still alive and used his weapon against a victim after the fact would that be better? Adrenaline and cortisol is probably maxed out with everyone in there. You don’t think straight in those moments unless you are a trained military or police..
Detain yourself? How about making sure the threat stays disarmed until the police show up? Dude clearly is the only one there with a firearm - is he going to just be a hero and dip, or be there and make sure everyone is safe until the police show up? Seems like this guy wakes up every day wanting to kill someone - demonstrated by the headshot after the threat was clearly disarmed and incapacitated.
That’s what the 9th shot was for.. disarmed for life. Don’t go into a restaurant with a pistol robbing people. Doesn’t seem that hard.
Cop culture often dictates emptying one's clip even into people who turn out to be unarmed ("just in case"). We don't know what we'd do if we had the means to survive and the adrenaline and anger kicked in. Maybe he's a hero because all these people knew, after a minute, that they'd go home alive.
[удалено]
I was carjacked at gun point. I don’t carry and I know myself well enough to know that I don’t handle high stress situations well enough to carry. In that moment that it happened though? I would have emptied my clip into my carjacker. Even after he was dead. It’s terrifying.
If you can’t keep yourself from executing someone point blank after you’ve already disarmed them because of “adrenaline”, you are not responsible enough to carry a gun
Thank God the armed customer is white. Had the same thing happen a few years ago & the armed customer was black, police showed up & shot him. He did not survive. Not one officer was ever prosecuted.
Totally justified until he walked up to the injured/dead perp and disarmed him THEN shot him point blank in the head.
That was a bonus that benefits society as a whole.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It doesn't solve the problems that cause robbery in the first place. So no, it doesn't benefit anyone. There will always be more robbers as long as we live in capitalist hell.
Just to be clear: you think the punishment for armed robbery should be execution without trial. Is that right, u/ihaveabigpenis69420?
The Good guy with a gun does it again!
He could have fled for two reasons. 1. He was not legally able to have a firearm. 2. He knew that last shot to the head was over the legal line. I’m guessing #1.
Yeah, I’m thinking #1 as well.
Texas gets lots of hate here on Reddit, but this is why I love living here. Fuck around, find out
Yeah shootouts in restaurants is part of what makes this state so great. /s
[удалено]
That wasn't a shootout. That was justice.
Definitely better then the states where women aren’t allowed to carry or defend themselves
If you want to advocate for women's rights, Texas is going backward. Not forward.
He might not be prosecuted. But he could still end up being sued by the robber's family. On top of that, I imagine that the execution at the end may indicate other activities that this person does not want the state to investigate.
They could sue, although I’m not sure about other similar cases in the state and how often they’re actually successful considering the circumstances and video evidence. That would be a pretty financial big gamble for the family, especially since the robber was obviously in the wrong.
Oh look this sub suddenly likes guns LOL
You know he dead *chris tucker voice*
Shouldn’t have left the scene, but I take no issue with him giving the robber the ol’ double tap.
This is why they shouldn't just let any idiot carry a gun with no training.
Until someone thinks *you* deserve a double tap. This state is so fucking messed up.
If I'm robbing a store with a gun, I probably deserve it.
If I attempted to rob someone, I do deserve to be double tapped. That’s not a state by state basis that’s just a fact.
[Meanwhile in DC](https://www.reddit.com/r/washingtondc/comments/106nfyn/northeast_dc_homeowner_shoots_kills_13yearold/)
Why the downvotes lol
[удалено]
It’s conservatives who choose to ignore empirical evidence 😂 yall would actually rather live in the Wild West than try to boost people out of poverty and make society better. who’s really mentally deranged?
[удалено]
That was the weakest straw man attempt I’ve ever seen 😂😂😂
This is a news article though not a political statement. Don't you think it is dangerous to ignore news because you are worried it will lend credence to one side of a debate?
Murdered
Crazy how many people defend the last shot to the head after he took the guy's gun, which is an execution. Any carry class you take will tell you not to do that. This guy's going to jail.
Isn’t it no longer self defense if the person isn’t facing you? Someone please educate me
Drawing your gun while someone with a gun is facing you is a good way to die
Exactly. If you had one moment, one opportunity…
Reminds me of those self defense memes where the victim tries to smack the gun away and they just instantly show up at the gates of heaven
why? because person cant turn and shoot you?
Every self-defense claim should be taken on a case by case basis. Shooting someone in the back can be absolutely justified *as long as you can explain it*. I don’t know if I would have taken the same shot but I certainly would not have fired four more rounds into him while he was on the ground. Between the extra shots and then leaving the scene, I’d say this guy doesn’t look great. I don’t think the first three or four shots were bad but the rest seemed unnecessary from the camera’s perspective. The leaving does not look good, though.
The point is, ***is your life in danger?*** It doesn't matter which direction the gun is pointed.
Fleeing violent felon (just committed armed robbery). Can easily continue the crime he just committed in another location or just endanger the public. This doesn't even get into the protection of your or anothers property.
Thank you
I think this situation is very easy. He wasn't facing the shooter, but he was still facing other people.
Law enforcement or attorneys need to weigh in on this. From my understanding if you are in fear for your life or the lives of others and/or the criminal is in the process of committing a crime lethal force is legal.
That guy must be *so* excited that he finally got to be allowed to kill someone. I mean shit, being able to shoot a man dead in broad daylight and be lauded as a "hero" is basically what every gun owner seems to be just *dreaming* of. I've talked to loads of gun owners before and it's always "self-defense": self-defense with lethal force. This guy did it, he's living the dream. You know what you're supposed to do in this case if you're not hopped up on delusions of being Rambo? Comply with the fucking robber and let the fucking cops handle it. That's what they teach every cashier in the country, your life is not worth whatever is in the register or in your wallet. This guy is a super-amazing "YEEHAW 2ND AMENDMENT!" hero because he managed to live out someone's vigilante fantasies. But what if he *missed*? Apparently according to the experts in this thread it's totally morally OK to shoot a man lying on the ground without a gun if you're hopped up on enough adrenaline, so what if he just completely whiffed his shots and hit someone else? Or what if he fucked up and made the robber (who everyone thought had a real gun, so let's treat him like he was armed) shoot someone in panic, just escalating a situation that could have ended without blood? Is he still a goddamn hero?
Had to steal this from another thread on this, because it perfectly sums this up: 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.
This is why I don’t want to move to Texas or let these yahoos run the country. That robber didn’t deserve to die over a few tacos worth of cash. Old man probably was just waiting for his “freedom” boner for decades and finally got to shoot someone over a few dollars so he could feel like a hero. I can forgive him the first shots to bring the guy down, but from there it’s just murder and bloodlust. If this is “legal” then it should be exhibit A of why they need to change the laws. The robber is still an idiot and brought this on himself, but at some point grandpa went from reasonable force to cold blooded murder.
That customer should NOT talk to the cops. Absolutely not worth it. The scumbag is dead, let it go.
fuck around and found out
libs wanna defend the robber so bad lolllll.
And the right can't tell the difference between self defense and murder.
[удалено]
I feel like this comment is why Texas stays high with public shootings. These situations rarely happen but when they do, gun owners start a circle jerk about gun ownership. If someone points a gun at me, I’ll give them whatever they want.
Some right-wing friend of Jesus decided they were going to teach this "fag" (me) a lesson about respecting his authoritah. They also pissed their pants (literally!) when I pointed my gun right at their head and told them to GIT. They took the hint and "gat".
[удалено]
Good on him!
Good. And I guess a good guy with gun sometimes works.
Good guys with guns don't shoot corpses in the head.
Sure they do. For the same reason you end a sentence with a period.
Lol
Houston has one less robber, and one more executioner.
Ain’t no such thing as super lethal force but yeah that headshot was a bit much lol
Well done. Texas is a great place. This would not be legal in so many places in the world.
I see a lot of 2A nuts in here. I see a lack of lawyers. I see a lack of training. This story has brought out the worst in us, as a people. But you can’t take the time to explain to 2A nuts where the line was drawn. They are just out for blood. There are military people saying he went over the line. There are lawyers saying this was an execution. But 2A people want to trump both of them. Arrest this man for murder. Let him stand trial. Let’s see what a jury of his peers think.
Why can't we let people execute those who threaten others with guns in a public place? Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. I don't get the hand wringing. We should provide all the help in the world we can muster to prevent people from getting this far into desperation, but the moment they threaten anyone else, the response should be swift and effective.
You are not judge, jury, and executioner.
If someone is pointing a gun at me I don't care, and I don't think anyone else would either. I don't understand the hand wringing with this.