Some upset that restaurant patron shot armed robber in the back; Updated

[TBoneTX 45,244]

Some upset that restaurant patron shot armed robber in the back; Updated

 

There’s video going around this weekend of an armed robbery at a taqueria in Houston.  KHOU has paused it just before the good part, when a customer in a booth pulls out a gun and kills the armed robber.  [...]

 

https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2023/01/07/some-upset-that-restaurant-patron-shot-armed-robber-in-the-back/

[B_J 2,752]

I'm not bothered by shooting the guy in the back and I'm not necessarily bothered by the number of shots.  But, that last shot, after picking up the gun the bad guy dropped, he shot him one more time.  I hope that doesn't get him in trouble.

[MarJhi 958]

The first few shots I have no issue with, the last few (and the final shot) were unnecessary. That being said, some idiot just pointed a gun at you, so I can see where adrenaline is going to kick in from a life-threatening situation and cause the customer to take it a little further than he needed to. NONE of this would have happened if the robber hadn't threatened the lives of people in the restaurant.

 

The fault lies entirely on the robber, the customer should not be charged.

[TBoneTX 45,244]

1 hour ago, MarJhi said:

the customer should not be charged

Word is that the customer's attorney was in contact with the police, and the latter want to talk to him to find out what happened; no charges are anticipated.  We'll see how true that is.

 

The customer is a hero for (1) ridding the world of a scumbag, and (2) returning the stolen money to the victims on-site.

[yuna628 9,671]

My opinion will likely not be accepted or popular. I simply would like to know why there was a reason to shoot this individual that many times? I would also like to know why the person then left the scene of the crime?

[B_J 2,752]

I don't think there is a problem questioning the number of shots, or questioning that last shot.  I would hope that, if I were in that situation,  I would be able to know when to stop shooting.  In my opinion, he definitely could have stopped shooting once he saw that the guy no longer had the gun in his possession.  But, I also can't imagine what it's like to really be in that situation.  I guess I would choose to give the benefit of the doubt to the guy who was being robbed, not to the robber.  I am also a little concerned about him leaving the scene.  If I remember my CCL training, in that situation we should call our lawyer, the cops, and an ambulance.  Then we sit and wait for the cops to show up.  But I don't know if that's a legal requirement or just something that is recommended.

 

I saw a longer video that shows that, after the shooting, the guy realizes that the bad guy didn't even have a real gun.  He ends up throwing it across the restaurant in anger.  For some reason, that was encouraging to me.  He wasn't excited or happy about killing a criminal.  He was angry about the whole situation.

[Boiler 45,441]

37 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

My opinion will likely not be accepted or popular. I simply would like to know why there was a reason to shoot this individual that many times? I would also like to know why the person then left the scene of the crime?

I can answer that, why not, bullets are relatively cheap and not as if you can carry out an inspection after every shot and see if another one is needed.

 

I agree the last one seems unnecessary but also agree that is an easy comment when you are looking at the video and not there. Might be better to say the last one was no doubt pointless.

[Ban Hammer 13,326]

my thoughts, as a conceal carry holder.

- whether the guy was shot in the back or not does not matter, he was in the middle of armed robbery.  nothing says the conceal carry holder has to shoot the perpetrator in the front

or give the perpetrator fair warning so he turns around.  "fair fight" does not play into this one bit.

- the shots fired after the threat was down and neutralized could well lead to charges.  the general rule of thumb is to shoot until the thread is neutralized and then cease fire.  rapid fire
is not an issue here - neutralizing the threat is, and plenty of hot lead to the torso tends to make that happen.  if the perpetrator is reaching for the firearm after he (or she) is horizontal

on the floor after being hit by "freedom seeds", then further appropriate action should be taken to neutralize that threat - by grabbing his firearm if safely able to, or by more shots. 
-  in summary, actions taken by the conceal carry holder should always be taken with with the mind that they may need to be defended in court.  i'm not seeing the shots after the
perpetrator was neutralized as being needed.

note - a head shot means no reloading

Edited January 9, 2023 by Ban Hammer

[Boiler 45,441]

I am trying to think what you can be charged with for shooting somebody who is dead.

[yuna628 9,671]

10 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

my thoughts, as a conceal carry holder.

- whether the guy was shot in the back or not does not matter, he was in the middle of armed robbery.  nothing says the conceal carry holder has to shoot the perpetrator in the front

or give the perpetrator fair warning so he turns around.  "fair fight" does not play into this one bit.

- the shots fired after the threat was down and neutralized could well lead to charges.  the general rule of thumb is to shoot until the thread is neutralized and then cease fire.  rapid fire
is not an issue here - neutralizing the threat is, and plenty of hot lead to the torso tends to make that happen.  if the perpetrator is reaching for the firearm after he (or she) is horizontal

on the floor after being hit by "freedom seeds", then further appropriate action should be taken to neutralize that threat - by grabbing his firearm if safely able to, or by more shots. 
-  in summary, actions taken by the conceal carry holder should always be taken with with the mind that they may need to be defended in court.  i'm not seeing the shots after the
perpetrator was neutralized as being needed.

note - a head shot means no reloading

Thanks. We are not in disagreement.

[TBoneTX 45,244]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

the last one was no doubt pointless

Thought along this line:  If the guy was already dead, then no harm done.

[Neonred 3,562]

I've seen enough body camera footage to know that when the police are confronted with a "threat" they don't stop at one or two shots.

[B_J 2,752]

I think that last shot could really get him in trouble.  Once he had possession of the other guy's gun, it is pretty hard to justify shooting him again.  There is no real way to argue that he felt threatened at that point. 

[MarJhi 958]

Could it be that the reason the shooter left the scene and disappeared is because he knew there would be people ready and willing to lock him up and throw away the key because he used a gun? There are those who want to criminalize people who defend themselves with a gun in their own homes, so of course he decided to leave and contact a lawyer, who has since been in a negotiation with police about investigating the incident.

 

It does not matter that it wasn't a real gun, it's extremely difficult to tell in the heat of the moment. The moron wasn't killed by the customer,  he was killed by his own stupidity. I've searched and searched and have yet to see the identity of the robber.  My guess is this wasn't his first rodeo and it was only a matter of time before his bad behavior caught up with him. Truth be told, society has rubber stamped his bad behavior by even questioning the right of the average citizen to defend themselves. 

[TBoneTX 45,244]

I have a feeling that the police and prosecutors would get a black eye if they tried to charge this guy with anything at all.