User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 7:15:53 PM EDT
[#1]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 7:18:02 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Although they don't show the shooting listen to the gunshots. It appears that there are 9 shots. 4 rapid fire, a slight pause, 4 more at a slower pace, then a long pause and 1 more shot. Would he still be considered innocent if he stood over the guy and gave him a coup de gr ce? You wouldn't think that 9 shots would be necessary to put a guy down who had his back turned towards you. I'm not saying that the guy didn't deserve to get shot. Just that the sound of the gunfire with my imagination paints a picture of the pharmacist that went back and capped the guy who was motionless on the floor.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHshsgpsxFgThe way this video ended should have had the owner and customers loading homey in a rug or box and tossing the piece of shit into the nearest dumpster. Mop up and free beer and tacos. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 7:18:54 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/37749/Screen_Shot_2023-01-07_at_5_59_54_PM-2664159.png In this frame right as the final shot is fired, the shooter has the robber's gun in his left hand. His right hand is extended toward the robber with the gun at point blank. The odds that bullet didn't hit the robber are tiny. Shooting the guy when he's not moved AND you have control of his weapon is going to be the hardest of sells and I don't think he can do it. He could fuck the robber's dead corpse and I would still give 0 fucks about the robber. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 7:29:55 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He could fuck the robber's dead corpse and I would still give 0 fucks about the robber. Unfortunately you are unlikely to end up on the jury for this shooting. Whether or not something is lawful is a separate question from whether or not individuals like the outcome. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 7:31:53 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I used to live in the neighborhood a couple of blocks down from there. The only taqueria I can think of in that strip center is El Ranchito. Food was good but not great. They were open late so I could get something on the way home. That (Sharpstown) is not an area of town you want to mess around in. When I moved into the area in the late 80s. I worked patrol in a nice neighborhood south of there and worked security in my apartment complex (free apartment). The mall was really nice. 20+ years ago we moved into the neighborhood just west of the restaurant’s location. It was still a nice middle class neighborhood. Then the major intersections got a little sketchy. A few years later it was major roads got sketchy. When we left there 3 years ago even the neighborhoods were a bit sketchy. (I never walked outside or answered the door without being armed.) Gun fire at the apartment complexes down the street from us was a normal occurrence. When a woman who lived a couple blocks away was murdered in her driveway by a 14 year old punk, that was finally enough that even my wife was ready to move. I will say that our old neighborhood has taken a turn for the better. Large Asian community was developing when we were there and now are pretty dominant. Lots of great Chinese, Vietnamese, and lately Korean restaurants. Also Asian grocery stores and other businesses. Strip centers being cleaned up and updated. Some being torn down and replaced with modern designs. Thanks for sharing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 7:36:04 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He wants nothing to do with the man and their bullshit gun confiscation for evidence.  Exactly. Cops have the video… should be case closed. I like how the news article writes it like the cops haven’t figured out yet and are still investigating whether the dead pos’s pistol is airsoft/bb/toy. Wherever. World is a slightly better place now |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 7:39:32 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think that the 5 anchor shots will jam him up. https://twitter.com/Mr12G/status/1611735968695951362?s=20&t=1SaUUOspcdG9A9seWYXiEQ Negative. The good guy was clearly concerned that the bad guy was still a threat. Every shot was justified. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 7:40:54 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/37749/Screen_Shot_2023-01-07_at_5_59_54_PM-2664159.png In this frame right as the final shot is fired, the shooter has the robber's gun in his left hand. His right hand is extended toward the robber with the gun at point blank. The odds that bullet didn't hit the robber are tiny. Shooting the guy when he's not moved AND you have control of his weapon is going to be the hardest of sells and I don't think he can do it. We all realize those anchor shots are not compliant with self defense. By law they are murder. We get that. Nobody is arguing that is not what the law says. I think there are many people that after seeing violent felons and thieves not get prosecuted for their crimes IAW the law on the books and allowed to walk, St. Floyd Riots not being stopped, but police told to stand down, I think there is an attitude that that if the DAs are going to be subjective on who and what they prosecute then many people, here included, just don't give a fuck about what the law says either. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Dead perp committing armed robbery is a good shoot. many don't give a fuck if it is legally compliant. The end justifies the means. Fuck the law. it is also not reasonable to expect an untrained person who is going to get ramped up in self defense in a fight for his life in a lethal force encounter to just turn the fight in him off when the criminal goes down. Some people can, many can not. As you know, this is one of the many things that LEO training teaches and is done with BATS and Force on Force for this very reason. If I was on the jury he would walk, I would nullify for the reason just stated. It isn't reasonable to expect an untrained person to just instantly turn off the fight in his brain. Proof of that is that LEO training spends a fair amount of time on it, in almost every scenario, at least at the federal level they do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 7:45:15 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's not how this works. The person firing the shot has to be able to articulate a reasonable threat to justify that shot. That reasonable part does not mean what ifs, it means actions consistent with lawful self defense based on what he was seeing at the moment he made the decision to shoot. In this instance there's a camera that provides an independent witness to how things went down. Justifying those last few shots, especially that final one, is going to be difficult if not impossible to do with the video footage as evidence. I see a guy who still considers the criminal a threat. If charged and I was on the jury he would walk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 7:46:04 PM EDT
[#10]
Lol at the guys wanting to prosecute the good guy because (muh job to investigate crimes.) that illegal did more good for our country than any of the people trying to prosecute him.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 7:47:17 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We all realize those anchor shots are not compliant with self defense. By law they are murder. We get that. Nobody is arguing that is not what the law says. Quote HistoryQuoted: We all realize those anchor shots are not compliant with self defense. By law they are murder. We get that. Nobody is arguing that is not what the law says. On the contrary, I think people in this thread really do believe that. And people actually take shit like that seriously. If they base their actions on that kind of shit, they'll place everything they have and everything they love in peril. I'd rather people stay out of prison. it is also not reasonable to expect an untrained person who is going to get ramped up in self defense in a fight for his life in a lethal force encounter to just turn the fight in him off when the criminal goes down. It is reasonable. People, even untrained people, do it on a regular basis. They only shoot when they reasonably believe they have to and they stop when the threat stops. Beyond it being reasonable, it's what the law requires. Typical LE training in the US happens at the local and state level, and the typical police academy spends exactly zero time in a FATS style simulator. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 7:50:53 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He could fuck the robber's dead corpse and I would still give 0 fucks about the robber. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/37749/Screen_Shot_2023-01-07_at_5_59_54_PM-2664159.png In this frame right as the final shot is fired, the shooter has the robber's gun in his left hand. His right hand is extended toward the robber with the gun at point blank. The odds that bullet didn't hit the robber are tiny. Shooting the guy when he's not moved AND you have control of his weapon is going to be the hardest of sells and I don't think he can do it. He could fuck the robber's dead corpse and I would still give 0 fucks about the robber. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 7:51:27 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If you can point to the statute that allows you to shoot someone to death in Texas without the reasonable belief that you are in immediate jeopardy of death or serious injury I'm all ears. I think it's great that TX is not VA. Simple as that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 7:54:33 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think it's great that TX is not VA. Simple as that. So that's a "no" |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 7:57:53 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So that's a "no"  You are a perfect match for your state. Enjoy life in VA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 7:57:59 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/18677/mrinbetween_jpg-2664183.JPG "I don't talk to police." Homie was in a low rent Taqueria in backstreet Houston. "No hablo con la policia. Abogado por favor." |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 7:58:38 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So that's a "no" PC 9.42 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 7:59:42 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Put your bullet back in your pocket Barney. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I'd just be looking to do my job and do a complete investigation, which would include identifying and interviewing the shooter. Put your bullet back in your pocket Barney.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 8:00:16 PM EDT
[#19]
HOUSTON - Police say a customer shot and killed a suspect who was robbing other patrons inside a Houston restaurant.
According to the Houston Police Department, the customer who shot the suspect left the scene, and they want to question him. He has not been charged.  Surveillance photos of a man wanted for questioning in a fatal shooting of a robbery suspect. He has not been charged. (Photo: Houston Police Department) Police released photos of a man they want to speak with and his vehicle, a 1970s or ’80s model pickup truck with no bed.  The police department says the suspect collected money from patrons, and then one of the other customers took out his own gun and shot the suspect multiple times. Police say the shooter then took the stolen money from the suspect and gave it back to the customers. He and the other patrons then left, officials say. The suspect was pronounced dead at the scene. More |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 8:02:26 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: HOUSTON - Police say a customer shot and killed a suspect who was robbing other patrons inside a Houston restaurant. According to the Houston Police Department, the customer who shot the suspect left the scene, and they want to question him. He has not been charged. https://images.foxtv.com/static.fox13news.com/www.fox13news.com/content/uploads/2023/01/932/524/wanted-for-questiong.jpg?ve=1&tl=1 Surveillance photos of a man wanted for questioning in a fatal shooting of a robbery suspect. He has not been charged. (Photo: Houston Police Department) Police released photos of a man they want to speak with and his vehicle, a 1970s or ’80s model pickup truck with no bed. https://images.foxtv.com/static.fox13news.com/www.fox13news.com/content/uploads/2023/01/932/524/wanted-for-questioning-truck.jpg?ve=1&tl=1 The police department says the suspect collected money from patrons, and then one of the other customers took out his own gun and shot the suspect multiple times. Police say the shooter then took the stolen money from the suspect and gave it back to the customers. He and the other patrons then left, officials say. The suspect was pronounced dead at the scene. More I'm sure backbreaking effort by top men will take place. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 8:03:37 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: HOUSTON - Police say a customer shot and killed a suspect who was robbing other patrons inside a Houston restaurant. According to the Houston Police Department, the customer who shot the suspect left the scene, and they want to question him. He has not been charged. https://images.foxtv.com/static.fox13news.com/www.fox13news.com/content/uploads/2023/01/932/524/wanted-for-questiong.jpg?ve=1&tl=1 Surveillance photos of a man wanted for questioning in a fatal shooting of a robbery suspect. He has not been charged. (Photo: Houston Police Department) Police released photos of a man they want to speak with and his vehicle, a 1970s or ’80s model pickup truck with no bed. https://images.foxtv.com/static.fox13news.com/www.fox13news.com/content/uploads/2023/01/932/524/wanted-for-questioning-truck.jpg?ve=1&tl=1 The police department says the suspect collected money from patrons, and then one of the other customers took out his own gun and shot the suspect multiple times. Police say the shooter then took the stolen money from the suspect and gave it back to the customers. He and the other patrons then left, officials say. The suspect was pronounced dead at the scene. More I’ll buy that man a beer or 13. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 8:05:47 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The town needs to put up a bronze statue of the hero Eta- I would have taken the mug with me, after leaving a tip to cover the cost of the mug, don't want any DNA coming back to haunt the hero |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 8:06:11 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: An autopsy report would be necessary to determine that, but the body language says that he was hit in some really important stuff really early in the shooting. So body language suggests he may be guilty of abusing human remains? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 8:09:04 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "Police said the restaurant owner and workers were the only ones who remained at the scene. Investigators are asking the shooter and the victims who left the scene to contact the HPD Homicide Division..." Why? Crime is dangerous, I'm pretty sure entering the business and robbing the customers at gunpoint is illegal and the shooter was in fear for his life. The film is there for you to watch. All the state wants to do is determine if bad guy was shot in accordance with their rules. Again, the film is there to watch. Pretty sure the bad guy wasn't playing by the rules and got justice.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 8:10:32 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The bad guy's total lack of movement after the first volley of shots and the fact that when he fell the gun separated from him by at least 3 feet would indicate he was no longer acting in a manner consistent with the threat of immediate lethal harm. An autopsy report would be necessary to determine that, but the body language says that he was hit in some really important stuff really early in the shooting. Plenty of times. But those people were actively continuing the threat. Someone who goes down to the ground but is still trying to shoot you or clear a jammed weapon so they can resume shooting you is a threat. Someone who goes down hard, doesn't move once they are down, and where the gun they were holding flies out of their hands and out of their reach is not one of those situations. Firstly, my "thinking" has dick to do with anything. The standards for lawful use of lethal force are set out by the courts, and the standard that every jurisdiction in the land holds is that lethal force can be used to stop an immediate threat. Once that threat has stopped, so has the justification for the use of lethal force. It doesn't matter a cold bucket of fuck what anyone on this board "thinks" about it, that's the requirement of the law. You can legally shoot someone to stop them from harming you or other innocent parties. You cannot shoot them to ensure they are dead. The first three shots are easily justifiable. The second volley less so, but possibly. The 8th shot is really fucking iffy based on what is seen in the video. The 9th, taking place AFTER about a 2.5 second pause where the shooter actually picks up the other guy's weapon? Fucking hardly. It is going to take some extraordinarily skillful articulation to try and weave what is seen in the video into a righteous shoot. "He fucking deserved it." isn't an allowable defense in court, regardless of how anyone here feels about it. I didn't dictate shit. I'm telling you what reality looks like. If you don't like it, change the law. Don't bitch at me about what it fucking says. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Why have a jury system when we have video? You know the perp was unarmed and unable to respond how? The bad guy's total lack of movement after the first volley of shots and the fact that when he fell the gun separated from him by at least 3 feet would indicate he was no longer acting in a manner consistent with the threat of immediate lethal harm. Where did that volley of shots hit? An autopsy report would be necessary to determine that, but the body language says that he was hit in some really important stuff really early in the shooting. Has anyone ever been shot multiple times and still been able to respond? Plenty of times. But those people were actively continuing the threat. Someone who goes down to the ground but is still trying to shoot you or clear a jammed weapon so they can resume shooting you is a threat. Someone who goes down hard, doesn't move once they are down, and where the gun they were holding flies out of their hands and out of their reach is not one of those situations. It's thinking like yours that is turning the tables and making law abiding, armed citizens instant suspects and criminals if they don't defend themselves as you dictate. Firstly, my "thinking" has dick to do with anything. The standards for lawful use of lethal force are set out by the courts, and the standard that every jurisdiction in the land holds is that lethal force can be used to stop an immediate threat. Once that threat has stopped, so has the justification for the use of lethal force. It doesn't matter a cold bucket of fuck what anyone on this board "thinks" about it, that's the requirement of the law. You can legally shoot someone to stop them from harming you or other innocent parties. You cannot shoot them to ensure they are dead. The first three shots are easily justifiable. The second volley less so, but possibly. The 8th shot is really fucking iffy based on what is seen in the video. The 9th, taking place AFTER about a 2.5 second pause where the shooter actually picks up the other guy's weapon? Fucking hardly. It is going to take some extraordinarily skillful articulation to try and weave what is seen in the video into a righteous shoot. "He fucking deserved it." isn't an allowable defense in court, regardless of how anyone here feels about it. I didn't dictate shit. I'm telling you what reality looks like. If you don't like it, change the law. Don't bitch at me about what it fucking says. You are failing to account for the many documented accounts of re-animation syndrome. The shooter was obviously aware of this possibility and was making sure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 8:13:19 PM EDT
[#26]
I love that the dude walked back and finished his drink, waved at the employees, and threw the rest on the DRT POS. Boss. Haha.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 8:15:30 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You are failing to account for the many documented accounts of re-animation syndrome. The shooter was obviously aware of this possibility and was making sure. "Re-animation syndrome" requires the guy to actually resume hostilities. You cannot simply keep shooting the guy to ensure he can't get back up or move anymore short of some truly extraordinary circumstances. If you have training that a potential terrorist might be wearing a bomb vest he will trigger after he's been shot, that's about the only justification for "anchor shots". Absent that, you can't justify it. The law doesn't permit continuing to shoot somebody because they might get up or move again. They have to be attempting to continue the fight in a way you can positively articulate to justify continuing to shoot. That isn't present here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 8:16:18 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So body language suggests he may be guilty of abusing human remains? Even if he sustained an unsurvivable wound on the first hit, the law is still concerned about every other shot fired. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 8:19:33 PM EDT
[#29]
So how do I do the "Taquera" drill?
Anybody tell what type of gun? We doing clones yet? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 8:25:13 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The bad guy's total lack of movement after the first volley of shots and the fact that when he fell the gun separated from him by at least 3 feet would indicate he was no longer acting in a manner consistent with the threat of immediate lethal harm. An autopsy report would be necessary to determine that, but the body language says that he was hit in some really important stuff really early in the shooting. Plenty of times. But those people were actively continuing the threat. Someone who goes down to the ground but is still trying to shoot you or clear a jammed weapon so they can resume shooting you is a threat. Someone who goes down hard, doesn't move once they are down, and where the gun they were holding flies out of their hands and out of their reach is not one of those situations. Firstly, my "thinking" has dick to do with anything. The standards for lawful use of lethal force are set out by the courts, and the standard that every jurisdiction in the land holds is that lethal force can be used to stop an immediate threat. Once that threat has stopped, so has the justification for the use of lethal force. It doesn't matter a cold bucket of fuck what anyone on this board "thinks" about it, that's the requirement of the law. You can legally shoot someone to stop them from harming you or other innocent parties. You cannot shoot them to ensure they are dead. The first three shots are easily justifiable. The second volley less so, but possibly. The 8th shot is really fucking iffy based on what is seen in the video. The 9th, taking place AFTER about a 2.5 second pause where the shooter actually picks up the other guy's weapon? Fucking hardly. It is going to take some extraordinarily skillful articulation to try and weave what is seen in the video into a righteous shoot. "He fucking deserved it." isn't an allowable defense in court, regardless of how anyone here feels about it. I didn't dictate shit. I'm telling you what reality looks like. If you don't like it, change the law. Don't bitch at me about what it fucking says. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Why have a jury system when we have video? You know the perp was unarmed and unable to respond how? The bad guy's total lack of movement after the first volley of shots and the fact that when he fell the gun separated from him by at least 3 feet would indicate he was no longer acting in a manner consistent with the threat of immediate lethal harm. Where did that volley of shots hit? An autopsy report would be necessary to determine that, but the body language says that he was hit in some really important stuff really early in the shooting. Has anyone ever been shot multiple times and still been able to respond? Plenty of times. But those people were actively continuing the threat. Someone who goes down to the ground but is still trying to shoot you or clear a jammed weapon so they can resume shooting you is a threat. Someone who goes down hard, doesn't move once they are down, and where the gun they were holding flies out of their hands and out of their reach is not one of those situations. It's thinking like yours that is turning the tables and making law abiding, armed citizens instant suspects and criminals if they don't defend themselves as you dictate. Firstly, my "thinking" has dick to do with anything. The standards for lawful use of lethal force are set out by the courts, and the standard that every jurisdiction in the land holds is that lethal force can be used to stop an immediate threat. Once that threat has stopped, so has the justification for the use of lethal force. It doesn't matter a cold bucket of fuck what anyone on this board "thinks" about it, that's the requirement of the law. You can legally shoot someone to stop them from harming you or other innocent parties. You cannot shoot them to ensure they are dead. The first three shots are easily justifiable. The second volley less so, but possibly. The 8th shot is really fucking iffy based on what is seen in the video. The 9th, taking place AFTER about a 2.5 second pause where the shooter actually picks up the other guy's weapon? Fucking hardly. It is going to take some extraordinarily skillful articulation to try and weave what is seen in the video into a righteous shoot. "He fucking deserved it." isn't an allowable defense in court, regardless of how anyone here feels about it. I didn't dictate shit. I'm telling you what reality looks like. If you don't like it, change the law. Don't bitch at me about what it fucking says. If the first and/or second volley ended airsoft hoodie, the final fuck you shot was not going to kill him any deader. I can also see where emotional reaction to the realization that FAFO fuck got you to shoot him by waving a toy might cause that final shot and coffee mug toss. I might even be that pissed off in such a situation myself. Hard to say. One thing is sure about anchor shots, though. Homie will not be back on the street before you're through making statements and trying to stay out of jail yourself. In a nation of laws, sure, stick around. Sadly, we no longer live in one of those. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 8:43:05 PM EDT
[#31]
Okay I get the multiple shots to the back of a robber walking away. The video still shows the perp aiming his weapon at a patron near the exit door while the good guy is shooting.
What about us open carry people? In the same situation, I draw when he comes in and the perp shoots me in the chest with an "airsoft pellet" that bounces into my coffee. Am I justified in doing the monzambique drill on him or should I just laugh and reholster? Non lethals? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 8:46:33 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: articulate a reasonable threat LOL... VA != TX Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That's not how this works. The person firing the shot has to be able to articulate a reasonable threat to justify that shot. That reasonable part does not mean what ifs, it means actions consistent with lawful self defense based on what he was seeing at the moment he made the decision to shoot. In this instance there's a camera that provides an independent witness to how things went down. Justifying those last few shots, especially that final one, is going to be difficult if not impossible to do with the video footage as evidence. articulate a reasonable threat LOL... VA != TX I'm sorry. I hadn't seen the last few seconds of the video until now. (The news stations I saw, cut at the draw and presentation by the good guy.) JohnWayne777 is absolutely right here. You have to show you can't reasonably use less force than deadly force to recover your property here. Even after dark. And deadly force used in self-defense or defense of another, requires a apprehension by the actor of imminent risk of death or serious bodily injury. Which is going to be tough to show if the bad guy doesn't have his gun anymore when you shoot him a ninth time. Maybe the good guy can articulate that he thought the robber was trying for another weapon with his other hand? It's not great. Ogg's on the horns of a dilemma if she does find him. I don't care what this guy did, and I doubt a lot of Houston does either. But that last shot, by the letter of the law, doesn't look like the justification of self-defense would apply. Real Life is messy, but if she wants to charge him, she probably could. Then again, Joe Horne likely, by the letter of the law, was not justified for what he did either---and thankfully the Grand Jury eventually disagreed. I hope he stays gone. I had thought previously that this was a good shoot, legally in Texas. May still be, despite appearances, but that last shot isn't good. My comments are aimed at the membership here, who I don't want to see get jammed up over something like this. Don't look on video, like you're giving anchor shots to people, as this guy appears to have done. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 8:48:30 PM EDT
[#33]
His name was Paul Kersey…
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 8:58:22 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: When you're investigating why someone got shot, you kind of want to talk to the person that shot him. Especially since, more often than not, shooting people is a crime. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I hope they never find him. What is there to question? They want to CHARGE him. When you're investigating why someone got shot, you kind of want to talk to the person that shot him. Especially since, more often than not, shooting people is a crime. Wth is there to investigate? Video shows yute came in, appeared/acted armed and stole peoples valuables under the threats of violence. A good samaritan did the needful and then everyone left. Nothing more needs investigating. Write up the report and gtfo so the owners can carry on with their taco enterprising. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 9:00:30 PM EDT
[#35]
Police should stop any investigation immediately unless they have a reward to give him. The video tells the story.
Very. Good. Shoot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 9:01:24 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: WTF is there to ask him? He killed a person threatening him with a gun. Its all on tape. They want to know how it feels to hit what you aim at or something?  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 9:02:44 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: City prosecutors should reimburse him his ammunition cost if the actual perp was let out |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 9:07:48 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "Re-animation syndrome" requires the guy to actually resume hostilities. You cannot simply keep shooting the guy to ensure he can't get back up or move anymore short of some truly extraordinary circumstances. If you have training that a potential terrorist might be wearing a bomb vest he will trigger after he's been shot, that's about the only justification for "anchor shots". Absent that, you can't justify it. The law doesn't permit continuing to shoot somebody because they might get up or move again. They have to be attempting to continue the fight in a way you can positively articulate to justify continuing to shoot. That isn't present here. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You are failing to account for the many documented accounts of re-animation syndrome. The shooter was obviously aware of this possibility and was making sure. "Re-animation syndrome" requires the guy to actually resume hostilities. You cannot simply keep shooting the guy to ensure he can't get back up or move anymore short of some truly extraordinary circumstances. If you have training that a potential terrorist might be wearing a bomb vest he will trigger after he's been shot, that's about the only justification for "anchor shots". Absent that, you can't justify it. The law doesn't permit continuing to shoot somebody because they might get up or move again. They have to be attempting to continue the fight in a way you can positively articulate to justify continuing to shoot. That isn't present here. You are not one of us. You are not from this state. You don’t live in Houston. You are not going to be on a jury of the hero’s piers. Why do you keep arguing in favor of the dead felon? You made your point several pages back. We read it. We don’t agree with your feelings. Texans have a low tolerance for bullshit. Hence our very loose deadly force laws here. Homie had no business invading that taqueria and he knew it and he paid the price. It’s as simple as that. When a Texas judge writes a warrant it always includes the phrase “Against the peace and dignity of the state of Texas.” Meaning the people of Texas. Invading a taqueria and waving a gun around and threatening peaceful people with death or bodily harm certainly comes under the meaning of that phrase. This is our business. It is none of your business. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 9:07:49 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: WTF is there to ask him? He killed a person threatening him with a gun. Its all on tape. They want to know how it feels to hit what you aim at or something? Lol! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 9:19:19 PM EDT
[#40]
Justifiable shoot on video, there should be no need to bother with the ID of the shooter OR have released his image to the media/news/publishingvetc..
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 9:22:20 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You are failing to account for the many documented accounts of re-animation syndrome. The shooter was obviously aware of this possibility and was making sure. Look at the video of the carjacker today. That scum had two or three guns with him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 9:26:09 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "Re-animation syndrome" requires the guy to actually resume hostilities. You cannot simply keep shooting the guy to ensure he can't get back up or move anymore short of some truly extraordinary circumstances. If you have training that a potential terrorist might be wearing a bomb vest he will trigger after he's been shot, that's about the only justification for "anchor shots". Absent that, you can't justify it. The law doesn't permit continuing to shoot somebody because they might get up or move again. They have to be attempting to continue the fight in a way you can positively articulate to justify continuing to shoot. That isn't present here. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You are failing to account for the many documented accounts of re-animation syndrome. The shooter was obviously aware of this possibility and was making sure. "Re-animation syndrome" requires the guy to actually resume hostilities. You cannot simply keep shooting the guy to ensure he can't get back up or move anymore short of some truly extraordinary circumstances. If you have training that a potential terrorist might be wearing a bomb vest he will trigger after he's been shot, that's about the only justification for "anchor shots". Absent that, you can't justify it. The law doesn't permit continuing to shoot somebody because they might get up or move again. They have to be attempting to continue the fight in a way you can positively articulate to justify continuing to shoot. That isn't present here. While you are correct legally its entirely possible he could say he thought the guy was attempting to grab a weapon. Its all in what he can articulate to a jury. Yes I agree the last few shots look bad to me but I'm not him. Either way I don't really care, the guy got what he deserved. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 9:35:18 PM EDT
[#43]
It doesn’t matter how the video looks to us when arguing about how many times the felon got shot. It matters to the people in that restaurant. They were being terrorized. They were scared shitless. More often than not a hijacker shoots the people he just robbed. These restaurant patrons were all in fear of their lives. One of them did something about it. So he gave the felon a couple of “fuck you” shots. So what. The felon should have known the possible consequences of his actions before opening that door.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 9:36:56 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You are not one of us. You are not from this state. You don’t live in Houston. You are not going to be on a jury of the hero’s piers. Why do you keep arguing in favor of the dead felon? You made your point several pages back. We read it. We don’t agree with your feelings. Texans have a low tolerance for bullshit. Hence our very loose deadly force laws here. Homie had no business invading that taqueria and he knew it and he paid the price. It’s as simple as that. When a Texas judge writes a warrant it always includes the phrase “Against the peace and dignity of the state of Texas.” Meaning the people of Texas. Invading a taqueria and waving a gun around and threatening peaceful people with death or bodily harm certainly comes under the meaning of that phrase. This is our business. It is none of your business. Maybe he doesn’t want people to get a false impression of their potential legal liability in Texas based on a willfully false reading of the law? I think the robber got what he deserved too, but you don’t want to send people out there wrongly informed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 9:47:16 PM EDT
[#45]
Interesting thread. I can understand why the guy would not want to get involved, and I can also understand why the police want to talk to him. After that last shot it's no longer a clear-cut case of self-defense; you can't just shoot people willy nilly without consequence even in Texas, as a rotund old Texan and his doughy son found out a couple of years ago.
Still, I'm in the camp that this guy will never be found because he probably is illegal himself and might even have some history with the cartels and is cooling his heels with friends/family somewhere in Nuevo Leon or Chihuahua or Durango. At this point I'm saying it's a wash. Houston will miss all the positive things LaShawn did for the neighborhood though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 9:52:36 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If you can point to the statute that allows you to shoot someone to death in Texas without the reasonable belief that you are in immediate jeopardy of death or serious injury I'm all ears. It's been a while but I don't remember a time limit to stop shooting in a deadly force incident. Some people ooda loops operate slower, maybe the shooter perceived another threat, possible what appeared to be another handgun by the suspect etc. There was a video not long ago in Houston of hpd mag dumping a guy on the ground that pointed a pistol at them when he was running. Nothing happened there either. Reading some of the replies here it makes sense why crime is rampant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 9:56:45 PM EDT
[#47]
Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and (3) he reasonably believes that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 9:57:34 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So that's a "no" Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I think it's great that TX is not VA. Simple as that. So that's a "no" Looked like he was still threatening people with death or great bodily harm in them middle of a robbery to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 10:02:08 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Guessing that’s why the good guy decided to leave. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Robber had a fake gun. Hilarious. Guessing that’s why the good guy decided to leave. It doesn't matter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 10:04:41 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He looks like the kind of guy who just wants to eat his midnight tacos and be left alone. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File