He's not wrong, the statute is pretty clear.

You're inferring.  He implies.

No, that's how trials work everywhere.

I'm going to say this again: If this never goes to trial it doesn't go to trial because a DA makes the decision not to pursue the case.

That is not a matter of law but of judgement.

This poor soul was working in a Dollar General that had been robbed half a dozen times since August. His actions were eminently reasonable by the description so far, and he only fired a single shot...but he got arrested and booked for manslaughter:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/louisiana-dollar-general-clerk-shoots-kills-armed-robber-gets-charged-manslaughter

This poor fellow didn't even know he hit the armed robber. But it sounds like he didn't make an immediate report to police and on that basis alone he's been booked and is in the early stages of being prosecuted for manslaughter.

Self defense is hard enough when it's completely justified. Don't make it worse on yourself than it has to be. Don't bet on one prosecutor deciding they don't want to take the case being the response you get from a different prosecutor in a different jurisdiction even in the same state. If this was Austin bet your sweet bippy this guy would be in worlds of trouble.

I was extremely clear:

TV "experts" usually aren't.

Lawyer up (2A lawyer should be pro bono). Stay quiet.

^^He's not wrong.   The criminal justice system in this country is fundamentally broken.  State attorneys will routinely...
1. Deny witnesses being able to testify on your behalf by charging them with BS and scheduling their trial after yours (i.e. weaponizing the 5th amendment)
2. Solicit false testimony
3. Coerce & extort witnesses for probably false testimony (you're going to prison unless your testimony is valuable, of course most scumbags and even some otherwise good people will make their testimony "valuable")
4. Doctoring evidence in the digital age is now commonplace as well
5. Hiding exculpatory evidence is standard or degrading it to the point of uselessness before sharing it *see #4
6. If your trial is newsworthy they will make concerted effort to let everyone know you're guilty before jury selection
7. They won't even pursue exculpatory evidence, even when they have warrants for the alleged "victim's" phone, etc...
8. They will introduce pseudo science BS "evidence" routinely, while courts ignore challenges... for decades before it finally gets debunked.


ALL of the above is pretty standard and if the state attorney doesn't like you for some reason most or even all of it is what you will be up against.  State attorneys are rarely punished beyond a harsh word from the judge, and that's only for the most egregious examples.  In fact most are rewarded consistently for acting in immoral, unethical and straight up illegal ways in open court.


If you take offense or think the above is off the wall, nonsense, or just can't be real.... watch the Rittenhouse trial and understand this happens daily, but it's usually not televised for the world to see and 99% of people don't have the resources to fight it.   Most people get shitty overworked and understaffed public defenders.

In Texas, and most states the defendant has to produce *some* evidence (burden of production) supporting a self-defense claim defense, then the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove that it wasn't self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. From the TEXAS DISTRICT & COUNTY ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION  website discussion of Self Defense jury instructions *IN TEXAS*:


Bald guy doesn't have to say shit to anyone to claim self defense. He doesn't even have to put up any witnesses of his own. He can let the prosecution play the video and then get a jury instruction for self-defense and argue that.

John_Wayne777 doesn’t really care how things work in Texas.

That would require his lawyer to get up and say "The video speaks for itself." and then rest.

That is an extremely unlikely legal strategy, especially if the prosecution presents a detailed shot-by-shot breakdown of the event using the video.

If Texas has a sufficiently wide latitude in allowing self defense claims that an attorney could actually do that, awesome. He'd also be guilty of legal malpractice if he actually did that unless the prosecution is also going to present essentially the same argument.

Do we know for sure that the perp wasn’t very much alive and threatened the shooter before the anchor shot?  That would be my defense since there probably isn’t any recorded audio.

“And to those out there who may be foolish enough to ask why we shot him so many times that answer is simple, because evil can never be dead enough”


Good shoot and fuck anyone saying it’s not.

Hero has a lawyer

No. That too is wrong. A closing argument can have a summary of the evidence, reasonable inferences and arguments from the evidence ("The perpetrator pointed a gun at my client, he was therefore in fear of death or great bodily harm.") and responses to the opponents argument. I agree that such an approach is unlikely. I'd bring in self-defense experts to muddy the waters. I'd argue the man was already dead when the 9th shot was taken (assuming the ME is wishy-washy about which shot was fatal.) There's all kinds of arguments that could be made just from the video.

Officer Friendly, can you see into the defendant's state of mind when the final shot was fired?
No, of course not.
Officer Friendly, so it *could* have been an involuntary muscle contraction due to the stress of the situation?
Objection, calls for speculation
I withdraw the question your honor.

Nine rounds in his pistol and zero fucks in his heart.

Some of you guys have futures as fantasy writers, since you’re definitely not use of force experts.

Why doesn't the attorney lead off by asking for the DA to agree to produce him for a full sit down interview and TOT of the firearm in exchange for immunity?

If they say no, then you have your answer of how to play it from that point on.

Are you proposing transactional or use immunity?

I think this depends on what is going to come out of his mouth, and what the particulars of his personal situation are.

The attorney can decide once he knows everything. But it's the Yes/No answer that comes back that at least tips the prosecutor's hand a little.

I was joking, because I thought the entire idea was ridiculous.

How is his lawyer asking for immunity in this situation ridiculous?

This is the way I see it.

LOL looks like Vic Mackey!

A lot of speculation in this thread on the law, legal presumptions and what happens in court..

I actually don’t think that last shot will matter as much as people think, given the circumstances. The exception to this would be if that was the shot that proved fatal and the rest would not have been, but I don’t think we will know that for a while (if at all).

I'd remind folks of this one:

https://kfor.com/news/oklahoma-pharmacist-convicted-of-murder-moved-to-different-prison/



https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/columns/2018/04/18/former-pharmacist-convicted-of-murder-gets-no-time-off-prison-sentence/60530166007/

There are multiple important *legal* differences between that case and this one. Enough to be worlds apart as far as the potential outcomes.

About 30 mins southeast of this a few years ago there was a dad that had his two kids ran over in front of him and executed the driver of the truck and ran off into the woods for a few days.  Memory is kind of fuzzy but he was aquited by a jury I believe.   Things are usually done differently over here than what Rittenhouse went thru.


Joe horn wasn't too far away from there also, he waited until guys went outside with a stolen TV and killed em
 I hope the taqueria shooter walks also.

Deleted--insulting with no point.  

This guy will not be indicted, even in Harris County.

They are not identical circumstances because it's difficult to find two situations like this that are completely identical in all respects.

But you do see several elements germane to this situation in that, especially the reaction of the authorities to shooting an at the time unarmed and (presumed) unconscious robber.

One of the things that doomed that pharmacist was his statements to others after the fact. We have no idea what the taco shop shooter has said to anyone. If he was smart he said absolutely nothing to anyone about the event. But most people aren't that smart.

Just charge him with littering for leaving trash on the floor.

$20 fine....suspended.

You are right in that no two situations are completely identical, but this one is (at least in my mind) easily distinguished from the Oklahoma pharmacist situation.

For example:

-the bad guy in Oklahoma was never armed to begin with
-the pharmacist in Oklahoma had 45 seconds to retrieve another gun and shoot the unarmed and unconscious bad guy
-the first shot on the bad guy in Oklahoma was not the fatal shot

There are others, but you get the gist. There are important legal concepts that you are not picking up on that *could* make a huge difference in the outcome here.

Just to be clear, I am NOT advocating a purposeful anchor shot in any self defense context. However, I do not necessarily think that’s what happened in this situation.

He did. And he didn't go to prison.

He did end up on CNN as the face of racism (even being referred to in the aftermath of the Zimmerman shooting) and the "dangers" of Castle Doctrine even though castle doctrine had little to do with the shooting. It's one of the press' favorite boogey men when they're attacking self defense which they generally hate.

The grand jury no-billed after two weeks of testimony.

Joe Horn got to live with his future and life hanging in the balance for 7 months waiting for the no-bill with his name being national news in the worst possible way.

The process was pretty awful for him even if he didn't ultimately end up in jail. I don't think of him as a success story as much as a cautionary tale of why it's important to really think through the actual risks you're adopting when you produce a firearm with the intent to use it. We've had multiple members on this site involved in defensive shootings, most recently the individual who shot to save himself from a crazed murderous domestic abusing neighbor who was busy trying to murder his wife before our member intervened. I'd encourage people to go back and read that account, what was going through his mind while he was in the back of the patrol car and how it changed his life.

It doesn't mean that what he did was a bad or wrong decision. He did what was right by all accounts. But it still took a toll and it wasn't until the immediate aftermath where he fully realized what was at stake with his decision.

I know some folks who are working self defense shootings in Texas where the facts are far cleaner than what we see in the video here but the prosecution is proceeding anyway. Every single case like this is dependent on a host of factors, but crucial in it is the reactions of the on scene police who respond, the detectives after that, and the individuals responsible for handling the case in the prosecutor's office.

Understanding the reality of dealing with the aftermath of using force can help make better decisions on drawing lines for yourself should you ever need to use it yourself.

The odds these days are pretty good that a sizeable chunk of us will need to use a gun to defend ourselves or others at some point in our lives. Going into that ignorant or with bad ideas about what happens after doesn't help people make good decisions under stress.

Look we get your opinion and understand where you're coming from but you're pushing the edge of berating folks and your above statement is just flat wrong.  Defense attorney's get to cross examine and in many cases "the defense rests" is a perfectly acceptable strategy.  Especially when the you know the defendant will not do well under questioning, even if that defendant is without a shadow of a doubt innocent.  The prosecutor has to prove their case not the other way around.  

I've seen defendants help their case and I've watched them crater their case, even with the best defense attorney.  It's a judgment call, legal malpractice hardly.

His accomplice was, with a fake firearm. And being part of that, the initial shot that hit him was a justifiable use of force. Because he was participating in an armed robbery, shooting an unarmed teenager while the gun was still in play was a justifiable action.



That one was a doozy. It happened because the pharmacist was acting out of the significant emotional response to such an event, not reason. Keep in mind, there have been statements in this thread asking when somebody introduced a time limit on self defense.



...which was determined after the fact. The deceased robber was hit in the head and unconscious. The pharmacist likely didn't know whether he was dead or alive when he continued to shoot him. Keep in mind that in this thread people have discussed shooting a body. Had the deceased robber been deceased by the initial shot, odds are the pharmacist have been in just as much trouble because the exact moment where the robber died doesn't change the fundamentals of his actions after justification for the use of lethal force had evaporated.



It's possible it was a negligent discharge. I've seen that argument. I think it's difficult to argue given what's on the tape. Not impossible, difficult. A jury would have to be really sympathetic.

A Houston Defense Attorney weighs in on the self defense aspect of the shooting and whether he believes the shooter will be charged. There is also additional video shown after the shooting that I’ve not seen before.


https://www.fox26houston.com/news/self-defense-customer-fired-9-shots-killed-man-robbing-patrons-in-houston-taqueria-local-attorney

Could the tide slowly be turning against the violent & dangerous criminals in Houston? ?

Robber shot in chest trying to steal cellphone from man with a gun - LINK

Stay safe BOZ & "Thanks!" for all Ya' Do!

Bigger_Hammer

There are still legal concepts here that control all of these things, and I think what you are trying to argue is really more of a just because you can, doesn’t mean you should type of thing. That is fine and I tend to agree with that mindset.

However, you have to be careful because a lot of your statements are really your opinion/your interpretation of the law and not necessarily the actual law or even legal theories.

If you’d like to discuss this further via PM, email or text I can give you a better understanding of the basis of my opinions and how I arrived there.

Finally and just to be clear, I am providing my opinion of this situation and not giving out legal advice.

@John_Wayne777

I haven't seen that one, but it sounds like some good information.

Do you have a link to that thread or a title that I could search for to find it?

A very short distance from the taqueria. Sharpstown area. The new Guns Point?

Sharpstown has been shit for a long time now.

I've been trying to find the darn thing...at the moment I can't even remember his user name, (I'm too young to be this damned old) but his avatar is a black and white cat.

I'll keep looking. Mas Ayoob interviewed him too, and that was worthwhile to look at as well.

The government wants the monopoly on violence.

hold on there @John_Wayne777 .. Boomer was simply ensuring bad guy wasnt a threaty and boom er was safe from the bad guy... IE boomer merely shot him in head 4 times to make sure that boomer and other patrons were safe NOT to kill robber...




Per CCW instructr, you NEVER shoot to kill someone, you shoot to stop a threat. Shooting someone in the head simply stops a threat quickly and ensures you have ammo left.

This thread reminded me of all the out of state experts that posted in the Lubbock, Texas shooting thread.

People keep throwing around the term "anchor shot". Is that an actual legal term? It sounds like larper slang to me.

Here you go: https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/My-Self-Defense-Story/5-2171388/

I making an educated guess what the customers/shooter was calling him.

People from California, Massachusetts or even VA pontificating about the subtleties of Texas Law or the Houston version of it. ??

There seems to be some conflation and confusion between "morally good" and "legal", and "getting away with an act" versus "best practices."
Dropping the robber with the first burst was both a moral good and (almost certainly in every jurisdiction-even blue ones) a legal defense action.
The followup shots, particularly the final one, absent other facts not visible in the video, are (to me, and many people I imagine) morally indifferent. I don't care if you kill an armed robber too hard.
However, in many jurisdictions those shots, and the last one especially, have been seen in similar circumstances as exceeding proportional use of force and elevating justified shootings to manslaughter and even murder. You may beat it-at great expense- or you may not.
If they're necessary, then they're necessary. But don't exercise options.
Whether the law and its application are right or wrong is irrelevant if you are subject to it.
This brings up the post shooting actions of leaving the scene.
People have done that and not been charged. People have also been charged and had the mere fact used against them in establishing intent. Act like a guilty person, you may get charged like a guilty person.

The point is to stack the deck in your favor by following best practices in your jurisdiction- NYC vs red Texas, for example- and not trust your freedom and finances to the hope that the prosecutor won't charge you, the jury won't convict you, and that an ARFcommer will be on your jury to nullify the verdict.
The best practices apply nationwide and are mainly common sense: Don't shoot over honor or property(in the best case, the minimum lawyer fee will exceed the dollar amount of almost anything you own)Shoot only if the criminal fulfills the requisites of Ability (to kill or cripple), Opportunity(whatever means he possesses can reasonably be used) and Jeopardy(he is acting in a manner that a reasonable person would think they are immediately in danger of being killed or crippled). Shoot the minimum number of times possible, for many reason: to not "shock the conscience" of your peers, to conserve ammo for confederates, to limit the chances of missing and endangering bystanders. Remain on the scene(where practical) and inform LE immediately. Act like an innocent person with the police, not like a low rent Mr. In-between: "He tried to kill/rob me and I had to defend myself. There's evidence right there and those guys saw it. I would like to talk to a lawyer before any other questions."

The main thing is to keep the main thing, the main thing.
Survive the encounter. Don't make the prosecutor charge you or give him a layup.
Ordinary, untrained people do this thousands of times a year all over the country using only common sense and never get charged, or even arrested.

Based on the video, I hope the old boy isn't charged, but (in many jurisdictions)he appears to have 2 strikes against him.
He may get away with it, but I wouldn't put forward anything he did after the first burst as an example of how to use lawful deadly force in 21st century America.

That depends on the state.  In Texas, the law is ambiguous.  The chapter lists justifications which are exclusions, and also states that a justification is a defense.  But you're still wrong, since neither of those is an affirmative defense.

Yes, but he wasn't suppose to leave