Check out this video:

https://twitter.com/KHOU/status/1611369847417446401?t=-E7jL8TusfGPk37zgWEebA&s=19

I got to say I was surprised to see how many people in the subtweets were trying to argue that the guy shouldn't have shit him and it was especially wrong to shoot him in the back.

Tbh, I really don't understand that logic. The robber took his life in his own hands when he went in with a gun to rob the place.

I keep making these post because their just seems to be this huge divide how folks view crime and it explains a lot about how crime is such a divisive political topic.

I can see folks seeing it as a tragedy that this kid got shot, but do folks really think it was wrong for the guy to shoot him?

Poll question: Is it justified to shoot this guy in the back?

Poll result (17 votes) Heck yeah, he was robbing folks with a gun. (13 votes) Vote No. (4 votes) Vote

Live by the sword, die by the…people on the internet saying you should be safe even if you’re fucking with other people’s safety by rolling up into a place with a gu..sword?

Nah. Not over here. You roll up on someone eating a taco with a gun and you fuck around and get shot yourself? Sounds good. Get the man that shot you some more tacos.

>Check out this video:
>
>https://twitter.com/KHOU/status/1611369847417446401?t=-E7jL8TusfGPk37zgWEebA&s=19
>
>I got to say I was surprised to see how many people in the
>subtweets were trying to argue that the guy shouldn't have
>shit him and it was especially wrong to shoot him in the back.
>
>
>Tbh, I really don't understand that logic. The robber took
>his life in his own hands when he went in with a gun to rob
>the place.
>
>I keep making these post because their just seems to be this
>huge divide how folks view crime and it explains a lot about
>how crime is such a divisive political topic.
>
>I can see folks seeing it as a tragedy that this kid got shot,
>but do folks really think it was wrong for the guy to shoot
>him?
>
>
>
>
>
>

waving a gun at everyone.

If the robber had a little more awareness he would have gotten shot while reaching for his gun.

If he somehow doesn't put the robber down immediately from the point where the video ends, it's now a shootout in a restaurant.

Even if it ended with only the robber getting shot this time, I don't think the customer should have drawn his gun. Regardless of the morality of shooting a person in the back.

The least risky thing at that pointay have been to do nothing. He would have been just as right to do that.

But I don't think that changes him being justified given the outcome.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

As a Houston resident, it seems insane to me to try to rob a place with a fake gun in this city/state.

The guy was still actively a dangerous threat with the gun in the place. The threat isn't gone until he is completely out of the vicinity. The shooter made the correct choice by waiting until the guy had his back against him, because drawing your gun while the guy has the drop on you is as dangerous as it gets. Simply calling it an unjustified shoot just because it was in the back is idiotic. The shooter shouldn't have left the scene afterwards, so there are questions about the legality of his gun and carrying it, but that's another issue.

And people can talk about complying and just hoping for danger to leave, but you are putting your life in the hands of a violent criminal and their values, morals, and decision-making (or more like impulsivity). There are too many cases where complying still gets you killed (see https://youtu.be/8dLthevFhm8 and https://youtu.be/VZErTGLCdRI). Could the guy in your video just let him go and hope for the best? Yes. But was he also justified in shooting him when and how he did? Absolutely.

Some adages last for all of humanity

Whether or not this guy had the legal right to do it, the number of things that could have happened if he missed, or even if it's ever morally okay to kill another human being, especially since it looked like he was most likely gonna leave (speculation obv)...

I don't have answers for those. I just know that i'm 100% fine with what did happen. Don't wanna die, don't run around waving guns at folks and robbing them ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

not sure whether it's legal, but not mad at it.

You can see in the video that the shooter's life wasn't in immediate danger. He did not need to shoot the robber in the back.

I have a CCW in Los Angeles, and they teach in class that you don't pull out and shoot in situations like this. You should only pull out if you are in immediate danger and all options have been exhausted. You have to think about things like "what if I miss?", "What if the round over penetrates and hits a bystander?", "What if he has an accomplice with them and she comes in" and more.

In this case, the shooter gave up his money; the robber was leaving, and hence there was no immediate threat to his or his party's safety.

If anything, in my experience, I have purposely avoided more situations now than I ever did before I had my CCW.

I'm not sure how the laws in Texas work but out here in CA, I'd be in some legal trouble for doing what he did.

act of committing a crime while waving a gun.

Just the way things are.

In general, the use of deadly force is justified if there is an immediate threat of death or great bodily harm. For my state of Illinois:

"A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony."

Most people would agree that it's reasonable to believe there is a threat of death or great bodily harm when someone is pointing a gun and threatening people in a room; the fact that he shot him in the back is irrelevant. If he had robbed the place, exited the building, and if someone followed him and took a shot when he was no longer an imminent threat? That obviously would not be justified.

I'm not saying that shooting him is the only possible outcome or even the wisest one, but it was certainly justifiable, at least with the first 4 shots.

California is not a very firearm-friendly State, and we can thank Ronald Regan for that.

But to your point, the law in CA is pretty much the same. However, the imminent danger part is key. The prosecutor would make the strong case that shooting the robber in the back shows that the shooter was not in imminent danger.

Couple that with the shooter having a CCW (if he does) they would make the case that he has the training to know the laws and when he should and shouldn't use self-defense in that manner.

which i mean...sure, but that did not look like a mf with murderous intent (or even a real gun)

robber accepted that fate when he decided to stick up a restaurant.


but lets not lie to ourselves like the shooter is doing something heroic, or even necessary.

>RE: this guy clearly wanted an excuse to be a hero
>robber accepted that fate when he decided to stick up a
>restaurant.

Assault w/ a deadly weapon. That's grounds.

this dude could have been saying "i'll kill all you mf'ers" the whole time while waving around a gun (fake or not, look real...no one wants to play w/ their life guessing if a gun is real or not).

definitely justified.

maybe not NECESSARY, but justified. and i think that's the key here.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

If you said no then you’re stupid!

Think it's a new user or alias?

You da police or somethin like that?

Do you have a proper response to mines… if not then mind your own business.

.

I responded to the topic at hand. If you disagreed with my POV then respond to that.

Who I am is not your concern.

>I responded to the topic at hand. If you disagreed with my POV then respond to that.

"POV" is an awfully generous way to describe how you responded.

.

Keep coming with the detailed analysis ! What an addition to the boards !

I don’t need to make a detailed analysis. You’re dumb on the surface. You make it too easy to make an assessment.

Look you’re not on my level mentally…. WTH you mean by protection?

Draw pictures if you need to explain!

>Look you’re not on my level mentally…. WTH you mean by protection?

At least I know how to read words.

>>Look you’re not on my level mentally…. WTH you mean by
>protection?
>
>At least I know how to read words.

WTH you mean by protection as if I need protection from you!!!

You should stop the fuckery!

*Please refrain from posting that video or any others showing someone being killed. There's a reason the edited video exists, please respect that.

I usually agree with John's analyses for most of his videos, but I am not as lenient here with the additional shots fired in the end. However, because this took place in Texas, I think there's actually a decent chance the DA will not charge him.

1. I think he is 100% legally and morally justified in the first 4 shots.

2. You could argue that the next 4 shots are due to adrenaline or whatever, but they look questionable to me. It's possible the he did not see the gun fall out of the perp's hands, and even experienced shooters get tunnel vision and miss things like that, but the perp also does not appear to be making any movements indicating he is still a threat.

3. The shooter then sees the gun and picks it up, and then he delivers a coup de grâce when the guy is clearly no longer a threat. This is where is at most risk for legal trouble, and it troubles me from a moral standpoint too.

I have no idea what is like to actually be in that situation and can't say with complete certainty what I would have done, but I really do not think I would have taken any additional shots based on my training and knowledge of the law, although I do know that crazy things can happen under pressure.

guy was clearly laying down after the first few rounds. I wonder if the robber may have slightly moved as dude was retrieving the gun, but I didn't see that either.

smh

i could definitely see EVERY person who has ever shot someone being geek'd up off adrenaline.

i mean, how many times have you ever heard of someone consciously squeezing the trigger ONE time just to negate a threat.

once that trigger gets pulled it stays getting pulled, 99.9 percent of the time, regardless of the situation.

Does someone geek down while they are waiting for a shot ?

What about when someone stops to get the gun from the robber, does the adrenaline pause and then come back for that last shot ?

When the person doing the shooting who is geeked up on adrenaline, informs the people who were robbed, they can get the money taken from them, that the shooter retrieved from the robber's pocket, is the adrenaline still there ?

never been in that situation.

also, from deaths i've seen, the body convulses, so if he's over him trying to take his gun and his body had a convulsion, i could see him reading that as maybe the threat not being negated and firing another shot.

again, while i can see the justification for shooting, not sure it was NECESSARY (and probably not NECESSARY to pull the trigger 9 times but i've never shot anyone and if *I* felt i needed to? i could see myself just pulling).

>also, from deaths i've seen, the body convulses, so if he's
>over him trying to take his gun and his body had a convulsion,
>i could see him reading that as maybe the threat not being
>negated and firing another shot.
>

The shooter had the robber's gun when he fired the last shot into him.

>again, while i can see the justification for shooting, not
>sure it was NECESSARY (and probably not NECESSARY to pull the
>trigger 9 times but i've never shot anyone and if *I* felt i
>needed to? i could see myself just pulling).
>
>

"probably" smh

look, i said from the jump i don't think it was necessary to shoot the guy.

but once that decision IS made. i think all bets are off and i think a lot of people talk about what THEY'D do never having been in that situation (unless you've been shooting people? if so, school us).

despite him terrorizing people, RIP to that man. sadly, for him, you take risks like that when you choose to do things like that. i don't think he deserved to die, but this stuff happens in robberies.

>look, i said from the jump i don't think it was necessary to
>shoot the guy.

but you did offer the "twitch" excuse for the last shot.

>
>but once that decision IS made. i think all bets are off and i
>think a lot of people talk about what THEY'D do never having
>been in that situation (unless you've been shooting people? if
>so, school us).
>

It's obvious the guy took it too far by firing another 5 shots. (If I was shooting people, I don't believe a message board on the internet is the place to air it out.)

>despite him terrorizing people, RIP to that man. sadly, for
>him, you take risks like that when you choose to do things
>like that. i don't think he deserved to die, but this stuff
>happens in robberies.
>
>

Yeah I never said it was ok to take the risk.

>but you did offer the "twitch" excuse for the last shot.

yes, trying to understand why he may have felt that was necessary (because up front it does seem excessive w/out me seeing the video - didnt' want watch a guy get shot today).

>It's obvious the guy took it too far by firing another 5
>shots.

again, that's up for debate.

i don't know what i would've done in that guy's situation, so i'm not going to say that he went too far. but if you wanna say that? cool.

not sure what you being Black has to do w/ anything.

>
>>but you did offer the "twitch" excuse for the last shot.
>
>yes, trying to understand why he may have felt that was
>necessary (because up front it does seem excessive w/out me
>seeing the video - didnt' want watch a guy get shot today).
>

You didn't watch the video(I can understand that) I guess that means you didn't read Steve O Tron's comment about the video.

>>It's obvious the guy took it too far by firing another 5
>>shots.
>
>again, that's up for debate.
>
>i don't know what i would've done in that guy's situation, so
>i'm not going to say that he went too far. but if you wanna
>say that? cool.
>

The debate is a slippery slope. Someone could come in the thread and make an argument for the man that was murdered using the same talking points.

>not sure what you being Black has to do w/ anything.
>

I'm not sure why you you think I'm mad, so I began the process of elimination.

>I'm not sure why you you think I'm mad, so I began the process
>of elimination.

No message

But yes, anyone that is committing a violent crime with a deadly weapon should be prepared to forfeit their life.

looked like he was sitting almost directly in the line of fire.

I feel bad for the robber on a human level, but also the thought that people who carry guns tend to run into gun problems rings true. I wouldn't say he deserved what he got either. It is what it is, though, and the consequences were largely due to his own shit choices.

So the situation seems to have kind of sort of worked out ok, but was the shooter 'justified'? tough call. It also could have easily gone way worse had the shooter fucked up, or if the robber had started firing (were this a situation wehre he had a real gun).

the shooting in the comments. Glad it happened and wish they had the opportunity. I think here folks are as blood hungry and may believe dude was justified in being shot, but ain't happy it happen and can see the human tragedy even for the robber.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

i guess he thought he was the only one with a gun. a couple of days ago
in D.C. a 13 year old boy was shot and killed by a civilian because he
was breaking into cars. D.C. (particularly) is out of control and
people are fed up.

and some people didn't like you anyway, waiting for a reason to pull out.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

a r*dskins running back was shot by kids because of his car. in
general, it's not uncommon for kids to be shot at. it's the mentality.
DC area can be a tough place to be, a lot going on all over the place.

After learning after the armed robber was shot by a patron who then walked over , took the gun from the armed roobber and then shot and killed the armed robber (now unarmed and already shot):

My "feeling' is that it was:
1)Okay to shoot him with another gun
2)Not so okay to take his gun after he had been shot and then shot him

So I'm okay with shooting him that would kill him when I see him as a threat.

But not okay with killing him after he's down and unarmed.

(But how do you know he doesn't have a backup gun too?? )

Also a follow-up - dude who shot and killed the armed robber did not stay around for authorities to talk to. Killed the guy and left.

https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/local/2023/01/09/440822/houston-police-customer-who-killed-attempted-taqueria-robber-could-be-willing-to-meet-with-investigators/

As Houston police continue searching for a man who shot and killed an attempted robber at a restaurant last week, they say someone claiming to represent the man has indicated he could be willing to talk to investigators.

Houston Police Department spokesperson Victor Senties said Monday the department received a call over the weekend from someone who identified themselves as a representative of the man wanted for questioning in a Thursday night shooting at The Ranchito No. 4 Taqueria, 6873 S. Gessner Rd. That’s where another man attempted to rob customers as they were dining and was fatally shot by one of the patrons, who then recovered stolen items and gave them back to his fellow customers, according to police.

Oh, he came in:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/customer-fatally-shot-robber-houston-taqueria-wanted-questioning/story?id=96294463

The customer agreed to be questioned by police after detectives seeking to identify him released a surveillance image of him and his pickup truck. Police asked other patrons who left the scene without providing officers a statement to also come forward.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

he probably would've been fine had he not executed dude.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/texas-grand-jury-weighs-whether-191809776.html


Texas grand jury weighs whether Houston armed diner who shot, killed robbery suspect will get criminal charges

A Texas grand jury will determine whether an armed diner who shot and killed a robbery suspect at a Houston Mexican restaurant last week – and returned stolen cash to other patrons – will ultimately face criminal charges over the deadly gunfire captured on surveillance footage.

In an update Monday, the Houston Police Department said the 46-year-old male shooter – whose name is not being released because he is not arrested or charged – was questioned by homicide detectives. He was initially wanted for questioning after fleeing the scene with other patrons after the deadly gunfire.

"After consulting with the Harris County District Attorney’s Office, it was determined the shooting will be referred to a grand jury," the department said in a statement.

The robbery suspect killed was identified as 30-year-old Eric Eugene Washington.

Surveillance video reportedly shows 30-year-old Eric Eugene Washington threating patrons.

At the time of his death, Washington had a prior conviction for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, FOX 26 Houston reported. Records also show Washington had a further criminal history and was out on bond at the time of the shooting, KTRK-TV reported.

The 46-year-old shooter’s attorney released a statement to KTRK-TV on behalf of his client.

"My client, who wishes to remain anonymous, was dining with a friend at El Ranchito Taqueria and as it has been seen on video, a robbery suspect entered the restaurant, and pointed a weapon at my client and the other customers demanding money," the statement reads. "In fear of his life and his friend's life my client acted to protect everyone in the restaurant."

"In Texas, a shooting is justified in self-defense, defense of others and in defense of property," the attorney added. "The customer has met with the Harris County District Attorney's Office and Investigators with HPD homicide. He fully intends to continue cooperating with the ongoing investigation."

"When the investigation is complete, this case will be presented to a Grand Jury. We are confident that a Grand Jury will conclude that the shooting was justified under Texas Law. This event has been very traumatic, taking a human life is something he does not take lightly and will burden him for the rest of his life. For that reason, he wishes to remain anonymous. Due to the overwhelming coverage, we ask the media and the public to respect his privacy."

Houston officers were dispatched to a shooting call at the "The Rachito #4," a taqueria restaurant located on South Gessner Road, at about 11:30 p.m. on Thursday and saw an unknown Black man in all black clothing, a black ski mask and black gloves who had been shot multiple times inside the business, police said. Paramedics pronounced that the man, later identified as Washington, was deceased.

Witnesses told officers that the suspect entered the restaurant and pointed a pistol at patrons as he demanded their money. As the suspect collected money from patrons, one of them pulled out a gun of his own and shot the suspect multiple times, police said. The shooter collected the stolen money from the suspect and returned it to other patrons. He and other occupants then left the scene.

.

Man was on one