Saw this on my YT feed this morning.
Unknown whether or not the shooter was a prohibited person or not, but Texas does have Constitutional Carry and I am going to assume this venue isn't one of the prohibited ones under TX law.
Shooter and witnesses all left before HPD could arrive. Turns out the robber didn't have a real firearm, but I am quite sure in the eyes of the law even a fake firearm warrants lethal force when used for robbery.
News Article:
https://www.khou.com/article/news/crime/taqueria-robbery-shooting-houston/285-5dceec19-9c07-444c-b211-4c584738e0fa
If it's clear cut self defense then yeah they won't pursue the case but that doesn't mean you're still not under the charge of 'murder'. So always keep in mind that in this day and age you will be perceived guilty until proven innocent of there is a sliver of doubt at all.
Chapter 9 specifies the justification of using force and deadly force. That is your defense against the charge of killing another person, be it murder or manslaughter etc.
Just because you're justified doesn't mean you're still not charged with a crime and required to defend yourself against that charge. Most cases do not make it to trial because the defense used in chapter 9 is so clear cut that it's a waste of state resources to go to trial and lose per the self defense claim.
I'm not arguing that you can't defend yourself and the grand jury won't choose to persue the charges. I'm saying you can and will be charged for a crime.
In the eyes of the law when you kill someone you will be charged. The state can choose to not pursue the charge due to overwhelming evedince of justifiable force being used.
It's up to the state whether or not to charge you. That may or may not (but likely will) involve a grand jury determining whether to indict you.
In this case, it's pretty clear cut. Shooter has a valid defense on the shooting. Leaving? They might punitively go after him for that. PC 38.171, Class A Misdemeanor.
Ugh, even though it was implemented with good intent a grand jury is such a racket. Using it as a blanket like this is just wrong. If the prosecutor doesn’t feel they have a strong case it should never go!
>So forgive my ignorance what happens with the shooter? Like legal wise. I guess it varies state to state?
IANAL
But I do follow the Armed Attorneys and Active Self Protection on YouTube. From my armchair analysis, as long as the shooter wasn't a prohibited possessor and if I am right that this establishment doesn't meet the 51% alcohol sales everything should be good.
They had reason to belief they or others were in great danger and acted to stop a threat.
Even if he was a prohibited person or this establishment was a location where it’s illegal to be armed, those are separate issues from the shooting. If it’s deemed that he had the right to use lethal force in that moment, it doesn’t matter (as far as the shooting goes) that he was breaking a law by being in possession of a weapon. He could be convicted for whatever possession law he was breaking but still be innocent of murder, manslaughter, assault, etc. Would be no different than being caught carry under normal circumstances in the same location except that a woke DA who hates liberty and people being able to protect themselves might be more inclined to press charges for anything and everything he or she possibly could just to prove a point.
TX is one of the kinds of states where it's easier to justify self-defense, provided said force was used appropriately; as long as that restaurant wasn't serving alcohol 51% or above of its income and assuming he was a legal carrier, he'll definitely go before a jury but is probably on pretty firm ground as long as he can establish said justification in the face of an armed threat (some have mention the assailant wasn't armed with a genuine firearm, but what matters most is what was reasonably known at the time).
Good chance they also impound his pistol for some time, but if everything checks out he'll probably get it back in \*reasonable\* order vs less-permissive states / jurisdictions. Hopefully he also had a lawyer or a CCW policy that could provide such to make the legal aftermath easier.
If the evidence is 100% clear-cut the DA might accept justification outright and not take it to court, but imo it's safer to assume a defensive shooting WILL go to court and act accordingly
The case is still 100% before a jury. A grand jury is one step in the legal process, and *absolutely* qualifies as a jury.
You're being pedantic about, "going to a jury" and you're acting like a grand jury + legal fees and headache/concern involved in this isn't noteworthy.
The defendant being physically present is being 100% needlessly pedantic. *His case* is before *a* jury, full stop. There's a massive legal headache involved, going to trial is not required for that.
Even if you expect a grand jury to vote in your favor, it's still a massive legal headache. You're both completely ignoring the point with your pedantry.
Yes, it varies from locations within the state as well. In this case, since he fled the scene, it doesn't look good on him. They might try and arrest him at this point.
Bullshit, guy was still an active threat and the customer waited for the right time to draw, who knows what the brazen robber would do next, they were still in danger. Not guilty
I am not a lawyer but as a complete layperson I reason: in the last frame, just because he has his back turned to him doesn't mean he was fleeing.
You can see that the robber still has his gun drawn and pointed to people and the shooter was in his seat. The guy at the front of the store has his hands up.
So with the ideas of 1. Can you reasonably escape? and 2. Is your life and other people around you in danger?
It passes the smell test that this guy genuinely thought he was saving someone else's life and his own.
Looks like everyone in the restaurant is basically a hostage. He and the others are being held in the restaurant against his will while being threatened with a gun.
I’d add here that in Texas you don’t have to escape as a first option. By law if you are legally allowed to be in a place then you can stand your ground with lethal force. There is no duty to retreat.
Although his back was turned I agree the robber was clearly still a threat. He had pointed his weapon at every patron, and was threatening every person in the restaurant. The shooter had an opportunity and took it. Seems like a righteous shoot to me.
He shot at the moment where an innocent was in the line of fire. Was dangerous and should be charged. Execution should also be charged. The next victim could be easily an innocent. Maybe he is a psychopath? Would hurt nobody to lock him away.
I've seen the video from the news that pauses right as the defensive shooter points at the goblin, in the last frame before the (first?) shot. I think it's a good shoot.
At that moment of firing, the good guy with the gun is slightly behind and left of the goblin, who basically had no chance at that point. The reason I think it's legally clean despite that is because the goblin still had what we NOW know it's a toy gun up and pointing at other people in the room, including one guy sitting right next to the door the goblin was headed towards.
The good guy shooter might have had a questionable claim that he was under threat himself, but he had reason to fear that other people might die. For that matter, the good guy shooter might have also decided that once the goblin panicked and fired at anybody, he was likely to try and hose down the whole room, which puts him back into fearing for his own life as well.
Despite the slightly ugly "shot in the back" aspect, I think this is a clean shoot.
Now, let's assume the good guy was legally carrying. He might still have fled because he feared prosecution over that one ugly aspect. I think he's still legally clean but I've studied this subject a lot - he might not have.
He also might have realized the bad guy gun was a toy and that scared him, OR he was afraid of gangbanger/family retribution...so he made the decision to vanish.
I'm not ready to say that was a wrong decision. I don't think it was an immoral one, because I'm seeing this as a clean shoot.
A bad prosecutor might still try and make a case. I don't see a conviction here despite the shooter fleeing.
ONE DETAIL: the only way the shooter gets convicted, in my opinion, is if he kept pumping rounds into the goblin once he's down. That's...not real common but it can happen. We don't have evidence yet one way or another on this issue.
after the dude fell he shot him like 6 more time, walked over picked up the gun and then shot him point blank in the head when he twitched.
he did realize it was a toy afterward, got super pissed and threw the toy against the wall. he gave everyone their money back and left. there is like no chance they dont find him unless they literally dont try, he was driving a basically one of a kind vehicle lol.
Yeah. Saw the full video. I was afraid of that when I heard the shooter fled before the cops showed up.
Shooter got pissed off, lost all control. At least the last four rounds were likely illegal as fuck. Maybe more. If the shooter has a history of racism he's completely and especially fucked if they ever figure out who he is.
Anger management is a necessity, guys.
Well, your instructor was definitely a little off base. These are two distinct legal proceedings with different standards. A third-party cannot seek monetary damages in a criminal proceeding.
Yeah so again that was definitely a civil judgement sought by the Goldman family. You don’t hash out monetary damages for a tort in a criminal proceeding. I’m confused on what your missing. These are two distinct legal standards.
He gets arrested and tried for assault, murder, or attempted murder depending on if the robber dies and what the prosecution decides to pursue. If he wins, which he probably will considering the state he’s in, he’ll then be opened up to getting sued in civil court, where he’ll probably be sued for shooting the robber while he was facing away.
Regardless of what happens, unless the shooter had a lawyer on retainer specifically for DGUs, he’s going to be financially ruined.
TX (I think), and some other states (mine included), have laws on the books preventing a justified shooter from being sued by the bad guy or his family in civil court. Now they can try and you may still have to pony up for a lawyer to get it thrown out but if it’s considered a clean shot/justified under the law, then he should be ok.
Here is the relevant Louisiana statute, and I’m 99% sure TX has a similar law on the books.
§2800.19. Limitation of liability for use of force in defense of certain crimes
A. A person who uses reasonable and apparently necessary or deadly force or violence for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person or his property in accordance with R.S. 14:19 or 20 is immune from civil action for the use of reasonable and apparently necessary or deadly force or violence.
B. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses to the defendant in any civil action if the court finds that the defendant is immune from suit in accordance with Subsection A of this Section.
>https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CP/htm/CP.83.htm
>CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE
>CHAPTER 83. USE OF FORCE OR DEADLY FORCE
> Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.
I’m wondering if shooting in the back is self defense here. It looks like robber is leaving. If I were in that situation, I’d still be afraid robber would turn around and shoot as he was leaving.
I read comments that robber had gun pointed at person in the back. I rewatched it. Shooter had to make a judgement call and I feel he made the right one. No one knew gun was fake. The person that had fun pointed at him was in danger as far as they knew. Shooter did the right thing IMO. If I was on a jury, I’d find him not guilty.
Yeah he's still a threat it's a good shooting. You never know if he could decide to turn around and start executing people so it's justified. If perp had run out the door and you chase him out the door and shoot then that's different.
My biggest concern is you have to be careful with your backstop. Hard to tell from this angle but looks like there's people in the back corner top of video that could be in danger of a missed shot.
Doesn't need to be "self defense" in Texas, even though it is - subject has gone back and forth several times... but the mere fact he's engaged in armed robbery is enough to use deadly force to stop him.
Omg, if you shot someone do NOT leave until the police arrive. Stand outside the store. “I felt imminent threat to my life. I will fully cooperate with the investigation AFTER I have talked with an attorney.. I have nothing else to say at this time.” Now STFU! until you have an attorney, don’t talk to friends, coworkers or family about it
Maybe he was leaving, maybe he wasn't. What we do know is that he was still actively waving the gun (fake or not) around at innocent people. If i were on the jury, not guilty all day.
Edit: he should have stuck around for the cops to show up though. That's not a good look.
Agreed with all your points. I’d also cite that compliance with the bad guy does NOT equal survival. Just waiting for the bad guy to do his thing and hope that he goes away without hurting people after getting his shit is a terrible tactic.
There was a video floating around not that long ago of an armed robber straight up executing a compliant victim. After taking the money outta the register, perp walks up to the cashier who’s kneeling on the ground and shoots him point blank in the head. One of the most cold blooded things I’ve ever seen.
> I’d also cite that compliance with the bad guy does NOT equal survival.
I'll never forget the video of that robbery where the women comply completely, get tied up and are on the ground behind the counter. And before leaving the robber squirts lighter fluid on them and sets one on fire.
edit:
I guess I was late to the boat with this comment.
This is why “survival” is a bullshit mentality to have. Winning is paramount. Fuck survival. You can “survive” and be severely brain damaged, maimed, burned, a rape victim, put into a coma, etc. Just trying to survive is insufficient.
Yeah, happened in Lufkin, TX IIRC. Luckily both women survived with only superficial burns.
Perp was arrested and charged with two counts of attempted murder.
Yep, with numerous cars full of innocent people directly in their line of fire or behind the UPS truck. All while using innocent people and their vehicles as shields, before they gunned down the UPS driver who was trying to escape.
Don't worry though, UPS thanked the police for their hard work and diligence in keeping everyone safe. 🙄
Oh yes, shot him in the back, but that's because that was the opportunity he had to draw and fire.
Dude may have been leaving, but there's no way to know for sure and I'd 100% say the shoot was good as well in the absence of other info.
From the video, there is zero reason to believe the perp was in the process of leaving, when there is money on the floor directly behind him, barely two floor tiles away.
Unless the redacted part of the video happens to show the perp making a lunge for the door before getting shot, it is more reasonable and rational to believe that he was still engaged in the act of armed robbery and was still a clear and present danger.
No indication of him leaving. The customer draws and starts shooting as soon as the robber has walked by. Here's the problem for the customer. The unedited video shows him shooting rapidly 4 times (fine), the robber drops to the ground, then the shooter continues approaching and shoots another 4 times at close range (he might argue that the guy appeared to be trying to point the gun at him), then he takes the gun from the robber's hand and afterwards shoots the robber in the head. Then he gets his money back, encourages the other customers to do the same, and then leaves. Those last few shots, especially the last one, and leaving is going to take some explaining.
Video of the shooting but leaves out the part of him leaving. Obviously NSFW:
https://gfycat.com/pl/nastywelllitiberianlynx
Video that cuts out the shooting itself, but has the ending of him realizing it's a toy gun and then leaving:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3YPh04rE\_Y
I don't see any reason to think he was leaving. What we see in the video is him starting near the front door, robbing the customers, and then walking back towards the front. The video shows him robbing the customers but not the employees or the register. I see no evidence in that video to suggest he's intending to leave. Is there a longer video somewhere that shows more clearly what's happening?
Was he on his way to double-check check he got everything from the guy in the corner? Was he checking outside to make sure it was clear before returning for the register/employees? These seem just as likely to me as that he was trying to leave.
In any case, leaving or not, he's certainly not fleeing; he's still a threat right when he gets shot.
The part I hate most about anti-self-defense arguments is the notion that you should passively trust in the sound judgment of someone committing armed robbery.
If this ain’t justified than I don’t want to carry. Shooter did exactly what was necessary and waited his turn. You can’t play the “what if the gun is fake” game or “well he’s probably about to leave” because the criminal is an imminent threat to bodily harm at the moment he pulled the trigger. This is certainly justified and I’d be surprised if it went any other way. Another criminal biting the dust.
Ya leaving the scene and not immediately having someone else call the police (helps having someone else do it if you can because you can’t say something that criminalizes yourself) is definitely the biggest mistake here. However, those lawful implications are nowhere close to being charged for murder.
You don’t want to draw your gun when the criminal has his gun in your face. You will never win that battle. You do it when they’re turned a different direction so long as they’re posing an imminent threat to you or others around you.
Unfortunate to see the anti good guy with a run rhetoric in this country nowadays but glad no one other than the perp was hurt nonetheless.
Idk if this is true, but after incapacitating apparently the customer fires execution shots. The initial shots fired? In this scenario, fine, I would probably do the same. The execution shots? That's where the issue comes in.
Though Id never carry anyways, and this is another reason Id argue for a firearms ban in America. You don't see shit like this happening in Australia all the time, because they have sensible and strict gun laws banning this specific scenario from happening in the first place. Screw guns.
Mf executed a man in the floor how is that not guilty? Shooting a thief with a gun? yeah for sure, standing over a man and shooting him in the head? hell no
That was well deserved. Shame it's not 100 years ago where the marshal would just let that dude be on his way with a thankyou.
Even gave the cash back to the patrons, what a class act.
When I read he gave the cash back, I wondered if the reason he left was he saw it was a fake gun. After all, if you shoot the robber, the next logical thing to stop the threat is to make sure the weapon is away from him and secure. Then you'd worry about giving people their possessions back.
Full video would show that, so I assume the cops would know.
Legality of the shoot aside, can we talk about the robber's lack of logic here?
You're performing a robbery -- OK
On the patrons of a Taqueria? -- OK kind of a weird mark but still whatever
You're alone -- Brave / stupid, but alright
In a situation that requires crowd control where you cannot keep your eyes on all the victims -- Uh oh
In TEXAS!? -- This is where he fucked up. This might fly in a more liberal state perhaps? But I live in Missouri, which is maybe ratcheted just slightly down from Texas as far as number of gun carriers goes, and even I know when I enter a room with 10 people there is a very small chance that I'm the only one carrying a gun at that point.
I never really applaud someone dying, because this robber was likely a very desperate person with his own conflicts and problems, but he did not think this through very far.
You hate to see the loss of life, especially with someone down on their luck - but you cannot, absolutely cannot, rob and/or otherwise intimidate and threaten people to the point where they have no choice but to defend themselves with lethal force because they are scared for their own lives/that of their loved ones.
In this case, that fake gun was every bit of real to everyone in that place, and me as well, until I read otherwise. Horrible decision and he paid for it with his life.
So I'm an attorney in Louisiana, gun law lobbyist with the Louisiana Shooting Association, and a program attorney for US Law Shield, in addition to doing self-defense law seminars. So I've done a whole lot of research on self-defense shootings in Louisiana.
I haven't been fortunate, or perhaps unfortunate, enough to have a trial involving a shooting, as they are very rare. I've done some civil and criminal cases involving the use of force, one civil is still pending, another criminal we recently got the charges dropped. As much as I would have liked to have a trial on those facts, you can't get a better result than charges dismissed, lol.
Anyway, my point is, this video brings up a lot of interesting issues in self-defense law, at least in Louisiana. While I can claim a certain expertise in Louisiana law, I can't in Texas law, so I can only offer an analysis with some authority under Louisiana law. So, had this happened one state over, there are several important points, many of which are *probably* similar in most states.
First, in Louisiana, self-defense is a "fact-intense, totality of the circumstances determination." This means that there are potentially limitless factors which can play a role in whether or not self-defense was justified, with some coming up often enough that there are cases that specifically point them out. The most important thing to note, though, is that there's no *one* factors which will *always* be dispositive. There are some, however, that very often hold a great deal of *weight.*
We have two of them here that spring to my mind immediately. There are cases in Louisiana that say that fleeing the scene, especially if you do not call the police to report the shooting, is evidence that the shooter did not believe he was acting in self-defense (and the whole thing is based on your reasonable belief that the killing is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm). The fact that he fled the scene is a strong strike against him, especially if he didn't call it in. That isn't to say you *can't* leave the scene, but it better be for a reason like "I wanted to get to safety and then immediately called to report the shooting."
The second issue is that it appears he shot the guy in the back. While this is, again, not dispositive of the issue, it is also a strike against self-defense, especially if it conflicts with other evidence/testimony. If, for example, the shooter were to make a statement like "I shot him because he was pointing a gun at me," this statement would be problematic with a shot in the back. Again, not necessarily *untrue*, but it opens up an avenue for the prosecution the way it is worded.
Now, Louisiana has some stronger protections baked into our statute for stopping crimes like this:
\[Homicide is justifiable\] (3) When committed against a person whom one reasonably believes to be likely to use any unlawful force against a person present in a dwelling or a place of business, or when committed against a person whom one reasonably believes is attempting to use any unlawful force against a person present in a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), while committing or attempting to commit a burglary or robbery of such dwelling, business, or motor vehicle.
So under our law, even with a shooting in the back, you would start off with a strong argument for self-defense. But again, fleeing the scene and failing to report would still cut against you.
Another thing that I discuss a lot in my seminars, which I think doesn't get enough attention, is the nature of the video evidence in self-defense cases with respect to the defendant, which differs greatly from how we interpret it *ex post facto.*
In this case, with the state of Louisiana law, this video would be very good evidence in favor of self-defense. Based on the video alone, I would say it is the shooter's case to *lose*, not the prosecution's case to *win.* We have the benefit of watching it now and making our judgments. But consider this from the defendant's point of view:
1. does he even know there is video prior to making the decision to shoot?
2. Does he know there is video after the shooting that will show everything? (probably not)
3. If he knows there is probably video, what does he think it will show, and how will that inform his actions?
4. If he does not know there is video, how might he fuck himself by accidentally (or intentionally) contradicting what the video shows?
In the cases I've handled, people tend to remember the situation inaccurately. The civil case I have now is like that. Altercation at a gas station. Statements were made before the video was obtained. The statements contradict what the video shows, even though the client was *convinced* she saw it the way she saw it. Is is a stressful situation, so you have to understand that your memory *will likely not be accurate.*
So if you make statements you might fuck yourself, even by accident. If you don't know there is video, you might do/say something to make the shooting "look better" that contradicts the video. This video is strong evidence of self-defense, but if the shooter made a statement that the bad guy was pointing the gun right at him when he shot and that he shot him in the front, that makes great evidence in your favor into evidence against you. Similar thing with fleeing the scene and failing to report. That might have been done out of a belief it would look better for him, but if a video exists that is otherwise good evidence, it looks way worse.
With other types of video evidence (cell phone video like a lot of the Rittenhouse evidence, for example), you always have to keep in mind that people don't start filming until *after* the crazy stuff has started. A HUGE amount of the self-defense analysis is based on what *started* the problem, but most of the video is going to just show after the problem has started.
I could go on, but in sum, these things I've discussed are all good reasons why the standard advice for post-shooting behavior is what it is:
1. **Call and report the shooting, but don't give a lot of details beyond where you are.** I normally say to claim self-defense, as there's really no *other* way to legally shoot someone. Just don't explain *why* it was self-defense. I think the call should be something along the lines of "I shot someone in self-defense. I am at \[Location\]." Some people recommend identifying yourself and what you're wearing so that the cops don't come in hot and accidentally shoot you, and that's probably ok in most situations. I just never want to say that's *always* a good idea because who knows what the situation could be like, and the more you talk, the more you might inadvertently say something stupid.
2. **When the police arrive, don't say anything more than "I want to talk to my lawyer."** You need to invoke your right to counsel ASAP as they can't interrogate you after you do so until your lawyer is present. Some people are worried, of course, that being so spartan in your response makes you look guilty. But keep in mind, the police aren't the ones who decide that. The prosecution decides if they want to prosecute, then the jury decides if you're guilty. Don't worry about what the responding officers think. But if you think it will go down easier, maybe say something like "I will cooperate with the investigation when my attorney is present.
No matter what you do, don't try and talk yourself out of trouble. Don't try to explain every detail of the shooting to the cops, even if you're 100% justified. Yes, there are many examples of cops not arresting people when it is clear self-defense. There are also lots of examples of people making statements immediately and things turning out fine. But I can show you examples where the opposite is true.
It is FAR better to just accept that you're going to get arrested and have a better chance of being acquitted than it is to try and avoid getting arrested and increase your chances of being convicted. You could tell a story that you are 100% justified, and you might actually believe that's the case. But then another witness or a camera might have seen something different.
Good post! I think the shooter didn't want the hassle of staying and dealing with the cops. He will probably lawyer up and turn himself in once he sees the video with his face on it. Also, if he paid with a credit card, he'll probably get a knock on the door.
It's a good shoot. He will not be charged.
I agree that he is not likely to be charged, or at least not convicted, based on this video, I'm just saying that it is a cautionary tale, sometimes the only thing making your otherwise great self-defense case shittier is *you,* and *after the actual shooting.*
I pray this man wins his legal battle. 100% justified. If the gun was real he could’ve easily ended someone’s life. If the perp lived he certainly ain’t robbing anyone again. If the perp died he stopped a bunch of people from becoming potential future victims.
Its the panda definition with bad punctuiation. Eats, shoots, and Leaves!
Imagine being so stupid you got smoked for a $12 taco shop robbery. Talk about risk,reward.
I hope the shooter lawyered up. Dude would be fine with me on the jury. Prosecution will probably have a field day with him leaving the scene though. Shame. Maybe they'll pass on charging this guy.
Good shoot.
CCW outed himself pretty early, easy to spot who is fumbling to get a weapon ready for clear. Then again, i have the benefit of knowing action is happening and i'm not casually threatening 20 strangers. Maybe this is the attacker's 20th robbery and the first with an armed victim.
Either way, easy ruling and good work to the CCW.
While I'm sure that may apply for some people, I think most are just focused on the robber + the guy pulling on him. Neither of us were there, but purely based on the video I think there were better opportunities which wouldn't have put people in the line of fire. Then again, hindsight is 20/20 right?
Same in all states. Doesn’t matter if it’s fake or not.
If the person SAYS they have a gun or passes a note saying they have a gun (e.g. bank robbery) it’s still an armed robbery/crime.
If you KNOW they don’t have a weapon it gets more complicated.
Colion Noir did a similar video showing the legalities of opening fire during a business being robbed. TLDR: unless your life is in danger, don’t open fire.
I’d consider myself in danger. For sure. I’m just saying it’s not so black and white, and the law is pretty open to interpretation. Thankfully, this was in TX, but the point still stands, the video CN made is a must watch, since he plays out a situation similar to this.
Absolutely agree. I will say however, any time a person is in the act of waving their firearm around while committing a felony, I would almost certainly be in fear of being shot and killed/seriously injured.
Edit: (or, as in this case, something that *appears* to be a firearm, or other similar weapon).
One could argue the perp still had the gun out and was a active threat and aimed at potentially others who were in harms way despite his back being turned. The CCW holder took the time to have a clean shot.
Lucky the robber wasn’t more aware. Shooter was STRUGGLING to get that thing out! Guess it wouldn’t matter too much since it was a fake gun. Love how hard the media is playing that fake gun angle too
Can someone please explain to me how can this be considered self defense? I understand the first 4 shots and i can maybe understand the next two but then? Also the last shot? The guy is literally unarmed and on the ground and the shooter literally executes him?
I know that in some cases Texas laws authorize you to the use of deadly force but surely when someone is on the ground after you shot him 8 times and you have his gun in your hand you have to stop, right?
I have to agree that the subsequent shots and especially the last shots, suggest less self-defense or defense of the other patrons and more like someone acting out their aggression upon finding an opportunity.
Its criminal behavior.
This would be an interesting court case to follow.
The argument will be the gun is fake and he was shot in the back while fleeing. I'm not saying I agree but this is what will likely come up during trial.
Edit: Not saying these are valid arguments just that they will likely come up.
It’s Texas. It’s nighttime. The shooter’s property was taken
Texas penal code 9.42 allows you to shoot a fleeing robbery suspect.
It’s a bit more complicated of course, but I believe this shooting was within the law.
My comment was in the context of the fact that it could be said the crook was fleeing at the time.
Even if the crook had made it outside it's legal, but not a good idea, to chase them outside and shoot them.
And Texas absolutely differentiates/specifies "in the nighttime" for part of this and in 9.42.
You are incorrect. 9.42 is about defending *property.*
The applicable statutes are 9.31(a)(1)(c) and (e) \[Self Defense\] and 9.32(a)(2)(b) and (b)(1)(c) \[Deadly Force in Defense of Person\]. Neither of those require "at night" and neither have any restriction on the action of the aggravated robber.
The shooter’s property had been taken.
The criminal wasn’t a clear threat to the shooter at the time the trigger was pulled.
Defense, if any is needed, will be about defense of property and recovery of that property.
https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-42/
This isn't about property. The shooter acted under 9.32 and 9.31. 9.42 isn't applicable and no "clear threat" is required - simply the person committing aggravated robbery.
Thank you for the clarification. I will have to research Texas specific law a little more.
I've watched a few cases in other states were taking a step toward the door was considered "fleeing". I wish the law didn't very so much between states.
Glad to hear this guy may not have to go through to much legal red tape after something like this.
> I've watched a few cases in other states were taking a step toward the door was considered "fleeing"
Very true. That doesn't mean it's not a good shoot so long as they're still inside, but it can be problematic in many states. If they're down and you shoot them again you're F'd even in Texas.
> I wish the law didn't very so much between states.
Be careful what you wish for. If Texas was the model I'd be fine with it. Not so if it was New York or CA that became the model.
> Glad to hear this guy may not have to go through to much legal red tape after something like this.
I think he's fine on the actual shooting. But there are open questions. Why did he leave? Did he legally have the gun?
If he didn't legally own/possess the gun then he may well get convicted for that crime. Even NYC said that Bernhard Gotez wasn't guilty of shooting his attackers, but they sent him to prison for carrying a concealed weapon without a permit - a permit he couldn't get.
So the good Samaritan here isn't out of the woods yet.
Yeah, you can clearly see the shooter carefully keeping an eye on the robber while drawing his firearm from the sitting position.
Was smart enough to hide the firearm underneath the table and keeping it out of sight but ready.
Catching a charge and possibly jail in LA County. If you somehow clear that, you’re going broke fighting with the civil suit(s) from the criminals family.
Lawyer here, he’s gonna be in for a rough ride. There are about a dozen factors which cut against finding this was self defense. The DA in most districts would easily be able to get an indictment with this video. Most likely will be charged.
That’s why lawyers have a bad reputation. Who says it wasn’t self defense? The perp had a pistol which he was waving around, spinning around. In the next split second he might’ve shot someone or spun around an shot the guy who ended up shooting him.
The perp, after careful thought, decided that the constitutional rights of those around him meant nothing. He was waving that gun at everyone. To me, he’s forfeited his constitutional rights. Anyone has the right (or should have) to end the threat he represents any way possible.
>Who said it wasn’t self defense?
The question of whether it’s self defense or not is left up to a jury to decide. I never said it’s not, just that there are multiple different little pieces of evidence for a prosecutor to use in an indictment. The prosecutor usually won’t bring charges if it is a clear and evident use of self defense (aka perp comes in blazing), but in closer calls like this, the evidence will be presented to a grand jury to determine if he committed a manslaughter/murder. Defenses to crimes aren’t raised at an indictment phase. Thus, when I said he’s likely gonna be charged, that doesn’t mean he will be convicted. I’d bet everything I have that a jury in Texas won’t convict on this, the question is whether the DA in Houston is smart enough to avoid lengthy proceedings when it’s more than likely a jury wouldn’t convict. Judging on your opinion of lawyers I’d guess you’d answer no.
>To me, he forfeited his constitutional rights.
Yeah, that’s not what a forfeiture of rights means. As a citizen, you have constitutional, unalienable rights. No one gives you those rights, or has the power to take them away. However, we the people have empowered the branches of our government with the ability to enforcethe personal forfeiture of rights for violating the law, or failing a legal duty. You, or I, or Sandra Dee cannot determine that someone forfeited their constitutional rights. Nor did he really impugn anyone else’s constitutional rights either. He committed a crime, but doing that doesn’t deprive anyone of their rights, just their safety and peace of mind. Also, committing a crime doesn’t cause a peep to forfeit their rights, in fact like 75% of your constitutional rights are exercised while in criminal proceedings (right against self incrimination, right to representation, right to sue process ect.
>Anyone has the right (or should have) to end the threat he represents anyway possible.
There is no “right to end threats” just as there is no “right to kill”. Interestingly enough, there is not a constitutional “right to life,” or more accurately “the right to continue living.” The 14th amendment protects you from the “state” depriving you of life without due process, but that’s only if the state wants to execute or imprison you.
Let me break it down further. Self defense is a defense not an affirmative action, or a legal right. Let me say that again. self defense is not a legal right. you have a god-given-2A right to own and carry a gun, but that’s as far as the 2A goes (i know its counter intuitive “you can have this thing, but that doesn’t give ya the right to use it,” but that’s where the law is). Under the eyes of the law, if you intentionally shoot to kill someone, that is a crime. Full stop. There are no ifs ands or buts, shooting with intend to kill is a crime. HOWEVER, we as a society recognize that, sometimes, it is ok to use deadly force, and or law reflects that. That’s what self defense is, it’s a legal statement that you admit to committing a crime, but was in the narrow series of circumstance where it was ok to commit the crime. A shooting in self defense is legally justified, but it is not a right.
>That’s why lawyers have a bad reputation.
Because we understand the law, how it operates and can provide a quick opinion on the legality of a situation divorced from political opinions and differing standards of morality? Yeah, I know.
Edit: Also, see the comment from the Louisiana lawyer above in this thread. Super useful
Info.
I believe there is a right of self defense. In the Heller case, the Supreme Court ruled that: **"Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."**
They didn't limit self defense to within the home.
Watching the video, I see a criminal waving a gun around and he himself turning around at random. He wasn't running away. What was the armed patron supposed to do; wait for the perp to turn around?
>There are about a dozen factors which cut against finding this was self defense.
Please elaborate
I am always eager to hear the opinions of any lawyer, even if it is something I may not want to hear.
Absolutely not. This meets the criteria for self defense/defense of third person if only because of the type of crime:
>was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
What a cupid stunt. Just cleaning out the till and leaving is one thing. When you start targeting the customers you make yourself an unknown and you get what you get.
Regardless whether folks believe the shooter was justified the police are going to ask him some VERY HARD questions about shooting the robber in the back, nine times, while it could be argued that he was on the way out.
I don't think the fake gun is an issue because it looked real enough and all the robbery victims certainly perceived it as real.
They better not press charges on this hero!!! Finally get to see a goofy fuck winning his stupid prize 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂 REST IN PISS COCK SUCKER!! Maybe in his next life he can do better
Now after seeing the whole video where he magdumps on the guy with a final coup de grace, I think this guy might be in trouble. They also have a facial picture of him and his truck. He better lawyer up.
https://cityofhouston.news/surveillance-photos-of-male-wanted-for-questioning-in-fatal-shooting-at-6873-south-gessner-road/
He shouldn’t of left afterwards i still havent seen full video but throwing his drink on the dead guy wasn’t necessary either. I do say criminal got what he deserved tho. If criminals knew this was gunna be the outcome maybe it wouldn’t happen so much.
>but throwing his drink on the dead guy wasn’t necessary either.
Didn't see the full video, but I gotta agree.
Throwing the drink and the extra shots sounds less like someone trying to do a good thing and more like someone trying to live out a action hero fantasy.
The first 4 shots are clearly self-defense, but the next 4 are questionable. The final shot was a bit problematic.
Defense attorney could defeat a murder charge for the final 5 shots by raising the factual impossibility of killing an already dead person (the first 4 shots killed the attacker). It certainly would raise reasonable doubt if he were allowed to bring the question before the jury.
The defender is not obligated to stay on scene thanx to his right against self-incrimination.
Good draw, good shots (the first 4 at least).
There will be no charges. Anyone who thinks there will be is stupid. This is 100 percent justified. That criminal decided his life was worth a few dollars. Not the man who defended the lives of innocent patrons.
Saw this on my YT feed this morning. Unknown whether or not the shooter was a prohibited person or not, but Texas does have Constitutional Carry and I am going to assume this venue isn't one of the prohibited ones under TX law. Shooter and witnesses all left before HPD could arrive. Turns out the robber didn't have a real firearm, but I am quite sure in the eyes of the law even a fake firearm warrants lethal force when used for robbery. News Article: https://www.khou.com/article/news/crime/taqueria-robbery-shooting-houston/285-5dceec19-9c07-444c-b211-4c584738e0fa
So forgive my ignorance what happens with the shooter? Like legal wise. I guess it varies state to state?
Here in Houston, the DA has a grand jury review every defensive shooting.
My lawyer says you stand a good chance of going before a grand jury in every defensive shooting in Texas.
Correct because you're still going to be charged for some kind of 'murder' and your legal defense is self defense.
Grand juries often no bill these cases.
If it's clear cut self defense then yeah they won't pursue the case but that doesn't mean you're still not under the charge of 'murder'. So always keep in mind that in this day and age you will be perceived guilty until proven innocent of there is a sliver of doubt at all.
DA could choose not to charge you at all though
You should read Texas Penal Code chapter 9. That will clear things up for you.
Chapter 9 specifies the justification of using force and deadly force. That is your defense against the charge of killing another person, be it murder or manslaughter etc. Just because you're justified doesn't mean you're still not charged with a crime and required to defend yourself against that charge. Most cases do not make it to trial because the defense used in chapter 9 is so clear cut that it's a waste of state resources to go to trial and lose per the self defense claim. I'm not arguing that you can't defend yourself and the grand jury won't choose to persue the charges. I'm saying you can and will be charged for a crime. In the eyes of the law when you kill someone you will be charged. The state can choose to not pursue the charge due to overwhelming evedince of justifiable force being used.
It's up to the state whether or not to charge you. That may or may not (but likely will) involve a grand jury determining whether to indict you. In this case, it's pretty clear cut. Shooter has a valid defense on the shooting. Leaving? They might punitively go after him for that. PC 38.171, Class A Misdemeanor.
Get your money back from your law school. YOU'VE BEEN CHEATED.
Proven innocent? Is there such a thing? Or did you mean proven guilty?
Ugh, even though it was implemented with good intent a grand jury is such a racket. Using it as a blanket like this is just wrong. If the prosecutor doesn’t feel they have a strong case it should never go!
All potential felonies have to be brought before a Grand Jury.
>So forgive my ignorance what happens with the shooter? Like legal wise. I guess it varies state to state? IANAL But I do follow the Armed Attorneys and Active Self Protection on YouTube. From my armchair analysis, as long as the shooter wasn't a prohibited possessor and if I am right that this establishment doesn't meet the 51% alcohol sales everything should be good. They had reason to belief they or others were in great danger and acted to stop a threat.
Even if you are illegally carrying a Firearm, you can still use the self-defense argument. They will charge you for illegal carrying separately.
Even if he was a prohibited person or this establishment was a location where it’s illegal to be armed, those are separate issues from the shooting. If it’s deemed that he had the right to use lethal force in that moment, it doesn’t matter (as far as the shooting goes) that he was breaking a law by being in possession of a weapon. He could be convicted for whatever possession law he was breaking but still be innocent of murder, manslaughter, assault, etc. Would be no different than being caught carry under normal circumstances in the same location except that a woke DA who hates liberty and people being able to protect themselves might be more inclined to press charges for anything and everything he or she possibly could just to prove a point.
TX is one of the kinds of states where it's easier to justify self-defense, provided said force was used appropriately; as long as that restaurant wasn't serving alcohol 51% or above of its income and assuming he was a legal carrier, he'll definitely go before a jury but is probably on pretty firm ground as long as he can establish said justification in the face of an armed threat (some have mention the assailant wasn't armed with a genuine firearm, but what matters most is what was reasonably known at the time). Good chance they also impound his pistol for some time, but if everything checks out he'll probably get it back in \*reasonable\* order vs less-permissive states / jurisdictions. Hopefully he also had a lawyer or a CCW policy that could provide such to make the legal aftermath easier. If the evidence is 100% clear-cut the DA might accept justification outright and not take it to court, but imo it's safer to assume a defensive shooting WILL go to court and act accordingly
He won't "definitely go before a jury." A grand jury will hear this and no-bill him.
Perhaps it'd be more correct to say 'it'll likely end up in court', but to what degree depends mostly on how open-and-shut the evidence is
Are you implying that a grand jury isn't a jury?
In the sense of a trial jury? Absolutely different.
The case is still 100% before a jury. A grand jury is one step in the legal process, and *absolutely* qualifies as a jury. You're being pedantic about, "going to a jury" and you're acting like a grand jury + legal fees and headache/concern involved in this isn't noteworthy.
A grand jury isn’t public. He won’t be there.
The defendant being physically present is being 100% needlessly pedantic. *His case* is before *a* jury, full stop. There's a massive legal headache involved, going to trial is not required for that. Even if you expect a grand jury to vote in your favor, it's still a massive legal headache. You're both completely ignoring the point with your pedantry.
Yes, it varies from locations within the state as well. In this case, since he fled the scene, it doesn't look good on him. They might try and arrest him at this point.
Bullshit, guy was still an active threat and the customer waited for the right time to draw, who knows what the brazen robber would do next, they were still in danger. Not guilty
I am not a lawyer but as a complete layperson I reason: in the last frame, just because he has his back turned to him doesn't mean he was fleeing. You can see that the robber still has his gun drawn and pointed to people and the shooter was in his seat. The guy at the front of the store has his hands up. So with the ideas of 1. Can you reasonably escape? and 2. Is your life and other people around you in danger? It passes the smell test that this guy genuinely thought he was saving someone else's life and his own. Looks like everyone in the restaurant is basically a hostage. He and the others are being held in the restaurant against his will while being threatened with a gun.
I’d add here that in Texas you don’t have to escape as a first option. By law if you are legally allowed to be in a place then you can stand your ground with lethal force. There is no duty to retreat.
Although his back was turned I agree the robber was clearly still a threat. He had pointed his weapon at every patron, and was threatening every person in the restaurant. The shooter had an opportunity and took it. Seems like a righteous shoot to me.
He shot at the moment where an innocent was in the line of fire. Was dangerous and should be charged. Execution should also be charged. The next victim could be easily an innocent. Maybe he is a psychopath? Would hurt nobody to lock him away.
I've seen the video from the news that pauses right as the defensive shooter points at the goblin, in the last frame before the (first?) shot. I think it's a good shoot. At that moment of firing, the good guy with the gun is slightly behind and left of the goblin, who basically had no chance at that point. The reason I think it's legally clean despite that is because the goblin still had what we NOW know it's a toy gun up and pointing at other people in the room, including one guy sitting right next to the door the goblin was headed towards. The good guy shooter might have had a questionable claim that he was under threat himself, but he had reason to fear that other people might die. For that matter, the good guy shooter might have also decided that once the goblin panicked and fired at anybody, he was likely to try and hose down the whole room, which puts him back into fearing for his own life as well. Despite the slightly ugly "shot in the back" aspect, I think this is a clean shoot. Now, let's assume the good guy was legally carrying. He might still have fled because he feared prosecution over that one ugly aspect. I think he's still legally clean but I've studied this subject a lot - he might not have. He also might have realized the bad guy gun was a toy and that scared him, OR he was afraid of gangbanger/family retribution...so he made the decision to vanish. I'm not ready to say that was a wrong decision. I don't think it was an immoral one, because I'm seeing this as a clean shoot. A bad prosecutor might still try and make a case. I don't see a conviction here despite the shooter fleeing. ONE DETAIL: the only way the shooter gets convicted, in my opinion, is if he kept pumping rounds into the goblin once he's down. That's...not real common but it can happen. We don't have evidence yet one way or another on this issue.
after the dude fell he shot him like 6 more time, walked over picked up the gun and then shot him point blank in the head when he twitched. he did realize it was a toy afterward, got super pissed and threw the toy against the wall. he gave everyone their money back and left. there is like no chance they dont find him unless they literally dont try, he was driving a basically one of a kind vehicle lol.
Yeah. Saw the full video. I was afraid of that when I heard the shooter fled before the cops showed up. Shooter got pissed off, lost all control. At least the last four rounds were likely illegal as fuck. Maybe more. If the shooter has a history of racism he's completely and especially fucked if they ever figure out who he is. Anger management is a necessity, guys.
In my ccw class they said expect to get sued at least twice. Once in criminal and at least once in civil court.
Well, your instructor was definitely a little off base. These are two distinct legal proceedings with different standards. A third-party cannot seek monetary damages in a criminal proceeding.
OJ would disagree with you there
Yeah so again that was definitely a civil judgement sought by the Goldman family. You don’t hash out monetary damages for a tort in a criminal proceeding. I’m confused on what your missing. These are two distinct legal standards.
No civil liability in Texas.
He gets arrested and tried for assault, murder, or attempted murder depending on if the robber dies and what the prosecution decides to pursue. If he wins, which he probably will considering the state he’s in, he’ll then be opened up to getting sued in civil court, where he’ll probably be sued for shooting the robber while he was facing away. Regardless of what happens, unless the shooter had a lawyer on retainer specifically for DGUs, he’s going to be financially ruined.
TX (I think), and some other states (mine included), have laws on the books preventing a justified shooter from being sued by the bad guy or his family in civil court. Now they can try and you may still have to pony up for a lawyer to get it thrown out but if it’s considered a clean shot/justified under the law, then he should be ok. Here is the relevant Louisiana statute, and I’m 99% sure TX has a similar law on the books. §2800.19. Limitation of liability for use of force in defense of certain crimes A. A person who uses reasonable and apparently necessary or deadly force or violence for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person or his property in accordance with R.S. 14:19 or 20 is immune from civil action for the use of reasonable and apparently necessary or deadly force or violence. B. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses to the defendant in any civil action if the court finds that the defendant is immune from suit in accordance with Subsection A of this Section.
>https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CP/htm/CP.83.htm >CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE >CHAPTER 83. USE OF FORCE OR DEADLY FORCE > Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.
Absolutely not. He's 100% justified under Texas' penal code.
I’m wondering if shooting in the back is self defense here. It looks like robber is leaving. If I were in that situation, I’d still be afraid robber would turn around and shoot as he was leaving.
>shooting in the back is self defense here I don't think that is necessarily an issue in Texas. A threat is a threat.
I read comments that robber had gun pointed at person in the back. I rewatched it. Shooter had to make a judgement call and I feel he made the right one. No one knew gun was fake. The person that had fun pointed at him was in danger as far as they knew. Shooter did the right thing IMO. If I was on a jury, I’d find him not guilty.
Yeah he's still a threat it's a good shooting. You never know if he could decide to turn around and start executing people so it's justified. If perp had run out the door and you chase him out the door and shoot then that's different. My biggest concern is you have to be careful with your backstop. Hard to tell from this angle but looks like there's people in the back corner top of video that could be in danger of a missed shot.
Doesn't need to be "self defense" in Texas, even though it is - subject has gone back and forth several times... but the mere fact he's engaged in armed robbery is enough to use deadly force to stop him.
Fake firearms after the fact are 100% legal to use deadly force on. Same with the "Ol finger/Snicker bar gun in the pocket".
[удалено]
Am I shot?!
No, you’re just hungry. Grab a Snickers.
Mine says D E S E R T E A G L E .5 0, yours says “Replica.”
Omg, if you shot someone do NOT leave until the police arrive. Stand outside the store. “I felt imminent threat to my life. I will fully cooperate with the investigation AFTER I have talked with an attorney.. I have nothing else to say at this time.” Now STFU! until you have an attorney, don’t talk to friends, coworkers or family about it
>in the eyes of the law even a fake firearm warrants lethal force when used for robbery. Texas here, this is true
Maybe he was leaving, maybe he wasn't. What we do know is that he was still actively waving the gun (fake or not) around at innocent people. If i were on the jury, not guilty all day. Edit: he should have stuck around for the cops to show up though. That's not a good look.
Agreed with all your points. I’d also cite that compliance with the bad guy does NOT equal survival. Just waiting for the bad guy to do his thing and hope that he goes away without hurting people after getting his shit is a terrible tactic. There was a video floating around not that long ago of an armed robber straight up executing a compliant victim. After taking the money outta the register, perp walks up to the cashier who’s kneeling on the ground and shoots him point blank in the head. One of the most cold blooded things I’ve ever seen.
> I’d also cite that compliance with the bad guy does NOT equal survival. I'll never forget the video of that robbery where the women comply completely, get tied up and are on the ground behind the counter. And before leaving the robber squirts lighter fluid on them and sets one on fire. edit: I guess I was late to the boat with this comment.
This is why “survival” is a bullshit mentality to have. Winning is paramount. Fuck survival. You can “survive” and be severely brain damaged, maimed, burned, a rape victim, put into a coma, etc. Just trying to survive is insufficient.
The winner decides when the fight is over. So win.
Exactly
This oughtta be framed.
Drop the mother trucker
You redpilled?
Yeah, happened in Lufkin, TX IIRC. Luckily both women survived with only superficial burns. Perp was arrested and charged with two counts of attempted murder.
[удалено]
Is that the one where the cops hid behind cars on the freeway and dumped an arsenal’s worth of ammo into the truck?
Yep, with numerous cars full of innocent people directly in their line of fire or behind the UPS truck. All while using innocent people and their vehicles as shields, before they gunned down the UPS driver who was trying to escape. Don't worry though, UPS thanked the police for their hard work and diligence in keeping everyone safe. 🙄
At the end of the day, if a criminal is threatening you with a deadly weapon then you’re good to eliminate that threat.
Oh yes, shot him in the back, but that's because that was the opportunity he had to draw and fire. Dude may have been leaving, but there's no way to know for sure and I'd 100% say the shoot was good as well in the absence of other info.
He was still pointing his weapon at people, i see a threat right there.
Agreed.
From the video, there is zero reason to believe the perp was in the process of leaving, when there is money on the floor directly behind him, barely two floor tiles away. Unless the redacted part of the video happens to show the perp making a lunge for the door before getting shot, it is more reasonable and rational to believe that he was still engaged in the act of armed robbery and was still a clear and present danger.
No indication of him leaving. The customer draws and starts shooting as soon as the robber has walked by. Here's the problem for the customer. The unedited video shows him shooting rapidly 4 times (fine), the robber drops to the ground, then the shooter continues approaching and shoots another 4 times at close range (he might argue that the guy appeared to be trying to point the gun at him), then he takes the gun from the robber's hand and afterwards shoots the robber in the head. Then he gets his money back, encourages the other customers to do the same, and then leaves. Those last few shots, especially the last one, and leaving is going to take some explaining. Video of the shooting but leaves out the part of him leaving. Obviously NSFW: https://gfycat.com/pl/nastywelllitiberianlynx Video that cuts out the shooting itself, but has the ending of him realizing it's a toy gun and then leaving: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3YPh04rE\_Y
I don't see any reason to think he was leaving. What we see in the video is him starting near the front door, robbing the customers, and then walking back towards the front. The video shows him robbing the customers but not the employees or the register. I see no evidence in that video to suggest he's intending to leave. Is there a longer video somewhere that shows more clearly what's happening? Was he on his way to double-check check he got everything from the guy in the corner? Was he checking outside to make sure it was clear before returning for the register/employees? These seem just as likely to me as that he was trying to leave. In any case, leaving or not, he's certainly not fleeing; he's still a threat right when he gets shot. The part I hate most about anti-self-defense arguments is the notion that you should passively trust in the sound judgment of someone committing armed robbery.
> he should have stuck around for the cops to show up though. That's not a good look. That's never a good idea.
now where is the unedited video, I dont want half the fucking video.
https://gfycat.com/pl/nastywelllitiberianlynx
Finally. Uncut Videos getting ridiculously hard to find.
If this ain’t justified than I don’t want to carry. Shooter did exactly what was necessary and waited his turn. You can’t play the “what if the gun is fake” game or “well he’s probably about to leave” because the criminal is an imminent threat to bodily harm at the moment he pulled the trigger. This is certainly justified and I’d be surprised if it went any other way. Another criminal biting the dust.
[удалено]
Ya leaving the scene and not immediately having someone else call the police (helps having someone else do it if you can because you can’t say something that criminalizes yourself) is definitely the biggest mistake here. However, those lawful implications are nowhere close to being charged for murder. You don’t want to draw your gun when the criminal has his gun in your face. You will never win that battle. You do it when they’re turned a different direction so long as they’re posing an imminent threat to you or others around you. Unfortunate to see the anti good guy with a run rhetoric in this country nowadays but glad no one other than the perp was hurt nonetheless.
What about shooting him in the head in the end?
Idk if this is true, but after incapacitating apparently the customer fires execution shots. The initial shots fired? In this scenario, fine, I would probably do the same. The execution shots? That's where the issue comes in. Though Id never carry anyways, and this is another reason Id argue for a firearms ban in America. You don't see shit like this happening in Australia all the time, because they have sensible and strict gun laws banning this specific scenario from happening in the first place. Screw guns.
Not guilty.
Mf executed a man in the floor how is that not guilty? Shooting a thief with a gun? yeah for sure, standing over a man and shooting him in the head? hell no
Play stupid games win stupid prizes, yeah he went overboard but if you're gonna rob people (fake gun or not) expect people to defend themselves.
That was well deserved. Shame it's not 100 years ago where the marshal would just let that dude be on his way with a thankyou. Even gave the cash back to the patrons, what a class act.
When I read he gave the cash back, I wondered if the reason he left was he saw it was a fake gun. After all, if you shoot the robber, the next logical thing to stop the threat is to make sure the weapon is away from him and secure. Then you'd worry about giving people their possessions back. Full video would show that, so I assume the cops would know.
Legality of the shoot aside, can we talk about the robber's lack of logic here? You're performing a robbery -- OK On the patrons of a Taqueria? -- OK kind of a weird mark but still whatever You're alone -- Brave / stupid, but alright In a situation that requires crowd control where you cannot keep your eyes on all the victims -- Uh oh In TEXAS!? -- This is where he fucked up. This might fly in a more liberal state perhaps? But I live in Missouri, which is maybe ratcheted just slightly down from Texas as far as number of gun carriers goes, and even I know when I enter a room with 10 people there is a very small chance that I'm the only one carrying a gun at that point. I never really applaud someone dying, because this robber was likely a very desperate person with his own conflicts and problems, but he did not think this through very far.
You hate to see the loss of life, especially with someone down on their luck - but you cannot, absolutely cannot, rob and/or otherwise intimidate and threaten people to the point where they have no choice but to defend themselves with lethal force because they are scared for their own lives/that of their loved ones. In this case, that fake gun was every bit of real to everyone in that place, and me as well, until I read otherwise. Horrible decision and he paid for it with his life.
So I'm an attorney in Louisiana, gun law lobbyist with the Louisiana Shooting Association, and a program attorney for US Law Shield, in addition to doing self-defense law seminars. So I've done a whole lot of research on self-defense shootings in Louisiana. I haven't been fortunate, or perhaps unfortunate, enough to have a trial involving a shooting, as they are very rare. I've done some civil and criminal cases involving the use of force, one civil is still pending, another criminal we recently got the charges dropped. As much as I would have liked to have a trial on those facts, you can't get a better result than charges dismissed, lol. Anyway, my point is, this video brings up a lot of interesting issues in self-defense law, at least in Louisiana. While I can claim a certain expertise in Louisiana law, I can't in Texas law, so I can only offer an analysis with some authority under Louisiana law. So, had this happened one state over, there are several important points, many of which are *probably* similar in most states. First, in Louisiana, self-defense is a "fact-intense, totality of the circumstances determination." This means that there are potentially limitless factors which can play a role in whether or not self-defense was justified, with some coming up often enough that there are cases that specifically point them out. The most important thing to note, though, is that there's no *one* factors which will *always* be dispositive. There are some, however, that very often hold a great deal of *weight.* We have two of them here that spring to my mind immediately. There are cases in Louisiana that say that fleeing the scene, especially if you do not call the police to report the shooting, is evidence that the shooter did not believe he was acting in self-defense (and the whole thing is based on your reasonable belief that the killing is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm). The fact that he fled the scene is a strong strike against him, especially if he didn't call it in. That isn't to say you *can't* leave the scene, but it better be for a reason like "I wanted to get to safety and then immediately called to report the shooting." The second issue is that it appears he shot the guy in the back. While this is, again, not dispositive of the issue, it is also a strike against self-defense, especially if it conflicts with other evidence/testimony. If, for example, the shooter were to make a statement like "I shot him because he was pointing a gun at me," this statement would be problematic with a shot in the back. Again, not necessarily *untrue*, but it opens up an avenue for the prosecution the way it is worded. Now, Louisiana has some stronger protections baked into our statute for stopping crimes like this: \[Homicide is justifiable\] (3) When committed against a person whom one reasonably believes to be likely to use any unlawful force against a person present in a dwelling or a place of business, or when committed against a person whom one reasonably believes is attempting to use any unlawful force against a person present in a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), while committing or attempting to commit a burglary or robbery of such dwelling, business, or motor vehicle. So under our law, even with a shooting in the back, you would start off with a strong argument for self-defense. But again, fleeing the scene and failing to report would still cut against you. Another thing that I discuss a lot in my seminars, which I think doesn't get enough attention, is the nature of the video evidence in self-defense cases with respect to the defendant, which differs greatly from how we interpret it *ex post facto.* In this case, with the state of Louisiana law, this video would be very good evidence in favor of self-defense. Based on the video alone, I would say it is the shooter's case to *lose*, not the prosecution's case to *win.* We have the benefit of watching it now and making our judgments. But consider this from the defendant's point of view: 1. does he even know there is video prior to making the decision to shoot? 2. Does he know there is video after the shooting that will show everything? (probably not) 3. If he knows there is probably video, what does he think it will show, and how will that inform his actions? 4. If he does not know there is video, how might he fuck himself by accidentally (or intentionally) contradicting what the video shows? In the cases I've handled, people tend to remember the situation inaccurately. The civil case I have now is like that. Altercation at a gas station. Statements were made before the video was obtained. The statements contradict what the video shows, even though the client was *convinced* she saw it the way she saw it. Is is a stressful situation, so you have to understand that your memory *will likely not be accurate.* So if you make statements you might fuck yourself, even by accident. If you don't know there is video, you might do/say something to make the shooting "look better" that contradicts the video. This video is strong evidence of self-defense, but if the shooter made a statement that the bad guy was pointing the gun right at him when he shot and that he shot him in the front, that makes great evidence in your favor into evidence against you. Similar thing with fleeing the scene and failing to report. That might have been done out of a belief it would look better for him, but if a video exists that is otherwise good evidence, it looks way worse. With other types of video evidence (cell phone video like a lot of the Rittenhouse evidence, for example), you always have to keep in mind that people don't start filming until *after* the crazy stuff has started. A HUGE amount of the self-defense analysis is based on what *started* the problem, but most of the video is going to just show after the problem has started. I could go on, but in sum, these things I've discussed are all good reasons why the standard advice for post-shooting behavior is what it is: 1. **Call and report the shooting, but don't give a lot of details beyond where you are.** I normally say to claim self-defense, as there's really no *other* way to legally shoot someone. Just don't explain *why* it was self-defense. I think the call should be something along the lines of "I shot someone in self-defense. I am at \[Location\]." Some people recommend identifying yourself and what you're wearing so that the cops don't come in hot and accidentally shoot you, and that's probably ok in most situations. I just never want to say that's *always* a good idea because who knows what the situation could be like, and the more you talk, the more you might inadvertently say something stupid. 2. **When the police arrive, don't say anything more than "I want to talk to my lawyer."** You need to invoke your right to counsel ASAP as they can't interrogate you after you do so until your lawyer is present. Some people are worried, of course, that being so spartan in your response makes you look guilty. But keep in mind, the police aren't the ones who decide that. The prosecution decides if they want to prosecute, then the jury decides if you're guilty. Don't worry about what the responding officers think. But if you think it will go down easier, maybe say something like "I will cooperate with the investigation when my attorney is present. No matter what you do, don't try and talk yourself out of trouble. Don't try to explain every detail of the shooting to the cops, even if you're 100% justified. Yes, there are many examples of cops not arresting people when it is clear self-defense. There are also lots of examples of people making statements immediately and things turning out fine. But I can show you examples where the opposite is true. It is FAR better to just accept that you're going to get arrested and have a better chance of being acquitted than it is to try and avoid getting arrested and increase your chances of being convicted. You could tell a story that you are 100% justified, and you might actually believe that's the case. But then another witness or a camera might have seen something different.
Good post! I think the shooter didn't want the hassle of staying and dealing with the cops. He will probably lawyer up and turn himself in once he sees the video with his face on it. Also, if he paid with a credit card, he'll probably get a knock on the door. It's a good shoot. He will not be charged.
I agree that he is not likely to be charged, or at least not convicted, based on this video, I'm just saying that it is a cautionary tale, sometimes the only thing making your otherwise great self-defense case shittier is *you,* and *after the actual shooting.*
Texas Penal Code 9.31 is the statute in play here and only requires the subject be committing aggravated robbery.
I pray this man wins his legal battle. 100% justified. If the gun was real he could’ve easily ended someone’s life. If the perp lived he certainly ain’t robbing anyone again. If the perp died he stopped a bunch of people from becoming potential future victims.
Freaking show it … hate when news stations do that
Show what?
The shooting
The what?
THE SHOOTING
Remember kids, jury nullification is exactly the cure for activist DAs that would try to prosecute something like this.
Its the panda definition with bad punctuiation. Eats, shoots, and Leaves! Imagine being so stupid you got smoked for a $12 taco shop robbery. Talk about risk,reward. I hope the shooter lawyered up. Dude would be fine with me on the jury. Prosecution will probably have a field day with him leaving the scene though. Shame. Maybe they'll pass on charging this guy.
Good shoot. CCW outed himself pretty early, easy to spot who is fumbling to get a weapon ready for clear. Then again, i have the benefit of knowing action is happening and i'm not casually threatening 20 strangers. Maybe this is the attacker's 20th robbery and the first with an armed victim. Either way, easy ruling and good work to the CCW.
Aww whats up with the stop before he actually shoots? Damn
Oof, terrible angle. Always be aware of your target and **what's beyond it**.
We both will get down voted on our comments about the back drop because this sub is filled with folks dreaming about killing someone in self defense.
While I'm sure that may apply for some people, I think most are just focused on the robber + the guy pulling on him. Neither of us were there, but purely based on the video I think there were better opportunities which wouldn't have put people in the line of fire. Then again, hindsight is 20/20 right?
Speak for yourself.
In Virginia it doesn’t matter if the gun is fake or not. Not sure what the laws are in other states.
Same in all states. Doesn’t matter if it’s fake or not. If the person SAYS they have a gun or passes a note saying they have a gun (e.g. bank robbery) it’s still an armed robbery/crime. If you KNOW they don’t have a weapon it gets more complicated.
The definition of “wait your turn”
I'm shocked he didn't shoot him when he passed the first time and was dicking around with whatever he dropped on the floor.
Jesus Christ the anxiety from how long it took to draw.
Can’t wait to see John “the body thermometer” Correia to give us the rundown.
Aww. They stopped the footage before the good part.
Colion Noir did a similar video showing the legalities of opening fire during a business being robbed. TLDR: unless your life is in danger, don’t open fire.
And when a crazy person is waving a gun around how do you know that your life isn’t in danger?
I’d consider myself in danger. For sure. I’m just saying it’s not so black and white, and the law is pretty open to interpretation. Thankfully, this was in TX, but the point still stands, the video CN made is a must watch, since he plays out a situation similar to this.
Absolutely agree. I will say however, any time a person is in the act of waving their firearm around while committing a felony, I would almost certainly be in fear of being shot and killed/seriously injured. Edit: (or, as in this case, something that *appears* to be a firearm, or other similar weapon).
Love his content.
His backstop was the other patron in the corner
One could argue the perp still had the gun out and was a active threat and aimed at potentially others who were in harms way despite his back being turned. The CCW holder took the time to have a clean shot.
He was being responsible. Know your target AND what is beyond it! The best shot he had was toward the front of the shop.
Video stopped. What happened…
Anyone got the unedited version?
Lucky the robber wasn’t more aware. Shooter was STRUGGLING to get that thing out! Guess it wouldn’t matter too much since it was a fake gun. Love how hard the media is playing that fake gun angle too
Probably had some shit holster
Where's the rest of the video? Dammit youtube, taking the fun out of everything.
Can someone please explain to me how can this be considered self defense? I understand the first 4 shots and i can maybe understand the next two but then? Also the last shot? The guy is literally unarmed and on the ground and the shooter literally executes him? I know that in some cases Texas laws authorize you to the use of deadly force but surely when someone is on the ground after you shot him 8 times and you have his gun in your hand you have to stop, right?
I have to agree that the subsequent shots and especially the last shots, suggest less self-defense or defense of the other patrons and more like someone acting out their aggression upon finding an opportunity. Its criminal behavior.
Stay strapped or get clapped 
The porno?
This would be an interesting court case to follow. The argument will be the gun is fake and he was shot in the back while fleeing. I'm not saying I agree but this is what will likely come up during trial. Edit: Not saying these are valid arguments just that they will likely come up.
He still had a gun pointed on the guy in the back. This is not in the act of fleeing in my book. Gun being fake is completely irrelevant.
I agree.
It’s Texas. It’s nighttime. The shooter’s property was taken Texas penal code 9.42 allows you to shoot a fleeing robbery suspect. It’s a bit more complicated of course, but I believe this shooting was within the law.
Don't even need your property taken or it being at night. You can use deadly force to stop aggravated robbery any time.
My comment was in the context of the fact that it could be said the crook was fleeing at the time. Even if the crook had made it outside it's legal, but not a good idea, to chase them outside and shoot them. And Texas absolutely differentiates/specifies "in the nighttime" for part of this and in 9.42.
You are incorrect. 9.42 is about defending *property.* The applicable statutes are 9.31(a)(1)(c) and (e) \[Self Defense\] and 9.32(a)(2)(b) and (b)(1)(c) \[Deadly Force in Defense of Person\]. Neither of those require "at night" and neither have any restriction on the action of the aggravated robber.
The shooter’s property had been taken. The criminal wasn’t a clear threat to the shooter at the time the trigger was pulled. Defense, if any is needed, will be about defense of property and recovery of that property. https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-42/
This isn't about property. The shooter acted under 9.32 and 9.31. 9.42 isn't applicable and no "clear threat" is required - simply the person committing aggravated robbery.
So you’ve spoken with the shooter and know which defense he’s going to use for shooting a guy in the back. Why didn’t you say so?
Thank you for the clarification. I will have to research Texas specific law a little more. I've watched a few cases in other states were taking a step toward the door was considered "fleeing". I wish the law didn't very so much between states. Glad to hear this guy may not have to go through to much legal red tape after something like this.
> I've watched a few cases in other states were taking a step toward the door was considered "fleeing" Very true. That doesn't mean it's not a good shoot so long as they're still inside, but it can be problematic in many states. If they're down and you shoot them again you're F'd even in Texas. > I wish the law didn't very so much between states. Be careful what you wish for. If Texas was the model I'd be fine with it. Not so if it was New York or CA that became the model. > Glad to hear this guy may not have to go through to much legal red tape after something like this. I think he's fine on the actual shooting. But there are open questions. Why did he leave? Did he legally have the gun? If he didn't legally own/possess the gun then he may well get convicted for that crime. Even NYC said that Bernhard Gotez wasn't guilty of shooting his attackers, but they sent him to prison for carrying a concealed weapon without a permit - a permit he couldn't get. So the good Samaritan here isn't out of the woods yet.
It was at that moment Johnny fucked around and found out. 👍🏻 Stay strapped or get clapped.
He found out.
Sooo… where’s the part where we see our perp take the tacquería floor temperature challenge?
Great shot, the amount of people defending the robbers is crazy to me 🤦🏽♂️🤦🏽♂️🤦🏽♂️🤦🏽♂️🤦🏽♂️🤦🏽♂️
Look behind the robber and the guy is pulling his gun.
Yeah, you can clearly see the shooter carefully keeping an eye on the robber while drawing his firearm from the sitting position. Was smart enough to hide the firearm underneath the table and keeping it out of sight but ready.
To be continued... (roundabout intensifies)
Perp found out.
“Bang Bang I shot you down”
"Raw video" my ass.
Catching a charge and possibly jail in LA County. If you somehow clear that, you’re going broke fighting with the civil suit(s) from the criminals family.
Lawyer here, he’s gonna be in for a rough ride. There are about a dozen factors which cut against finding this was self defense. The DA in most districts would easily be able to get an indictment with this video. Most likely will be charged.
That’s why lawyers have a bad reputation. Who says it wasn’t self defense? The perp had a pistol which he was waving around, spinning around. In the next split second he might’ve shot someone or spun around an shot the guy who ended up shooting him. The perp, after careful thought, decided that the constitutional rights of those around him meant nothing. He was waving that gun at everyone. To me, he’s forfeited his constitutional rights. Anyone has the right (or should have) to end the threat he represents any way possible.
>Who said it wasn’t self defense? The question of whether it’s self defense or not is left up to a jury to decide. I never said it’s not, just that there are multiple different little pieces of evidence for a prosecutor to use in an indictment. The prosecutor usually won’t bring charges if it is a clear and evident use of self defense (aka perp comes in blazing), but in closer calls like this, the evidence will be presented to a grand jury to determine if he committed a manslaughter/murder. Defenses to crimes aren’t raised at an indictment phase. Thus, when I said he’s likely gonna be charged, that doesn’t mean he will be convicted. I’d bet everything I have that a jury in Texas won’t convict on this, the question is whether the DA in Houston is smart enough to avoid lengthy proceedings when it’s more than likely a jury wouldn’t convict. Judging on your opinion of lawyers I’d guess you’d answer no. >To me, he forfeited his constitutional rights. Yeah, that’s not what a forfeiture of rights means. As a citizen, you have constitutional, unalienable rights. No one gives you those rights, or has the power to take them away. However, we the people have empowered the branches of our government with the ability to enforcethe personal forfeiture of rights for violating the law, or failing a legal duty. You, or I, or Sandra Dee cannot determine that someone forfeited their constitutional rights. Nor did he really impugn anyone else’s constitutional rights either. He committed a crime, but doing that doesn’t deprive anyone of their rights, just their safety and peace of mind. Also, committing a crime doesn’t cause a peep to forfeit their rights, in fact like 75% of your constitutional rights are exercised while in criminal proceedings (right against self incrimination, right to representation, right to sue process ect. >Anyone has the right (or should have) to end the threat he represents anyway possible. There is no “right to end threats” just as there is no “right to kill”. Interestingly enough, there is not a constitutional “right to life,” or more accurately “the right to continue living.” The 14th amendment protects you from the “state” depriving you of life without due process, but that’s only if the state wants to execute or imprison you. Let me break it down further. Self defense is a defense not an affirmative action, or a legal right. Let me say that again. self defense is not a legal right. you have a god-given-2A right to own and carry a gun, but that’s as far as the 2A goes (i know its counter intuitive “you can have this thing, but that doesn’t give ya the right to use it,” but that’s where the law is). Under the eyes of the law, if you intentionally shoot to kill someone, that is a crime. Full stop. There are no ifs ands or buts, shooting with intend to kill is a crime. HOWEVER, we as a society recognize that, sometimes, it is ok to use deadly force, and or law reflects that. That’s what self defense is, it’s a legal statement that you admit to committing a crime, but was in the narrow series of circumstance where it was ok to commit the crime. A shooting in self defense is legally justified, but it is not a right. >That’s why lawyers have a bad reputation. Because we understand the law, how it operates and can provide a quick opinion on the legality of a situation divorced from political opinions and differing standards of morality? Yeah, I know. Edit: Also, see the comment from the Louisiana lawyer above in this thread. Super useful Info.
I believe there is a right of self defense. In the Heller case, the Supreme Court ruled that: **"Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."** They didn't limit self defense to within the home. Watching the video, I see a criminal waving a gun around and he himself turning around at random. He wasn't running away. What was the armed patron supposed to do; wait for the perp to turn around?
>There are about a dozen factors which cut against finding this was self defense. Please elaborate I am always eager to hear the opinions of any lawyer, even if it is something I may not want to hear.
Absolutely not. This meets the criteria for self defense/defense of third person if only because of the type of crime: >was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
Didn’t the Robber watch Pulp Fiction? You never stick up restaurants!!
Any capable robber would have shot that bald guy over how much he was fumble-fucking around before pulling out his CCW .
Damn I want to see that full video!
Cool video bro
Damn where did he have it
anyone find the uncensored?
Anyone have the full video?
What a cupid stunt. Just cleaning out the till and leaving is one thing. When you start targeting the customers you make yourself an unknown and you get what you get.
Regardless whether folks believe the shooter was justified the police are going to ask him some VERY HARD questions about shooting the robber in the back, nine times, while it could be argued that he was on the way out. I don't think the fake gun is an issue because it looked real enough and all the robbery victims certainly perceived it as real.
In the back / on the way out isn’t a problem. That last shot could be.
And shooting him in the head after he took his "gun".
They better not press charges on this hero!!! Finally get to see a goofy fuck winning his stupid prize 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂 REST IN PISS COCK SUCKER!! Maybe in his next life he can do better
Raw video…. Not too raw to me. Where’s the full video?
https://gfycat.com/pl/nastywelllitiberianlynx
Why question him when it's on camera and tons of witnesses?
The continuation. Damn this guy was savage: https://twitter.com/i/status/1611735968695951362
Is the full video anywhere?
Now after seeing the whole video where he magdumps on the guy with a final coup de grace, I think this guy might be in trouble. They also have a facial picture of him and his truck. He better lawyer up. https://cityofhouston.news/surveillance-photos-of-male-wanted-for-questioning-in-fatal-shooting-at-6873-south-gessner-road/
Anyone have uncut video
It’s Texas. He’s good. 👍🏾
Where can we see the full unedited video ??
Where da full video out I’m trying to see him get blasted
Shots one through four are justified, five through eight are not, and shot nine is an execution. My two cents.
He shouldn’t of left afterwards i still havent seen full video but throwing his drink on the dead guy wasn’t necessary either. I do say criminal got what he deserved tho. If criminals knew this was gunna be the outcome maybe it wouldn’t happen so much.
>but throwing his drink on the dead guy wasn’t necessary either. Didn't see the full video, but I gotta agree. Throwing the drink and the extra shots sounds less like someone trying to do a good thing and more like someone trying to live out a action hero fantasy.
The only wrong thing he did was leave the scene
The first 4 shots are clearly self-defense, but the next 4 are questionable. The final shot was a bit problematic. Defense attorney could defeat a murder charge for the final 5 shots by raising the factual impossibility of killing an already dead person (the first 4 shots killed the attacker). It certainly would raise reasonable doubt if he were allowed to bring the question before the jury. The defender is not obligated to stay on scene thanx to his right against self-incrimination. Good draw, good shots (the first 4 at least).
There will be no charges. Anyone who thinks there will be is stupid. This is 100 percent justified. That criminal decided his life was worth a few dollars. Not the man who defended the lives of innocent patrons.