[retiredguy123]

A robber enters a restaurant and goes from table to table pointing a gun at every diner and steals their money. Then, another diner pulls out a gun and shoots the robber dead. He returns the money to the customers. It was all captured on video. Now, the state is considering charging the guy who killed the robber with a crime. Really? I would give the guy a medal. They better not put me on the jury.

[Stu from NYC]

Agreed the guy is a hero

[Pairadocs]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

A robber enters a restaurant and goes from table to table pointing a gun at every diner and steals their money. Then, another diner pulls out a gun and shoots the robber dead. He returns the money to the customers. It was all captured on video. Now, the state is considering charging the guy who killed the robber with a crime. Really? I would give the guy a medal. They better not put me on the jury.

For what it's worth, the well known criminal defense attorney Mark Garegos (of California) gave the news media his view that the man will never be charged, let alone prosecuted and found guilty. One interesting question from the media was "would the fact the perpetrator was shot in the back be significant" ? Garegos said that was highly unlikely; due to the laws covering "protection of others". He explained that even though the man was fleeing and had his back to the shooter, that would not be the deciding factor since there were other customers sitting near the entrance and the shooter would have every "right" to assume those innocent customers would be shot by the perp as he fled the scene. I would say that was a distinct possibility ! It was, however, found that the gun used by the perp was NOT real, but Garegos explained that would NOT effect the circumstances due to the doctrine of "having every reason to believe the weapon was real"; again, makes sense. Most victims never get the time to examine the weapon held by an assailant ! One has to make a split second decision, as Garegos explained.

[mtdjed]

Don't know what he was shooting, but perhaps the robber with the toy gun wasn't dead and any charges won't hold. 9 shots in the back may have missed the vital organs. Toy gun for robber and 9 shots in back was how it was described.

Perhaps a hero, but sure to find out what a court is all about. Nobody was in immediate threat of death, and some may feel the response was a bit zealous.

As wrong as the robber was, responses can incite civil suit. In these times if caught, he would be out on bail the same night. When you chose to be executioner, recognize that there are a lot of folks out there that may be against you. You may right and wrong at the same time.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

A robber enters a restaurant and goes from table to table pointing a gun at every diner and steals their money. Then, another diner pulls out a gun and shoots the robber dead. He returns the money to the customers. It was all captured on video. Now, the state is considering charging the guy who killed the robber with a crime. Really? I would give the guy a medal. They better not put me on the jury.

The robber didn't actually ever physically harm anyone. The shooter killed someone. If the robber had been disarmed, alive, he would not have been executed for the crime of robbery. The crime of robbery doesn't come with a death sentence. The shooter took the law into his own hands, and executed someone who deserved jail time - not death.

Vigilante justice only encourages people to be violent, it doesn't solve crime. It IS a crime. You don't fight fire with an atom bomb, you don't fight robbery with death.

[LAFwUs]

Not sure about TX law regarding fleeing felon, but they do have specific statutes that allow use of deadly force to protect livestock, property, etc for example.

That is going to be measure that the the D/A & court system will judge the actions he took. Right or wrong, hero or not.

Fleeing the scene, post shoot is also a major no-no and again, court system is going to apply a certain level of presumed guilt to the shooter, based on that action alone...a clean, justifiable shoot from a legally armed citizen, one would have no need to flee.

I can understand why the shooter did it, I have zero feelings for the robber, he picked the wrong day & place to apply his trade. At best, its very grey.
I fear when they locate him, he's in for a ruff ride legally, unless there are other factors involved that we are unaware of, from the 20,000 foot view.

[Rainger99]

The robber was walking towards the door but he had not left the diner. He still had a gun in his hand. Did the customers still feel threatened? Could he have turned and shot the customers before he left the store?

The issue is whether it was reasonable to use deadly force under the circumstances. That is probably a question for the jury but I think it would be impossible to find 12 Texans to convict him.

That being said, if he is charged, legal fees may bankrupt him and if he is acquitted, there may be riots.

This is the law in Texas.

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY - Texas Penal Code

[manaboutown]

Glad the apparently armed robber was shot dead!

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by manaboutown

Glad the apparently armed robber was shot dead!

I agree. When someone points a gun at someone and takes their money, they are a scumbag. I'm glad he is dead, so he cannot do that again. Even if it is not a death penalty crime, if he were allowed to walk out of the restaurant, he would certainly do the same thing to someone else. The guy who killed him did society a favor.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by Rainger99

The robber was walking towards the door but he had not left the diner. He still had a gun in his hand. Did the customers still feel threatened? Could he have turned and shot the customers before he left the store?

The issue is whether it was reasonable to use deadly force under the circumstances. That is probably a question for the jury but I think it would be impossible to find 12 Texans to convict him.

That being said, if he is charged, legal fees may bankrupt him and if he is acquitted, there may be riots.

This is the law in Texas.

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY - Texas Penal Code

My guess is that would be the case in every US state.

[Two Bills]

Shouldn't be to hard too find.

Surveillance Photos of Male Wanted for Questioning in Fatal Shooting at 6873 South Gessner Road – City of Houston | Newsroom

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

The robber didn't actually ever physically harm anyone. The shooter killed someone. If the robber had been disarmed, alive, he would not have been executed for the crime of robbery. The crime of robbery doesn't come with a death sentence. The shooter took the law into his own hands, and executed someone who deserved jail time - not death.

Vigilante justice only encourages people to be violent, it doesn't solve crime. It IS a crime. You don't fight fire with an atom bomb, you don't fight robbery with death.

Hardly vigilante justice, the man was committing an armed robbery, it matters not if the gun was real or not, the use or threat of a deadly weapon , you don't have to wait and see if he is actually going to kill you before you act. In times past some armed robbery teams carried unloaded guns for fear that somebody would make a mistake and kill someone, giving everybody a date with "Sparky" The armed robber unlawfully put other in fear of their lives and one of the victims responded to that threat,

[Papa_lecki]

///

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe

Hardly vigilante justice, the man was committing an armed robbery, it matters not if the gun was real or not, the use or threat of a deadly weapon , you don't have to wait and see if he is actually going to kill you before you act. In times past some armed robbery teams carried unloaded guns for fear that somebody would make a mistake and kill someone, giving everybody a date with "Sparky" The armed robber unlawfully put other in fear of their lives and one of the victims responded to that threat,

He was on his way out of the diner. He was finished robbing people. He had succeeded in that part of his task - to threaten with a (fake) gun and rob them.

He wasn't shot until he had turned to leave the premises. He was shot multiple times in the back. On his way out. What the shooter did, was take the law into his own hands, and shot a man who had already committed his crime and had stopped committing it in order to leave.

In other words - he had ceased threatening anyone at the time he was shot. He was no longer threatening to kill anyone, shoot anyone, rob anyone, steal from anyone, hurt anyone. He had already done what he came to do, at that point, successfully, without anyone being physically harmed.

He should be alive, in prison, and charged with the crimes. He should not be dead by the hands of a civilian who had no authority to shoot someone who was no longer committing the crime for which "protecting" and "defending" would have been appropriate.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

He was on his way out of the diner. He was finished robbing people. He had succeeded in that part of his task - to threaten with a (fake) gun and rob them.

He wasn't shot until he had turned to leave the premises. He was shot multiple times in the back. On his way out. What the shooter did, was take the law into his own hands, and shot a man who had already committed his crime and had stopped committing it in order to leave.

In other words - he had ceased threatening anyone at the time he was shot. He was no longer threatening to kill anyone, shoot anyone, rob anyone, steal from anyone, hurt anyone. He had already done what he came to do, at that point, successfully, without anyone being physically harmed.

He should be alive, in prison, and charged with the crimes. He should not be dead by the hands of a civilian who had no authority to shoot someone who was no longer committing the crime for which "protecting" and "defending" would have been appropriate.

Trial's in Texas, right? Then it is pretty much a slam-dunk. I heard once that "he needed killin' "is a valid defense in Texas. Maybe Arizona and Oklahoma too. Or it should be.

In a bit more serious vein, this points to what in my opinion is a serious flaw in our way of thinking. It's been mentioned, here and in many other places, that the rights of the criminal seem to take precedence of the rights of the victim(s). As far as I am concerned, if you are killed while engaged in committing a felony against another person or people, then that's it. That guy gave away his right to claim protection under the law when he robbed the first person at gunpoint. Further, there should be ironclad protection against any civil lawsuit(s) on the part of the perpetrator's family in such cases. It is going to take some drastic measures to stop such crimes which have flourished because of the "rights" of criminals being as protected as they are.