[Rainger99]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

They better not put me on the jury.

I would think that the shooter would love to have you on the jury.

[Koapaka]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

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.

Spot on! Even those that hold a "pretend" gun in their pocket pointed at folks...you roll the dice, you take your chances! He got what he deserved.

I was always taught to shoot ANYONE that was entering your home uninvited/welcomed, especially when using a window vs door, just ensure the body falls (or is "assisted") INTO the house vs outside of it.

Still the game plan after all these years.

[MrFlorida]

Point a gun at me, and you will pay the consequences. End of story.

[fishon]

[Boston-Sean]

Shooting was absolutely justified.

However, at a minimum, that last shot is a problem. You could argue all the shots after he's on the ground are a problem but that last one for sure.

If charged the defense will likely argue that the stress of the situation caused so many shots to be fired. A cop in Chicago put 16 rounds into a Perp, most while he was on the ground and his defense was that the first shot was fatal so the rest didn't matter. Didn't work. Cop is in jail.

[jimbomaybe]

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.

And you how do you "know" he was through ? and would and just leave ? giving an armed felon the benefit of the drought is a poor strategy

[Byte1]

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.

Sorry, but the fact that the robber with what appeared to be a lethal weapon was killed while committing a felony, did NOT shoot anyone first has nothing to do with the issue. If he was pointing a gun at you and someone else shot him, the shooter would be legally justified. In this case, the robber was brandishing the gun, put folks in fear of their lives and was shot down like the criminal he is/was. The shooter should not be charged, period. I would venture that thousands of Villagers carry guns for protection. They are not "vigilantes." It is ridiculous to suggest that someone should ever attempt to disarm a dangerous criminal. A felon is NOT owed anything. When he chooses to commit a crime, he knows there will be consequences and may result in his death.

[Byte1]

The shooter did the legal thing and I doubt any of the other folks in the business think otherwise. If the guy came in and started choking me and demanding my money, I would shoot him and expect to be vindicated for it. I hope that anyone that thinks that the shooter was wrong, gets a chance to experience the fear of being robbed as those in the business felt. I wonder how they would feel if their spouse was being robbed with a knife or gun. Would they hope that someone was there with a gun and did something? Or would they feel that shooting the Perp. would be too extreme?

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by Boston-Sean

Shooting was absolutely justified.

However, at a minimum, that last shot is a problem. You could argue all the shots after he's on the ground are a problem but that last one for sure.

If charged the defense will likely argue that the stress of the situation caused so many shots to be fired. A cop in Chicago put 16 rounds into a Perp, most while he was on the ground and his defense was that the first shot was fatal so the rest didn't matter. Didn't work. Cop is in jail.

Yep.

I watched the video but couldn't tell if the perp was moving at the time or not. Reaching for his gun? It is possible (probable) that there is more to this story.

[karostay]

My interpretation of the video is a such.
The shooter appears highly trained in some aspects, he distracted the robber by throwing what appears to be either his wallet or cash on the floor.
In order to distract robber momentarily.
Giving him time to pull his weapon
When he returns to table to finish his drink not apparently not bother by what just transpired makes one wonder

[collie1228]

Only if this happened in Austin would this shooter worry about being charged and convicted of a crime. Austin is more California than many cities in California.

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by karostay

My interpretation of the video is a such.
The shooter appears highly trained in some aspects, he distracted the robber by throwing what appears to be either his wallet or cash on the floor.
In order to distract robber momentarily.
Giving him time to pull his weapon
When he returns to table to finish his drink not apparently not bother by what just transpired makes one wonder

Just like taking out the trash...

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by Byte1

Just like taking out the trash...

Egg-ZACKLY!

[edtherock]

And now we know what is wrong with society. . When you are being robbed / thrreatened toy gun, knife, real gun, baseball bate etc, it is a personal threat. Dont do the crime if you dont want to do the time. Lets not be woke. Now the people who were threatened are now probably scared to go back to the place/ Lose sleep etc. Their lives have been deeply effected all because the first robber started this. "We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions"-- Amen !! Imagine how nice life would be if nobody threatened anybody else!

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by edtherock

And now we know what is wrong with society. . When you are being robbed / thrreatened toy gun, knife, real gun, baseball bate etc, it is a personal threat. Dont do the crime if you dont want to do the time. Lets not be woke. Now the people who were threatened are now probably scared to go back to the place/ Lose sleep etc. Their lives have been deeply effected all because the first robber started this. "We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions"-- Amen !! Imagine how nice life would be if nobody threatened anybody else!

Excellent post.

I have zero feelings of compassion for this piece of human detritus who apparently made his living preying on fellow citizens or doing time for such predation at taxpayer expense. He is dead, and society in general (and Joe Taxpayer in particular) is much better off for it.

In fact I'd carry it a couple of steps further. Any citizen who forcibly stops a felony during occurrence and/or who uses whatever force is necessary to keep the felon from leaving the scene of that crime before the police arrive, other than for collateral damage, should be exempt from criminal prosecution. Additionally neither the victim nor his/her family or other people personally connected to the victim, should be allowed to bring a civil suit against the person who stopped the felony.

"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away". The Texas shooter, by his prompt and decisive action, saved the citizens of Texas from paying for a police investigation that given the circumstances (fully disguised perp) had unknown chances of success but which undoubtedly would have lasted months if not years, a hefty tab for housing, feeding and caring for this creep on the chance that he WAS apprehended and brought to justice, and an unknown number of innocent people who would most likely have been victimized by him in the future.

He did a very good thing. We should be thankful.