Texas Restaurant Shooter
 

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.

Agreed the guy is a hero

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

So are you suggesting that no action against the criminal be taken until he kills or hurts someone? I have a CWP in many states, including NY, NJ and MD. These are not given out without extensive class time, interviews, letters (including from a psychologist), and in NY appearing before a judge, with attorney to prove why the need is there (unconstitutional, but that can be for another thread). If this thief was pointing a weapon at any citizen, I would be justified in using deadly force. It would haunt me for the rest of my life, but it is something that would be justified. The argument that the shooter did not have the right to be judge is a sophomoric argument. The shooter acted to preserve innocent life. He was not shot for theft.

This was in no way vigilante justice. It was an "active" threat. The hero acted to preserve the lives of other innocent people.

Did the person who shot the armed thief flee prior to the police arriving? That would not change the justification (or not) for the shooting, but does present interesting possibilities. Was he a felon in possession of a firearm?

For an excellent discussion of this issue by a Texas attorney (and not the TOTV experts), see the video. The comments are quite interesting - not much sympathy for the criminal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o20wyw04r64

You don't have a clue if any of what you posted is true...

He still had the gun in his hand (fake doesn't matter), pointing it at people. He was still a threat. Someone could have moved suddenly, causing him to react (and shoot if the gun was real). The fact that the gun was fake is irrelevant.

The only issue that may be a problem (from the grainy video I saw) was that the man who shot him walked up to the perp (while he was laying on the floor) and shot him several more times.

The question for the courts will be was that excessive , or is there evidence that "a reasonable person" still considered there to be a threat...

Time will tell...

Prezactly!

Yes, he left the scene. That is more than a bit disconcerting...

All of my training has taught me to remain in place until the police arrive (unless there is an additional threat to your safety...)

Now that I've seen a clearer video, it's quite apparent that the robber was still pointing his gun at the customer in the upper left of the frame when he was shot...

Hence, still an active threat...

I would point out that what you said about the robber being finished with the robbery is factually inaccurate. When the first shot was fired, the robber was pointing the gun at the customer in the booth immediately to the left of the door. That customer had his hands raised, and the robber's gun was pointed directly at the customer. I would suggest that you watch the video link posted in Post No. 19.

Vigilantism is American as Ma, Apple Pie and The Flag. Americans have historically taken the law into their own hands if the authorities prove unable, or unwilling, to uphold it.

If there is one thing that recent history has taught us, it is that criminals will see the system bend over backwards to protect THEIR "rights" in years-long processes at the cost to Joe Taxpayer of an inordinate amount of money. The system cannot stop crimes in progress for the most part, and penalize them afterwards in ways that appear to be more a slap on the wrist than anything--felonies plea-bargained away so that the perp either walks free immediately or after a VERY short time as a guest of the government. This obviously is NOT a deterrent; in fact it may be a CAUSE of such crimes, with the criminal knowing that even if he is caught, he's going to pay very little, if anything at all, in penalty.

The reason you will see so many Average Joes standing up and applauding this guy is because the Average Joes have had enough.

If the thug had not been shot and killed on his way to the front door he had plenty of time to turn around and shoot people in the restaurant on his way out. It was a justifiable homicide. I thank the shooting patron for his service insuring a violent thug with a rap sheet will no longer hurt, rob and possibly kill innocent people as well as saving taxpayers the cost of locking him up.

I glad the robber was shot. Very justified in my mind.

That may well be the fly in this particular ointment. Thanks for pointing that out.

In just about all states (maybe all of them, I don't know) you must stop shooting as soon as the threat is neutralized. If the shot perp on the floor is still alive and still presenting an active threat, then yes. You are justified. Otherwise, not.

This is Texas though. That fact may not play as big a part as it probably could play.

Seems to me all criminal activity is a "risk vrs. perceived reward" situation. When one decides to break the law, even speeding through a red light, a calculated decision of risk vrs. (perceived) reward has been made. A death penalty, I would venture, would not normally be the penalty for armed robbery (when a gun turns out to be a fake, it is still armed robbery since the victim is not given the change to examine the weapon; and it should be pointed out that "toy" and "fake" weapons are quite different. "Fake" hand guns and long guns, often used in stage presentations, easily purchased on line, are very difficult to recognize as "fakes"... especially in a very emotionally frightening situation. Could have robber have been stopped and the money recovered by several shots in the legs, probably so, but then it still leads back to NOT KNOWING the assailant had a fake weapon. Most retired police officers can tell you, stopping an armed assailant by shooting them in the leg, can end tragically with the downed assailant opening fire on the officer. All these situations are tragic, a 6 year old recently who brought a real hand gun to school and deliberately tried to assassinate his first grade teacher ! Surely, most school personnel, when walking into such a situation, would have calculated that the weapon was "a toy". I just don't know how we (as armchair quarterbacks) can sit back and analyze what each of us would do when a gun it thrust into our face suddenly, in a restaurant ! Life presents us with many tough calls, many many tough calls. We can only hope we make the right one as there is less than a fraction of a minute to make it. Recently there was a home break-in in the village of tall trees. The criminal made a calculated risk/reward plan. Probably knew the residents were gone for the holidays but....there was no guarantee the esident had not returned early, or changed their minds due to illness or a hundred other reasons. The criminal "could have been shot fatally" had the resident been at home. Once the decision is made to commit a criminal act, that person accepts the risk, including the possibility of death ! Same would apply with a criminal entering a filling station/convenience store with a "toy or fake" gun. They nerver know for sure, if the clerk has a loaded hand gun just out of eye level under the counter... calculated risk ? And, any of us might be in line RIGHT behind him to pay for an item ! A LOT to think about in these situations.

Yes, I agree that would/will/could be the "hinge" on this one, emptying the weapon as "excessive" use of a stopping measure ? Can a reaction to fear from having just faced the threat of death, result in an emotional response like that ? You hear of situations like that in combat, when and individual, faced with instant death, reacts with "over kill". Frankly I don't know how any of us knows for sure how we would react. Again, I go back to an individual making a decision to threaten others at gun point, is taking a huge risk.

I have no dog in the fight regarding US law, guns, and their legal use.
But.
Looking at that video, the last shot after the customer has taken the weapon away from the robber, could be a problem if he is charged.

Yes, bringing a fake gun to a gun fight is not a good idea. But, even when the robber was lying on the ground, I think the shooter had every right to believe that the robber had a loaded gun and was still a threat.

The robber could have shot patrons on the way out.

Non issue. Lots of legal theatrics

The issue is whether the robber would have survived from being shot 6-7 times. It would be tough for a coroner to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that but for the last shot, he would have survived.

If he was still alive and conscious, he would still be deemed a threat.

In addition, cops are usually trained to not pause their fire and to shoot in quick succession.

Records indicate that the robbery suspect, Eric Washington, had an extensive criminal history and was out on bond at the time of the fatal shooting.

In 2015, Washington was convicted of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and sentenced to 15 years in prison in connection with the fatal shooting of 62-year-old Hamid Waraich two years prior.

Washington was released on parole in 2021 after serving less than half of his sentence, but he was back behind bars in mid-December after being arrested for allegedly shoving and scratching his girlfriend.

According to police records, in 2015, the robber was convicted on a lesser charge of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and sentenced to 15 years in prison in connection to the shooting death of a 62-year-old man.

He was released on parole in 2021 and charged with assaulting his girlfriend in December 2022. He was back on the street at the time of the robbery.

If he had served the 15 years, he would still be in prison.

To those who want to stress, "it was only a toy gun"...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DnoxAQZU8AAGGWp.jpg

Glad the robber was shot to death.
Buzz in TX is he won’t be turned in and the street level cops aren’t looking.

So in other words lets wait until the guy shoots someone and than ok to use force? What if it was you in the restaurant and you had every reason to believe he had a real gun?