Taqueria robber shot dead by patron. video /bad shoot?

[bobzilla]

I agree and have no problem with this scenario of shooting the perp in the back.

For those that have some visceral or nagging issue with "shooting him in the back", look at it this way. He still had the gun. He was still in the restaurant. He was still waving it around. He was still pointing it at patrons. In short, he was still a threat.

For those with an issue with it, think about why you have an issue with it? Is it some old Western "John Wayne" ethos of "only a dirty rotten' varmint" would shoot a man in the back instead of facing him? That's Hollywood showdown gun fighting claptrap. Are you analogizing this to an "assassin" who might slip in behind his target unnoticed and pop him in the back of the head? or something along those lines?

This is not any on those.

Is it some sense of it not seeming fair?

I would encourage you to watch some of the ASP channel videos on Youtube that analyze hundreds, if not thousands, of these interactions. If the bad guy has a gun, you have to "wait your turn". The 1.5 second draw to first shot time is not to "outdraw" him while he has the drop on you... it's to take advantage of a short window of time when he might be distracted and focused elsewhere... the mother of all distractions is if he turns his back to you.

Another way to say "don't play fair, play to win because your life depends on it."

 

[Denny347]

Another way to say "don't play fair, play to win because your life depends on it."

There is a difference between a fair fight and a legal fight. Always be legal...never be fair.

 

[bobzilla]

There is a difference between a fair fight and a legal fight. Always be legal...never be fair.

I was always taught to try to avoid the fight if at all possible but once you’re in it you’re in it. Playing nice will get you ****ed up.

 

[manifest destiny]

From the link in post 269....

"The impact of adrenaline; this was a very stressful event," Garrett said. "The important thing to remember is that once somebody has the legal right to act in self-defense and use lethal force in self-defense, then they have the right, whether it's shooting him once or shooting him nine times."

The dead guy was a convicted robber involved in the death of the person being robbed, a wife beater and now involved in another armed robbery while threatening death (his gun waving). It was only a matter of time before his chosen lifestyle was going to get him killed. One bullet, nine bullets, whatever. As to the "he ran away" after the shooting; he had no legal obligation to stay.

 

[nonobaddog]

 

[MinuteManMike]

My initial thoughts were that the shooter seemed cold-blooded, like this wasn't his first rodeo. I certainly hope if I disarm a guy, I don't continue shooting, for my own conscience's sake.

But then again, I also hadn't seen the reaction the shooter had to finding out the gun was fake at that time. That made it seem as though he regretted what just happened, and it should have been included in news clips.

Days later, I say it's unreasonable to expect people to react to a life-threatening situation without emotion and excitement. And it's impossible to ask someone to take the time to analyze every micro-second in the moment and stop shooting when Monday Morning QBs say so.

Like others have said: **** around, find out. I certainly don't cry over the robber. He was stupid and evil. And I hope this does make others in the future reconsider their criminal acts.

But I can't blame the mom for her comments. She lost her son, and I bet somewhere in her thoughts, she blames herself for how he turned out.

 

[DadSmith]

Don't remember this being posted up thread. ASP has posted their analysis, which disclosed a couple of things I had not known.



Apparently the audio and video were not synced in the earlier released videos.

Second, and to me more important, EVERYONE left and did not immediately call law enforcement. With the bars on the windows and that behavior I will speculate that this occurred in a very crime ridden area where many either had bad experiences with law enforcement or were wanted, or were prior felons. To me none of the preceding should impact the self-defense aspect, but I can understand why no one stuck around.

I liked the fact that John offered to connect the defender with an attorney. John stated the Prosecutor has apparently stated that he wasn't charging, though with the publicity I am sure that could change. Being Texas however; what are the chances of a Grand Jury actually issuing charges?

I just watched this on the 42". What a difference from a cellphone.
I noticed he had picked up the bad guys gun and shot him again.
IMO all the shots except the last one was good. I'm not sure why he felt like he needed the last shot.

 

[femurphy77]

Annnnnd here it is:

Houston taqueria shooting: Mother of taqueria suspect killed by customer in self-defense speaks out

In an ominous phone call Thursday morning hours before the robbery at El Ranchito that would end his life, 30-year-old Eric Eugene Washington promised his mother, Corine Goodman, he would do better.

www.fox26houston.com

Her statement seems real and very heartfelt. She is not defending her son and acknowledges, in my opinion, that he earned the right to become a bullet trap. She assumes that the first salvo killed him and is only concerned with the desecration of what she felt was already a corpse. I'm giving her a pass.

 

[chipbennett]

Still not legal to execute him, but it's a shame that this glaring example of yet another massive, embarrassing failure to keep a hardened violent criminal behind bars with get rug swept by the shooting case.

It should never get to this point. People like this shouldn't be allowed on the street at all. It shouldn't fall to citizens to sweep up the garbage the state we fund doesn't feel like dealing with.

Let's not use gun-grabber rhetoric. It was either a justified use of deadly force in self-defense, or an unlawful use of deadly force. "Execute" is merely inflammatory.

 

[chipbennett]

Walking up to someone bleeding and immobile on the floor, taking their gun away from them, and then deliberately shooting them one more time in the face to ensure they die is by definition an execution.

He is on video doing it. That is what he did. It is a very clear and unambiguous documented fact.

You sure can discern far more from that video than I can. Maybe my eyes are just not good enough.

 

[chipbennett]

I'm okay with that. Don't know where you got the "shooting them one more time in the face" part (looked like the back of the head or even upper back to me in the video). Criminal dead. Innocents safe. That's how it should have turned out.

Also, the criminal was already dead at the point of the alleged "face" shot. As @HoughMade has pointed out: that shot didn't result in death, so by definition it couldn't have been an "execution" shot.

 

[chipbennett]

Since none of us are likely to end up on the grand jury, and thus, our opinions of whether every shot was justified or not are irrelevant, this is a situation we can use to learn. Thinking about what could be done...or not done...to avoid ending up in front a grand jury is worth doing.

Start by not living/being in a district with a Soros-bought DA?

 

[chipbennett]

"If he was dead, why'd you shoot the corpse?"

The act itself seems to fully establish intent and belief that he was alive. Unless, again, his defense is going to be that he willingly shot a corpse for fun.

The defendant doesn't have to disprove the charge.

"I feared for my life." "He was still moving." "He looked like he was reaching for..."

The defendant needs only a modicum of evidence that he acted in self-defense. Everything else is on the prosecution to disprove (self-defense)/prove (charges brought against defendant).

 

[chipbennett]

I know just scary to think so many jump right to that conclusion on a pro self defense website I can only imagine the general public, sad. Sad this person who is willing to protect themselves and others needs to even be scrutinized like this.

The sad reality is that this is the same sort of scrutiny anyone might/likely will face in a similar, self-defense situation. Know the law. Train as well as you can/are able to afford. Get carry insurance. Basically: put yourself in the best-possible position should you ever have to deal with such a situation.

 

[nonobaddog]

The defendant doesn't have to disprove the charge.

"I feared for my life." "He was still moving." "He looked like he was reaching for..."

The defendant needs only a modicum of evidence that he acted in self-defense. Everything else is on the prosecution to disprove (self-defense)/prove (charges brought against defendant).

Yeah - that is how it is supposed to work...

 

[chipbennett]

That is exactly the point… if you draw your gun, if you shoot someone, if you kill someone… your actions will be scrutinized.

If your take away from this is that in a self defense or defense of others you can shoot the bad guy… then shoot him some more…. then walk up to him and allegedly pop him one more in the head just for good measure, irrespective of whether he remained an imminent threat… then you just might find yourself on the wrong side of the law and lose your freedom.

For this particular incident, would your opinion change if the perp, after the initial salvos, was crawling out the door? If the final shot, allegedly and for the sake of argument, to the head, took place after the perp had crawled out to the sidewalk?

Why or why not?

Regardless of what I think about the motives for the actual final five rounds - could be continued threatening movements by the perp - could be adrenaline - could be pure retribution - last one could have been ND or the corpse twitched and a startle reflex - this incident informs me how to train to avoid possibly being on the wrong side of the law and possibly losing my freedom.

Changing the circumstances/facts commensurately changes the calculus. While it is valuable to use a situation such as this one as a learning/reflection opportunity, be careful not to create straw men by which to judge the situation itself.

 

[chipbennett]

I think it becomes much more of a problem the further we go back. That is, it's easier to claim he was already dead for the last "execution" shot, than the earlier shots.

But then, the issue becomes which of the other 4 were justified as self-defense or defense of others. I think the first 4 easily are. After that, it become a bit more dicey. The mope was holding his head up until the 5th shot.

This is why I think this is a bad case to try to prosecute. You start with at least 4 shots (or more) that were clearly proper...then the state would have to prove at what point the shots were no longer "reasonable force", because he could only be prosecuted for those.

We've talked the last shot-already dead thing to death, but aside from when he died- here's a third issue, what if no shots after the first 4 or 5 killed him because they did not do fatal damage.

We could have a situation like this:

Shots 1-4 Justified, no criminal liability.
Shots 5-7 Did not cause damage that killed him, and
Shot 8 he was already dead.

This, of course, is all hypothetical (except that the first several shots were clearly justified). I will be interesting to see what the autopsy says...but I hope the shooter has a lawyer and consideration should be given to an independent autopsy, though forensic pathologists who do this type of expert work can do a good job from reports and photos.

We haven't even gotten to the issue of whether a person can be prosecuted for attempted murder when it would be impossible to kill the "victim". Whole other can of worms.

And this might be where I introduce expert testimony describing LEO "mag dumps" in similar circumstances. Adrenaline does funny things. IMHO, if deadly force is justified, it is justified, period. If I'm on a jury, I'm not convicting an LEO or a non-LEO for "excessive" use of deadly force based on the number of rounds fired, when the underlying use of deadly force is justified.

 

[chipbennett]

Annnnnd here it is:

Houston taqueria shooting: Mother of taqueria suspect killed by customer in self-defense speaks out

In an ominous phone call Thursday morning hours before the robbery at El Ranchito that would end his life, 30-year-old Eric Eugene Washington promised his mother, Corine Goodman, he would do better.

www.fox26houston.com

That's actually... pretty reasonable for a grieving mother. She acknowledges that he was acting unlawfully, and that he was shot in self-defense as a result of his own actions.

 

[GregD]

I hope this thread keeps going so we can see how this all turns out.

 

[blain]

I hope this thread keeps going so we can see how this all turns out.

1st four shots legit. Back shots or not, at the time, the robber was robbing and threatening the customers.
Being in Texas might allow him the next 4.
The last shot will require him to have a good attorney, to plea down his sentence (unless one of the first four blew the robber's heart out).