Armed diner who fatally shot robber in Houston restaurant heist to face grand jury

[ClaytonB]

Even a cop would have a hard time playing the "you weren't there, man! the video doesnt tell the whole story!" card.

Right, which is why a cop would have crouched behind the likely location of any CCTV and then proceeded to just spray-and-pray the dining area in a hail of bullets.

You've lost track of the narrative: perp committed armed assault and robbery against everyone in the dining area, the defender fired on him at his first opportunity and continued firing until the perp was visibly disabled and disarmed. Killing the perp in self-defense cannot be a tort/crime even if the defender didn't huddle behind a wall and spray the room with bullets while "in fear for his life". In fact, following your (Establishment) line-of-reasoning, effective defense tactics are "unnecessary" and "homicide". Isn't it amazing how that dovetails with the courts protecting reckless police use-of-force. The fact that it was very unlikely that the perp was any threat at the time of the final shot doesn't translate into any moral or legal duty on the part of the defender to refrain from the use of effective defense tactics.

[TheTexan]

In fact, following your (Establishment) line-of-reasoning, effective defense tactics are "unnecessary" and "homicide".

Pulling your trigger at even the sign of the tiniest twitch or micro-movement is indeed an "effective" defense "tactic".

But it is not a justifiable one.

There are a million ways to justify that last shot - if it even needs justifying. But a "micro-spasm" is not one of them.

The fact that it was very unlikely that the perp was any threat at the time of the final shot doesn't translate into any moral or legal duty on the part of the defender to refrain from the use of effective defense tactics.

And on this I have never disagreed...

[ClaytonB]

Pulling your trigger at even the sign of the tiniest twitch or micro-movement is indeed an "effective" defense "tactic".

But it is not a justifiable one.

Again, losing track of the narrative. What is justifiable is the use of effective defense against an active perpetrator. "Keep shooting until they stop moving" is standard firearms defense doctrine you will learn in any competent armed self-defense course. With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, without pumping adrenaline, in the calm, cool, comfort of the armchair, sure, we can see that the final shot was not biologically necessary to incapacitate the perp. So, instead of 11 shots, the defender "should have" fired 10. That's a 90.9% score which, in a live-fire situation, is a pretty damn good score.

There are a million ways to justify that last shot - if it even needs justifying. But a "micro-spasm" is not one of them.

If the last shot really is "legally unjustifiable", then the defender would be liable to charges, which is absurd. All of us in this thread can only speculate about what was going through the defender's head. Perhaps it will make more sense after he explains himself, but even without an explanation, as I stated already, I would have done almost exactly what he did. That final shot would not be off the table for me if I saw the perp move, at all.

And on this I have never disagreed...

Then perhaps our disagreement is over the potential seriousness of the word "justifiable" in a legal context. If firing a weapon at someone is not legally justifiable, then somebody's getting in a hell of a lot of trouble. In most states, armed crimes get 10-year sentence boosters, or more. So, yes, it's very important that that last shot was justified. It was justified because the defender was clearly employing effective defense doctrine. All shots were placed on the target and he continued firing until the perp stopped moving.

What I will definitely agree is that he needs to make sure he has a good lawyer lined up in case the GJ tries to go all "even a cop wouldn't do that"-mode. What happened here was clearly justifiable -- all 11 shots. The last shot wasn't biologically necessary, as we can see from the armchair. But that is in no way related to the question of whether it was legally justifiable. Making that argument could potentially become extremely legally complicated, so I hope he doesn't try to represent himself if this goes to trial, or anything stupid like that.

[TheTexan]

So, instead of 11 shots, the defender "should have" fired 10.

Correct. As long as we are both clear on that point, I don't think we really disagree.

As a side note, to add a small subtraction to his "90.9%" score, I would say he did a poor job managing ammo. He essentially emptied his mag into a corpse, when the perp could have had friends outside.

So from my quarterback armchair position, I would give him only a 80%

[ClaytonB]

Correct. As long as we are both clear on that point, I don't think we really disagree.

As a side note, to add a small subtraction to his "90.9%" score, I would say he did a poor job managing ammo. He essentially emptied his mag into a corpse, when the perp could have had friends outside.

So from my quarterback armchair position, I would give him only a 80%

Fair enough

[Occam's Banana]

(Of course, "the law is an ass", so ...)

Exactly, and that's why it's important to differentiate between what can seem reasonably necessary in the moment, versus the armchair, with the luxury of pause, rewind, replay frame-by-frame, etc. Was that shot biologically necessary in order to ensure the perp was incapacitated? No, it does not appear from the CCTV footage that it was biologically necessary. However, in the heat of the situation, the defender may have perceived that the perpetrator was still moving or seemed to move. Given that the guy is in darks, on dark, and obscured by the defender, the CCTV footage is not even remotely close to being clear enough to assert, beyond reasonable doubt, that there were no twitches or other micro-movements that the defender may have reasonably interpreted as a last-ditch attempt to attack.

But armchair quarterbacks gonna armchair quarterback...

To the question of whether this particular ham sandwich actually ends up being indicted, it is precisely because "the law is an ass" that parsing out "what can seem reasonably necessary in the moment" (from the "armchair" or elsewhere) will be far less relevant than the political ambitions and sensibilities of the prosecutor presenting the case to the grand jury. If those sensibilities require that "what can seem reasonably necessary" be parsed this or that particular way, then that is the way it will be parsed.

In a sane and just world, only two questions would really need to be answered here:
(1) Did the circumstances justify the application of deadly force?
(2) Did the application of deadly force harm only the perpetrator(s)?

If the answer to both questions is "yes" (as it appear to be in this case), then that ought to dispose the matter.

Any parsing beyond that will find whatever number of pinhead-dancing angels the parser (whether in the armchair or the grand jury room) needs to find. That the "necessity" (or lack thereof) of the final shot is of more than academic interest is a symptom of the fact that "the law is an ass".

[CCTelander]

A real life Paul Kersey? I’m ok with that.

Somebody $#@!ed around and found out. Good riddance.

[ClaytonB]

[Occam's Banana]

Activists Demand Defender Face Charges
In this video I discuss the incident and the backstory of the self defense scenario in a Houston Taqueria
https://odysee.com/@actualjusticewar...face-charges:b