Not sure if this news item made it here on this forum yet.
The skinny:
Robber walks into a restaurant brandishing a gun and demands the cash from the diners. While walking around collecting the cash, one of the diners pulls out a gun and shoots the robber nine times. The enclosed article has a video of the robbery but is edited to cut out for the shooting portions.
Off hand, this looks like an act of self-defense and the armed diner is completely without blame in this situation. While it does turn out that the gun that the robber was using was fake, it was real enough looking that nobody faults the diner from acting under the belief that it is real. So that fact is immaterial.
So here's the "twist". According to my son who originally discussed this story with me (and I should note, I have not verified the further information coming next...it is information that was on a reddit post about the robbery, so for all I know, this could be some gun-haters adding flavor to the story that may not be true), the diner does not shoot 9 times in quick succession. Instead, he first shoots five times. Then, when the robber is down prone on the floor, he fires off two more. Then he gets up, and puts a round in the back of the robber's head. Then he removes the (fake) gun from the robbers hand.
The question is, was the line between self-defense and murder crossed here? The first five shots? To me, absolutely justified. No argument at all. The next two? Questionable, but I can see the argument. I am somewhat struggling with the last shot though. In the self-defense classes that I take, I have always been told that you are justified in your actions up until the point where the instigator is no longer a threat. Since there are other people there, I would think that you could have your gun leveled at the robber after the first 8 shots and then ask another patron to grab the gun out of the robbers hand. I guess it comes down to the question as to whether there is still a chance that the robber is a threat when he is prone on the floor, even if he is still holding the gun.
Now, I am also very aware of the fact that, in situations like this, your brain does not necessarily work at its most rational level. In life and death situations, it's act or die. I believe that the self-defense laws are somewhat "open" to account for this fact. Still, this seems like it might be a touch over the edge.
So what say you. Assuming that the account above is accurate, was the line between self-defense and homicide crossed?
(Of note, this robbery occurred in Texas. The dumbass robber should have known that at least one of the patrons would be packing)
www.fox26houston.com
The skinny:
Robber walks into a restaurant brandishing a gun and demands the cash from the diners. While walking around collecting the cash, one of the diners pulls out a gun and shoots the robber nine times. The enclosed article has a video of the robbery but is edited to cut out for the shooting portions.
Off hand, this looks like an act of self-defense and the armed diner is completely without blame in this situation. While it does turn out that the gun that the robber was using was fake, it was real enough looking that nobody faults the diner from acting under the belief that it is real. So that fact is immaterial.
So here's the "twist". According to my son who originally discussed this story with me (and I should note, I have not verified the further information coming next...it is information that was on a reddit post about the robbery, so for all I know, this could be some gun-haters adding flavor to the story that may not be true), the diner does not shoot 9 times in quick succession. Instead, he first shoots five times. Then, when the robber is down prone on the floor, he fires off two more. Then he gets up, and puts a round in the back of the robber's head. Then he removes the (fake) gun from the robbers hand.
The question is, was the line between self-defense and murder crossed here? The first five shots? To me, absolutely justified. No argument at all. The next two? Questionable, but I can see the argument. I am somewhat struggling with the last shot though. In the self-defense classes that I take, I have always been told that you are justified in your actions up until the point where the instigator is no longer a threat. Since there are other people there, I would think that you could have your gun leveled at the robber after the first 8 shots and then ask another patron to grab the gun out of the robbers hand. I guess it comes down to the question as to whether there is still a chance that the robber is a threat when he is prone on the floor, even if he is still holding the gun.
Now, I am also very aware of the fact that, in situations like this, your brain does not necessarily work at its most rational level. In life and death situations, it's act or die. I believe that the self-defense laws are somewhat "open" to account for this fact. Still, this seems like it might be a touch over the edge.
So what say you. Assuming that the account above is accurate, was the line between self-defense and homicide crossed?
(Of note, this robbery occurred in Texas. The dumbass robber should have known that at least one of the patrons would be packing)
Customer killed taqueria robber, Houston attorney weighs in on self-defense question
A criminal defense attorney weighs in on if the man who shot and killed a Houston taqueria robber acted in self-defense.
