TexasCHLforum.com

He is bending down on the last shot. I wonder if he were going to poke him with the barrel to see if he were alive and accidently fired a shot.

Grand jury to decide vigilante's fate in fatal Texas taqueria robbery shooting
https://abcnews.go.com/US/customer-fata ... d=96294463

PriestTheRunner wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 11:02 am

Beiruty wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 10:15 am This case raised few more questions.
First, it happened in Texas.
We know, the Texas law justifies the use of deadly force in those cases.
Second, there is no higher force than deadly force.
Add to that, If I recall correctly, and please prove me wrong if otherwise, the law does not limit the actor on what deadly force or the level of force, or in this case how many rounds to shoot or when to shoot or not shoot.

This is why in Texas such case could or could not be prosecuted even if it looks "ugly"

He is going to be prosecuted based on the length of time between the 3rd, then the 4th 5th and 6th shots, and then the final shot.
You shoot until the threat is stopped. The threat stopped and he walked over and shot him in the back of the head.
Have you guys seen the full video?...... Its going to be a nasty court case that he will most likely lose.

Edit to add: I'm not saying what he did wasn't just or expedient, and I'm not saying he wasn't "in the right". I'm saying the the location and DA is going to chase this hard. He may get off on a lack of medical training in whether the perp was conscious or still a threat, and if a reasonable person would consider the perp still a threat based on the speed of the encounter.

That last shot may be his downfall.

I watched the longer video. "Shoot until the threat is stopped" We all agree, that is part of the principal of not using excessive force. And it is on the tip of the tongue of any firearms instructor.

However, is it stated in any section of law in Texas?

Justification of the use of deadly force in case of robbery:
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Beiruty wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 4:34 pm However, is it stated in any section of law in Texas?

That is a VERY good question, and good points.

It may be a lawsuit issue and not a criminal issue. I imagine the prosecution will state that the justification no longer existed after a certain point in time by cause of common law. Not sure which other cases they would use to support but I've seen them before in LEO excessive force suits.

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Once the BG was down and their "weapon" was removed... it's a lot harder to argue this to a prosecutor, judge, and jury in a criminal case. Even more so in a civil lawsuit.

The anchor shot is a step too far... but we'll see what the grand jury thinks.

Ordered To Face Grand Jury By Soros-Funded DA

Standard procedure to go to a Grand Jury.

And this is standard procedure for a Soros-DA:

District Attorney Kim Ogg, the Soros-funded prosecutor who appears to have let the career criminal he put down out on bond.
...On Monday, the medical examiner identified 30-year-old Eric Eugene Washington as the robbery suspect who was killed.

Records show Washington had an extensive criminal history and was out on bond during the would-be robbery.

Records show that in 2015, Washington 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 62-year-old Hamid Waraich, a cell phone store owner. Houston police also charged two other men.

According to records, Washington was released on parole in 2021 and charged with assaulting his girlfriend in December 2022.

Our hero never would have even been put in this position if Kim Ogg actually locked criminals up rather than kneel before them.

This is the elephant in the room

Beiruty wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 4:34 pmHowever, is it stated in any section of law in Texas?

I think it is stated in the law, but it really is a matter of interpreting the law. The law specifies you can shoot to defend your self from a robbery. If he is not a threat, you are not defending yourself any longer.

Contrary to many people's opinions on this shoot, I do not have any problem defending all of the shots except the last one. And I think that one might be defensible also. He had just picked up the gun, but if the robber moved or tried to get up he is still a threat.

And there is always the old Texas defense of "he just needed killing."

I think the grand jury is a fifty-fifty chance of indicting him. Depends on whether or not the DA listens to the people and is using the grand jury to cover himself for not charging the man or not. But I give him about a 90% probability of not being convicted by a jury.

Paladin wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 9:30 pm Ordered To Face Grand Jury By Soros-Funded DA

Standard procedure to go to a Grand Jury.

And this is standard procedure for a Soros-DA:

District Attorney Kim Ogg, the Soros-funded prosecutor who appears to have let the career criminal he put down out on bond.
...On Monday, the medical examiner identified 30-year-old Eric Eugene Washington as the robbery suspect who was killed.

Records show Washington had an extensive criminal history and was out on bond during the would-be robbery.

Records show that in 2015, Washington 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 62-year-old Hamid Waraich, a cell phone store owner. Houston police also charged two other men.

According to records, Washington was released on parole in 2021 and charged with assaulting his girlfriend in December 2022.

Very bad news for the DA if he wants to move ahead and convince the Grand Jury to indict. The DA would try to disallow the pre-incident criminal history as relevant to the case.
A repeat aggravated robbers who was involved in deadly felony crime and who was convicted on lesser charge. It is not good news at all for the DA.

PriestTheRunner wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 5:42 pm

Beiruty wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 4:34 pm However, is it stated in any section of law in Texas?

That is a VERY good question, and good points.

It may be a lawsuit issue and not a criminal issue. I imagine the prosecution will state that the justification no longer existed after a certain point in time by cause of common law. Not sure which other cases they would use to support but I've seen them before in LEO excessive force suits.

I still remember correctly, in the case of the castle doctrine, when the father and son pursed the aggressor who threw bricks at their house and shot him dead. The shooters were found not guilty because there was no time/distance limit after the justification started.
Both cases are different. I could be wrong, but the in terms of justification, once deadly force is justified and used, the law is mute on what is deadly enough.

Paladin wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 9:11 pm

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Once the BG was down and their "weapon" was removed... it's a lot harder to argue this to a prosecutor, judge, and jury in a criminal case. Even more so in a civil lawsuit.

The anchor shot is a step too far... but we'll see what the grand jury thinks.

I agree that one or 2 more shots may have been an overreaction. However, the stated (B) is used to establish the initial justification of the use of deadly force, which would be justified as the incident unfolded.
The question again, Texas law does not state what is deadly enough, or even if the threat is stopped or not.

If deadly force has to be qualified or restricted in the Texas law, a DA/or a lawyer can sue the actor (shooter in self-defense) why did he shoot more than 1 round?

Also, note in Texas law, "reasonably believes" is also deferred to the actor (in self-defense) if the deadly force is warranted.

Beiruty wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 4:34 pm

PriestTheRunner wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 11:02 am

Beiruty wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 10:15 am This case raised few more questions.
First, it happened in Texas.
We know, the Texas law justifies the use of deadly force in those cases.
Second, there is no higher force than deadly force.
Add to that, If I recall correctly, and please prove me wrong if otherwise, the law does not limit the actor on what deadly force or the level of force, or in this case how many rounds to shoot or when to shoot or not shoot.

This is why in Texas such case could or could not be prosecuted even if it looks "ugly"

He is going to be prosecuted based on the length of time between the 3rd, then the 4th 5th and 6th shots, and then the final shot.
You shoot until the threat is stopped. The threat stopped and he walked over and shot him in the back of the head.
Have you guys seen the full video?...... Its going to be a nasty court case that he will most likely lose.

Edit to add: I'm not saying what he did wasn't just or expedient, and I'm not saying he wasn't "in the right". I'm saying the the location and DA is going to chase this hard. He may get off on a lack of medical training in whether the perp was conscious or still a threat, and if a reasonable person would consider the perp still a threat based on the speed of the encounter.

That last shot may be his downfall.

I watched the longer video. "Shoot until the threat is stopped" We all agree, that is part of the principal of not using excessive force. And it is on the tip of the tongue of any firearms instructor.

However, is it stated in any section of law in Texas?

The answer to your question. "is it in any section of law in Texas?", is Texas Penal Code 9.32(a)(2) which requires that the use of deadly force be "immediately necessary."

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

We must all know the law of self defense. https://lawofselfdefense.com/beginjourney/

Beiruty wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 11:16 pm

Paladin wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 9:11 pm

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Once the BG was down and their "weapon" was removed... it's a lot harder to argue this to a prosecutor, judge, and jury in a criminal case. Even more so in a civil lawsuit.

The anchor shot is a step too far... but we'll see what the grand jury thinks.

I agree that one or 2 more shots may have been an overreaction. However, the stated (B) is used to establish the initial justification of the use of deadly force, which would be justified as the incident unfolded.
The question again, Texas law does not state what is deadly enough, or even if the threat is stopped or not.

If deadly force has to be qualified or restricted in the Texas law, a DA/or a lawyer can sue the actor (shooter in self-defense) why did he shoot more than 1 round?

Also, note in Texas law, "reasonably believes" is also deferred to the actor (in self-defense) if the deadly force is warranted.

Whole lotta speculation going on. Act II hasn't even unfolded yet. That's what will determine how this goes. This is Amerika 2023, where it's all POLITICAL, "the law" isn't remotely synonymous with justice and is these days mainly a tool to exploit for political agendas and personal gain. Kim the Ogres's office has a political-racial grenade dumped in their laps and all they're concerned with is how to exploit it to advantage or if lacking that making it go away. If they go full Stalin on the guy for arresting him that could open up the opportunity for an examining trial where a defendant can take the initiative outside of a Grand Jury, also opportunity for the DA to punt and run away from it if it serves them to do so. If it goes to a Grand Jury they could still sandbag it and punt or go full bore where it would be sure to end up in front of a petit jury who would probably acquit the guy, handing them a very public crap sandwich right in their faces. Given the general public's outrage over crime and widespread dereliction of duty by public officials am not sure Ogre's office would want to risk a slog through a lengthy and expensive process for the optics of a loss like that.

If there had been any justice under "the law", that little goblin wouldn't have been out to get shot in the first place. Six years for a cold-blooded murder and out to do more. Last year the Dallas police chief commissioned a study of recidivism among previously arrested thugs around Dallas, in the aftermath of several high profile crimes in his jurisdiction. Results weren't good. I saw him air out the local public safety commission about griping at him when they should be after the derelict judicial system who keep the thugs on the loose. Matter of fact this study the chief initiated is slated to be going statewide. There are people compiling the data, crunching the numbers for it right this moment. The plan is to ultimately create a real-time database keeping track of such stats. Will be interesting to see which politicians and NGOs object to it.

Beiruty wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 11:16 pm I agree that one or 2 more shots may have been an overreaction.

Have seen that sort of pearl clutching going on all over the internet. From personal experience the human body is amazingly resilient, amplified when a hostile is agitated beyond reason or saturated with certain narcotics. Every situation is different that's for sure. Best case scenario is someone takes a round, breaks contact, quits and runs away, problem over. But then there's those who won't. You have to be prepared to do what's necessary with that. People have to face and comprehend the reality that they may have to do some completely awful stuff to get an assailant off of them. That's the chilling reality.

Beiruty wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 10:24 pm

Paladin wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 9:30 pm Ordered To Face Grand Jury By Soros-Funded DA

Standard procedure to go to a Grand Jury.

And this is standard procedure for a Soros-DA:

District Attorney Kim Ogg, the Soros-funded prosecutor who appears to have let the career criminal he put down out on bond.
...On Monday, the medical examiner identified 30-year-old Eric Eugene Washington as the robbery suspect who was killed.

Records show Washington had an extensive criminal history and was out on bond during the would-be robbery.

Records show that in 2015, Washington 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 62-year-old Hamid Waraich, a cell phone store owner. Houston police also charged two other men.

According to records, Washington was released on parole in 2021 and charged with assaulting his girlfriend in December 2022.

Very bad news for the DA if he wants to move ahead and convince the Grand Jury to indict. The DA would try to disallow the pre-incident criminal history as relevant to the case.
A repeat aggravated robbers who was involved in deadly felony crime and who was convicted on lesser charge. It is not good news at all for the DA.

In TX, prior criminal history cannot be presented to the jury prior to conviction. History can be presented prior to the jury considering a sentence.
Not sure if the same applies to a GJ.