California Armed Robber

In a case of divine karma, a Hawthorn, California armed robber almost delivered the taxpayer relief with a shot to his own head. It happened at a Denny’s Restaurant as his intended victims fought back. Thankfully, no good guys got hurt. As for the bad guy, thanks to the wonders of modern medicine, he will probably live as the hospital has him in critical but stable condition.

The surveillance video shows (click the image above to see it) shows how the hooligan retreated when his little criminal enterprise went sideways. He took off for the getaway car, but his partner took off, leaving him to fend for himself. The robber’s foot speed, on the other hand, was no match for a late model four-door sedan. It struck him like the fist of Lyssa, the Greek goddess of rage.

Police said that as the fleeing suspect floated through the air, finger apparently on his trigger, he discharged his pistol into his brain housing. As the restaurant owner told ABC7, “I am not going to say any prayers for the suspect because he kind of got what’s coming to him, you know. He decided to rob somebody and that’s what happens. You’re taking a chance whenever you do something like that.”

 

71 Responses to California Armed Robber Shoots Himself in the Head As He’s Run Over By His Intended Victim

  1. So glad that we were warned that “Some people may find this video disturbing.” I found it hilarious.

  2. No word on any charges against the driver? Even in Texas, that would be a hard call to make. The gunman appears to have disengaged from the attack. That, and apparently not fleeing with any stolen property, makes it hard to justify under the law running him down.

    I’m not losing any sleep over his suffering. It goes that way when you play the game. Still, if I were on the jury deliberating over charges against the driver, I would look very, very hard at the evidence and the law trying to find a way to let him off, but I’m not sure there’s an exit in these circumstances.

    Off the top of my head, the best I can come up with is the “Necessity defense”, colloquially called the “He needed killin’ defense” around here. From the Texas Penal Code:

    9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:

    (1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;

    (2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct.

    Basically, intentionally running someone down is pretty bad, BUT…….it’s not as bad as what the gunmen was up to and was reasonably expected to continue doing, so you get off.

    • When you are armed with a gun, you do not stop being a threat because you momentarily turn around. What stops the bad guy from opening fire once he is out of the path of the vehicle and behind cover? Nothing. He is in the commission of a violent felony, he’s not an unarmed man fleeing from a burglary. If he had a bat or something that would also be different, but a bullet covers ground REAL fast.

      In most states a citizen also has the right to arrest someone who is committing or has, in the presence of the citizen, committed a felony. Deadly force is one way to arrest someone- if that person is armed and dangerous. Now, might some prosecutor decide to go after the guy anyway? Well, there’s always that chance. It’s not a terribly idea to have gun insurance that covers a good lawyer in such a case.

      Protip for criminals- if you don’t want to be on the receiving end of a hurtin’, drop the gun when the tables turn. OR don’t rob people.

      • True, nut only in the sense that anything is possible, and irrelevant, because it’s not at all plausible. This gunman didn’t simply momentarily turn around. He was repelled from the attack by the driver slamming his car in reverse and catching him with the open door. From there, the gunman ran away from the victim and toward his own getaway vehicle.

        In the course of that failed escape, the victim ran him down with his vehicle attempting to kill him. Now, that may or may not have sone novel legal justification of its own, but any reasonable fear that the gunman was about to turn and re-engage his original attack is purely speculative and entirely unsupported by the evidence.

        • … and entirely irrelevant to twelve average citizens. If you can find a jury to convict in this case, your next trick will probably involve turning water into wine.

        • This took place in CA. Fortunately in SoCal, so there’s a change of a not guilty verdict. In NorCal? Pretty much guarantee a charge, and conviction for the driver.

        • they dont have to convict. all they have to do is charge the driver and force him into bankruptcy defending himself, or offer him a plea deal that he might choose to accept rather than spend years defending himself on his own dime while the taxpayers pay for his prosecution

        • “He was repelled from the attack by the driver slamming his car in reverse and catching him with the open door.”

          Not all that relevant. As Hannibal pointed out the robber was armed with a gun and, even after being struck by the open door was still entirely able to continue the armed attack. The fact that the intended victim fought back didn’t terminate the attack, the victims in the car were still very much under threat. There were, in fact, multiple criminals involved in the robbery attempt. This made the whole interaction much more dynamic. As the armed criminal was forced to retreat, the person or persons in the pick-up car appeared to exit but they could also have intended to circle around and flank the victims, potentially bringing them under fire from multiple directions. From watching the video, I don’t think there was any way for the victims to know for certain that the attack was over even after again hitting the armed robber with their car.

        • “… and entirely irrelevant to twelve average citizens.”

          Yeah, but in this case, the driver wouldn’t be facing a jury of twelve average citizens. He’d be facing a jury of twelve Californians.

        • “purely speculative and entirely unsupported by the evidence”

          Not if I am on the jury, it is not.

      • Not all cities around Los Angeles are like West Hollywood or Santa Monica. The are some very conservative, working class cities that vote Republican. Diversity is a sword that cuts both ways.

    • Perhaps in the victims’ duty to retreat, they retreated so quickly that they lost control of the vehicle and “accidentally” stuck the armed assailant in his attempt to get away.

    • I was thinking exactly the same thing. Although I suppose as long as he’s holding the gun he is a deadly threat. Cuz he shot himself and all. I don’t see any charges pending for the driver. And in all honesty that’s a pretty cool head in a situation like that

      • Driver was desperately attempting to prevent the suicidal attacker from shooting himself in the head. Should get a civic commendation for his selfless efforts. And paid-for repairs to his ride.

    • LTC instructor here in Texas.
      May be able to use the defense that you used deadly force in defense of another – anyone in the vicinity could be in immediate threat of robbery or attempted use of unlawful deadly force, especially since his getaway just left, he would be looking for someone to immediately carjack with a deadly weapon.
      But it would be open to interpretation, and a jury (which usually isn’t a bad thing, had this been in Texas).

      Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another: B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
      and
      Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:
      (1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
      (2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

      • That defense doesn’t fly. There was no imminent threat to anyone else. Neither was there any actual attack upon anyone else. Sure, having been ditched by his accomplice, the gunman could have done anything, but that’s not the law. It’s imminence and actuality that matter, not mere potentiality and speculation.

        What happened here is that the victim saw his opportunity to exact revenge and he took it. If anything, he’s the one who acted recklessly, by speeding through the parking lot across the parking space barriers in running down the fleeing attacker.

        • Again… Please try to convince a jury that a criminal with a drawn gun is not an imminent threat… I’ll be in the back drafting my latest paper on jury nullification and trial strategies to take advantage thereof.

        • DA isnt going to press the case. Its too easy to paint the real victim as sympathetic and the bad guy as any thing but a bad guy……… that being said the bad guy is going to sue the shit out of the victim and hes going to win, because Califirnia…. go see the Jim Carey documentary about California tort law called “Liar Liar”.

        • I said “may be able”.
          I would say that anyone in the area is at imminent risk seeing that he just committed aggravated robbery, but it would be up to a jury.

        • “I’ll be in the back drafting my latest paper on jury nullification and trial strategies to take advantage thereof.” Amen.

          “a criminal with a drawn gun [with his finger on the trigger] is not an imminent threat.”

    • In Texas you can use deadly force to stop someone fleeing the scene of an aggravated robbery. Look it up under Chapter 9 of the Penal Code. He would be free and clear.

      • Only if the criminal actually had property and you were attempting to keep him from escaping with the property.

        Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.
        (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;

  3. Just goes to show you you can feel any way you want Oh I Feel So safe when in reality you’re only as safe as your surroundings. Good news he obviously didn’t find your typical California liberal

  4. Here’s what happened. The attempted robbery was a tramua for the driver. He attempted to flee by backing up. When he shifted to drive, he hit the gas pedal and lost all control of the car. This lead to the accident of striking the robber.
    The poor driver now has PTSD and needs therapy. He remembers very little of the accident.

    Works for me.

  5. Hmm…

    Well, the adult in me says that since this guy did this in California, he may face some charges.

    But the kid in me says:
    Beep Beep!
    Beep Beep!
    YEEEAH! /;-D

  6. Unfortunately the tax payers are gonna have to pay for this losers medical bills, public defender and jail time.

  7. LOL. However I be a thinking that this is fake news. Kalifornia has very strict gun control on law abiding CITIZENS. We all know that criminals and nut jobs follow suit, Right?

  8. HERE ARE THE STATS COMPILED BY OBAMA’S FBI!

    58% OF ALL MURDERS AND ALL ROBBERIES IN THIS COUNTRY ARE COMMITTED BY BLACKS YET THEY ARE ONLY 11-12% OF THE TOTAL POPULATION!

    12% COMMITTING NEARLY 60% OF ALL MURDERS & ROBBERIES!

    GOGGLE IT – “FBI TABLE 49” and see for yourself!

    DON’T TELL ME THAT BLACK LIVES MATTER….BECAUSE IT’S OBVIOUS THAT THEY DON’T TO OTHER BLACKS!

    FIX YOUR CULTURE THAT GLORIFIES KILLING COPS, BEATING WOMEN, DISPLAYING ILLEGAL GUNS, KILLING & DRUGS!

    FACT: 99% OF ALL GUNS USED BY BLACKS ARE ILLEGAL WHICH EXACTLY WHY GUN LAWS DON’T WORK…THE BLACKS KEEP KILLING USING ILLEGAL GUNS SO THE ONLY PEOPLE AFFECTED BY GUN LAWS ARE THE PEOPLE THAT DON’T NEED TO BE REGULATED!

    YOU WANT TO ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING? GET THE ILLEGAL GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF AFRICAN AMERICANS SINCE THEY ARE COMMITTING NEARLY 60% OF ALL THE MURDERS & ROBBERIES!

    THINK ABOUT IT ANOTHER WAY, IF BLACKS STOPPED KILLING, THE MURDER RATE WOULD DROP OVERNIGHT BY ALMOST 60%

    FIX YOURSELVES BEFORE YOU COMPLAIN ANYMORE!

    TRILLIONS WASTED ON A LIBERAL ENTITLEMENT EXPERIMENT THAT HAS FAILED!

    • STOP SCREAMING AT US, MORON! Many of us might agree with you, but your message was lost in the din…

      By the way, what is an ILLEGAL GUN? What exactly makes the gun ILLEGAL? Stolen? Unregistered full auto? Short sawed-off barrel?

      Just because a person may be prohibited from owning guns doesn’t affect the gun itself, you know. Stop using anti-gunners’ verbiage, it’s bad enough when they do it.

  9. It’s unclear to me why all the medical heroics to save the dumb asse’s life. Everything looked as if was under control until the ambulance got there

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *