Another Defensive Gun Use: Houston Hold-Up Man Shot By His Would-Be Victim

Houston Defensive Gun Use Shooting

courtesy Houston Chronicle and Metro Video

As the Houston Chronicle reports, “Angel Alejandro Lopez Arriaga faces charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after the shooting about 9 p.m. Wednesday at the complex at 9988 Windmill Lakes Boulevard, just west of Almeda Mall.”

The person shot in this incident was Lopez Arriaga himself. It seems he had pulled a gun on a man in the parking lot of a Houston apartment complex last week. But the would-be stick-up man didn’t plan on his victim being armed.

The 27-year-old man who shot Lopez Arriaga told Houston Police that he thought he was going to be robbed, officials said.

The man drove to a parking space in the complex and was getting ready to get out of his car when another vehicle stopped in front of his, blocking him, Houston police said in a news release issued on Friday.

The driver then pulled around behind the man and stopped again. Lopez Arriaga, armed with a gun, then got out of the car, police said.

When Lopez Arriaga pointed his gun at the un-named driver — who has a carry permit — the man defended himself, shooting the attacker in the leg. Another crime prevented and a happy ending.

We write about a lot of these instances here. That’s because they happen all the time.

According to the CDC, Americans use firearms more than 1.1 million times a year — most of the time without pulling the trigger — to stop assaults, robberies, rapes, kidnappings and murders. A fact that, for some reason, the bloody shirt-waving physicians, grandstanding politicians and hoplophobic harridans never seem to mention when they call for more restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.

But that’s OK. We’re happy to do it for them.

 

 

comments

  1. avatar Kman says:

    AALA got off easy. Should have killed him outright and prevented the turd from killing someone in the future.

  2. avatar Ralph says:

    “the man defended himself, shooting the attacker in the leg. Another crime prevented and a happy ending.”

    Negative. A happy ending would have involved a head shot and a dirt nap for the bad guy.

    1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the bull, get the horns" PR says:

      “A happy ending would have involved a head shot and a dirt nap for the bad guy.”

      Damn straight, Ralph.

      *Fist-Bump*… 😉

      1. avatar jwm says:

        You guys have a whole other take on ‘Happy Ending’ than I do.

  3. avatar Sam I Am says:

    See? It is possible to just shoot someone in the leg, and avoid killing them.

    1. avatar SoBe says:

      But, was he aiming for the leg?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        ” But was he aiming for the leg?”

        Does it matter? The attackee put the attacker out of business without killing the attacker. Ain’t that a good thing?

        1. avatar james e michael says:

          NO ! Just OJT for the perp . He’ll be better educated the next time he commits a crime .

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “NO ! Just OJT for the perp . He’ll be better educated the next time he commits a crime .”

          Which is why I support the IRA retaliation: a bullet behind each knee. Hard to commit violent crimes while on two crutches (or in a wheelchair). Of course, we cannot ask police to permanently cripple a suspect. Which, I suppose, it best for everyone. And which is probably why I am never in charge of anything.

        3. avatar Huntmaster says:

          I think this kind of ending probably has a lower recidivism rate than the usual six months in prison…

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I think this kind of ending probably has a lower recidivism rate than the usual six months in prison.”

          Which would, indeed, be a good thing.

        5. avatar Kman says:

          It’s a good thing for the criminal and the law abiding would be victims for a year or so.

          Won’t be good for the shitbag’s future victims after he gets out of jail.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Won’t be good for the shitbag’s future victims after he gets out of jail.”

          Hence the IRA solution.

          Something to discuss, anyway.

        7. avatar LazrBeam says:

          Nothing further to discuss, Sam. A shot behind each knee doesn’t necessarily stop the threat. STOPPING. THE. THREAT. is the goal. One to the head, two to the chest if possible. Then, if YOU want to, go up and pop ’em behind each knee.

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Of course, stopping the threat is the goal.

          The shot in the leg stopped the threat. Someone here thought it not enough because the bad guy would eventually get out of jail and do more harem. Thus, the thought of the IRA solution, stopping the threat permanently while keeping the bad guy alive,

  4. avatar Cliff H says:

    Brings up an interesting question I have not seen addressed:

    In a DGU there is always risk of over-zealous prosecutors deciding YOU are the bad guy. In cases such as this one, how much more onerous is the after-DGU process, as a rule, if you get a kill shot rather than a wound and disable?

    Personally, I think if the DGU shooter saves the State the expense he/she should get a reward equal to about 10% of what it would cost to try, convict and incarcerate the perp for the crime in question.

    1. avatar Yarbles says:

      Thank you for bringing that up.

      In Houston, the Federal Govt has imported so many Welfare Baboons and put them into nice neighborhoods. paying ALL of their expenses with MY tax money, that just about all Republican Judges AND Prosecutors are gone. Illegal voting is also a problem in Harris County.

      County Judge Ed Emmet lost this year to a 28 YO Democrat that, like Chiquita Khrushchev in NY, knows nothing about anything. She was born in Columbia and has only been here since 2005.

      When you elect socialist shitscum idiots to office, they use public money to pursue Globalist Socialist interests.

      The monies for their campaigns are Dark Money from places like Soros and Bloomberg anti-Second Amendment NGOs.

      I train to place my shots better than the leg unless I suspect the perp is wearing body armor. My follow-up shots are to the head.

  5. avatar strych9 says:

    For the people commenting on the leg shot:

    At this point we have no way of knowing if the shot placement was intentional or not.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “At this point we have no way of knowing if the shot placement was intentional or not.”

      True, but it is fun to play with; which is the whole point.

  6. avatar Ranger Rick says:

    And the good people of Texas will be picking up the tab for another POS.

  7. avatar Michael says:

    It’s only a clean shoot if, at the moment of contact, you are in fear for your life or the life of an innocent third party. Shooting to wound directly indicates otherwise. Read the laws in your state. Pay and retain an accomplished and successful trial attorney. Get his advise and follow it to the letter. Get the best training you can find. ALWAYS walk or run away if you can. This is not the time to let your ego control your actions. If you have no other option, then, do it by the numbers and when you call it in, “there’s been a shooting”, not, “I just shot someone”, they record ALL 911 calls and, yes, it will all be used against you. Then, keep your mouth shut and call your attorney. Anything else makes you a volunteer. -30-

    1. avatar Frank Wilson says:

      Very good advise!

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Michael,

      I like and agree with everything you said except for your comment that shooting to wound indicates that you were not legitimately in fear for your life.

      If a person is reasonably in fear of imminent death or grievous bodily harm, then (and only then) they are legally justified to use force, up to and including deadly force, until the threat is over. If “shooting to wound” stops the threat, that is within the force continuum and justified as long as the victim had a reasonable fear of imminent death or grievous bodily harm.

      Saying it another way, I do not believe at all that a prosecutor, much less a jury, will interpret someone using what amounts to “less lethal” force as an indication that the victim was not reasonably in fear of imminent death or grievous bodily harm. It simply indicates, at worst, that the victim was not psychologically ready to kill someone in self-defense. And that might actually be a legal advantage for the victim.

      Disclaimer: the above is not legal council. Please consult a qualified attorney for legal council.

      1. avatar Michael says:

        Michael, thanks for the supportive response. I guess whether “I” feel that I’m justified is going to be something that will be mine to live with forever and the strongest determining factor in my response. I have no way of calibrating my response in advance. There are no neatly printed rules of engagement cards in a situations like these…if he does this… I’ll do that. Anyone full tilt attacking is going to get a full tilt response. The exact moment of contact has no place for any hesitation. When it was necessary for me to go armed for my occupation, I made those decisions before I left the house each and every time. It was very simple, I was going to come home with same number of holes I left with. No matter what. -30-

    3. avatar Rusty Chains says:

      Per my instructor in the Georgia standing your ground class I took the recording starts the instant the phone in the 911 center starts to ring, before the operator even picks up.

    4. avatar LarryinTX says:

      A wound, like a warning shot, is an alternate word for a miss.

  8. avatar don b says:

    This was Texas, not New Jersey.

  9. avatar ACP_armed says:

    “the man defended himself, shooting the attacker in the leg.”

    Trigger control, people, trigger control…

  10. avatar James69 says:

    Must not have been a .45…….. 🙂

  11. avatar rt66paul says:

    I have a bad knee as a result of trauma, along with a few botched operations. I wouldn’t wish that pain on the doctors that botched it or the lawyers that fought me for my insurance payout. How can a life of pain for anyone be just? Better take him out right there than make a cripple of him.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I don’t recommend using that rationale in court, “Do it for the perp!!” I was just being nice.

  12. avatar Kman says:

    For those discussing rates of recidivism… recidivism rate for criminals killed during commission of a crime is 0.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email