Houston taqueria defensive gun use
Screen capture by Boch via YouTube.
Previous Post
Next Post

An armed masked man stormed into a Houston tanqueria late Thursday evening and demanded money and valuables from the shop and its customers. While the robber walked around the joint, waiving a pistol and greedily grabbing up loot, one customer accessed his handy-dandy personal safety tool.

When the thief walked by again, the man shot the criminal. Repeatedly. Including five times while the suspect was down on the ground motionless. He was later pronounced dead right there.

The masked man, it seems, brought a toy gun to a robbery. Specifically, a plastic airsoft gun according to local news reports. Not that the armed defender had any way of knowing that when he opened fire. That was enough for a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.

Here’s the full unedited security video (with audio) . . .

KHOU has more . . .

It happened just before 11:30 p.m. Thursday at the restaurant on S. Gessner near Bellaire Boulevard.

Houston police said the armed man in a mask came inside the restaurant, demanding money and wallets from customers. However, as he was leaving, one of those customers shot the suspect.

The incident was caught on surveillance video.

The customer who shot the robber left the scene and the HPD would like to talk to him.

Investigators said he is wanted for questioning for his role in the shooting. He has not been identified and is not charged at this time.

Oh, and it gets better.

The shooter collected the stolen money from the robber and returned it to the other patrons, police said. Then the rest of the people in the restaurant left the scene before the police arrived.

Again…the robbery victim with the gun took the time to return the stolen money to the patrons.

On one hand, it’s generally better to call police and stick around after a defensive gun use. On the other hand, can anyone really blame him for wanting to skip the grilling by police and prosecutors for doing the right thing to a guy who threatened peoples’ lives for a quick score of a few dollars?

With good images of the defender, he’s likely to eventually be identified. But Houston’s district attorney won’t make any friends in the community if she charges the man for defending his life and those of everyone else in that restaurant. Stay tuned.

Previous Post
Next Post

165 COMMENTS

  1. I applaud his taking action, however, the video clearly shows that he continued shooting after the threat was over and even walked over to give a coup d’grace shot.

    No charges pending at this time but you can BET the DA wants to talk to this guy about the statutes relating to homicide.

    • “…the video clearly shows that he continued shooting after the threat was over and even walked over to give a coup d’grace shot.”

      Yeah, that’s gonna be a bit problematic for the guy.

      Was the Houston DA installed by Soros & ‘friends’?

      • From the DA’s page :

        “In 2016, DA Ogg was elected by a margin of more than 100,000 votes on a platform of criminal justice reform. She believes in equal justice, insuring a just process for the victim, the accused, and the community in every case and has focused her prosecutors on public safety by prioritizing prosecution of crimes against people and property.”

        https://www.harriscountyda.com/kim-ogg-harris-county-district-attorney

        Not one mention of ‘equity’, so the guy at least has a chance at a fair shake…

        • Ogg is definitely a Soros DA.

          I’d like to know more about that last shot. Vid *seems* to show he fired five, advanced and fired three . . . and then paused and walked a few more steps and fired one more at point blank range.

          If that shot connected (and the autopsy should confirm whether or not it did), doesn’t look good.

        • If Soros DAs don’t prosecute, and particularly if the shooter was illegally carrying, or even an illegal resident, then wouldn’t he just turn the guy loose? Only if he was a middle class, white NRA member would he be at risk of prosecution.

        • Don’t count on it as in most states that is going to be a homicide case for the guy who did the shooting. Once the threat is eliminated it is bad enough to keep firing but when you finish them with a head shot you have pretty much sealed your own fate.

      • ‘Yeah, that’s gonna be a bit problematic for the guy.’

        No doubt. Seriously bad decision right there. If he’d avoided that one action, it at least could’ve been argued that firing as the subject was on the ground is standard police procedure countrywide.

        • When did the defender have control of the perp’s weapon? If he even thought he heard the perp moving while still having the firearm, I would think he had the right to keep shooting.

        • Uh the perp is walking around pointing a gun and robbing diners. It does not matter if the perp’s gun was real or not just like it would not matter if the perp’s gun was real and not loaded.

          Once the perp’s weapon was pointed at someone it’s time to take him out…all the way out. When it was the armed citizen’s turn to get business end pointed at him he cut loose and ended the threat. The poor fellow seated in the back corner had his hands up in fear and that sight alone is reason to smoke the perp.

          The man left the scene because he could and may return with an attorney or he might have had to go home and change his draws, etc. IMO..He has nothing to worry about.

        • The reply of mine was tagged to the discussion of the walk up to the perp on the ground and delivering a coup de grace.

          That is what I was speaking about.

        • It is not a standard police procedure to keep shooting someone who is totally disabled and not presenting a threat. I don’t know where you live but most cops get in trouble for just shooting someone who is attacking them directly.

        • @dprato

          Well forgive my assumption, statement is based on what appears to be consistent policy taken from masses of body cam footage.

          https://www.youtube.com/c/PoliceActivity/videos

          As you can clearly see it happens quite a lot, with no noting of punitive disciplinary action in the aftermath. Must be that pesky (Un)Qualified Immunity thing.

      • No different than law enforcement doing a mag dump on a criminal and I’ve seen dozens of videos showing them doing that.

        • “Soros owns her.”

          He has serious problems then.

          Good thing he found a lawyer before he talked to the cops, then.

          He’s gonna need all the help he can get… 🙁

        • Only if that was the fatal shot. It may well be that the other shots were already fatal and that head shot didn’t make a bit of difference. Wait to see the evidence presented before making announcing a verdict.

        • XZN sounds just like Soros, you know the Jew who sold out other jews to save his skin while turning them over to the SS. Murder=breaking the law and threatening innocent individuals. Your compadre got what he deserved,

          That’s called justice idiot.

    • Yeah, that final coup de grâce to the head is a problem. When the bad guy is down, he’s done. This is how you turn a good DGU into a bad one.

      • Just because the perp is down doesn’t mean he is out of the fight. If you stop shooting just because the perp is down you may be the one to wind up dead.

        • I think in this case the perp was not a threat and to continue unloading on him will be problematic. Once the threat is eliminated you should stop shooting. The guy didn’t move and he unloaded five more shots into him with a final one in the head. Good luck with your opinion.

    • The final shot happened AFTER the guy with the real gun picked up the airsoft gun.

      Yeah….that could be a problem. Guy let his anger get hold of him

      If I’m on the jury, I can understand why he was pissed. Houston has had a wave of armed robberies lately and people might be just generally pissed off enough at it that he walks. But it’s going to take some luck.

      That last shot, and arguably three or four before that, are legally and morally problematic as hell.

      • Mr. Simpson, based on his years of law enforcement experience tells us the last couple of shots were problematic. Based on what sir? Do detail your vast experience with individuals who are ususally guests of the taxpayers and spend their free time terrorizing the law abiding.

        What is problematic is those who can find any excue to defend lawbreakers who terrorize the law abiding but will always find fault with those who do what the government is supposed to do.

        The same government that arrives to draw outlines on the ground and tells us this is what we should be used to. Had enough of these losers who usually reside in crime ridden hell holes like NY, Chicago, Philly, Seattle, Portland, St Louis, Newark. I like Texas and say this man is a hero and those who question his motives are usually found contributing to the SPLC.

    • The threat isn’t over till the perp isn’t breathing. Its easy for those who haven’t been threatened to decide what is justified when a gun hasn’t been put in your face.

      Houston should put up a statue to this man. He saved these patrons and the business owner while the DA was lecturing the rest of us about “restraint and the law.” Strange how there are never DAs nor cops when your life is being threatened.

  2. I wouldn’t look too hard for the guy.

    From the looks of his clothes and his truck, he can’t afford an attorney.

    • Don’t be to sure about that. When I was a young lad there was a farmer down the road from our farm. He dressed in overalls with holes in them and worn out flannel shirts every day. Had a old beater pickup and a couple of worn out tractors. When he died everyone found out he was a millionaire. Left all his money to the school system.

      • Yep. I’ve been an antique dealer a long time & I’ve seen unkempt hillbillies in bib overalls pull out a large wad of 100’s at auctions paying their bill. Fast and loose and always cash…”picker,hauler & dealer”.

      • Back in the early 60s, the biggest individual property tax payer in the county was an old gent who always wore bibs and a chambray shirt and carried two paper shopping bags. It was said that the deeds to all his property were in the shopping bags. I don’t know anybody who ever claimed to have looked in them though.

    • Who are you insulting a man’s truck(even if it is a Ford)? Does it run? can you get groceries with it? Shut up you face.

  3. Those last few shots could certainly be deemed excessive and unnecessary.

    Some district attorneys don’t care about making friends in the community. To them it’s all political, so he could very well be charged. It’s the good guys some of them want to punish, not the actual thugs.

    • Personally, I’m all for putting a few more rounds in the dirt bag just to make sure this needs to happen more often.

      • When they find him, I sure hope he shuts the fuck up and doesn’t dig a hole for himself he can’t get out of with his mouth…

    • Tell me about it. Spent a decent mg’s worth of money fending off a bullshit charge of discharging a firearm in public in my last DGU. DA under negotiations stated plain out he wouldn’t let a single case go non-prosecuted to the maximum extent.

      Never you mind that everything was covered by castle doctrine, syg, anti-stalking law, and perfectly legal under all state statutes. Final disposition, dismissed with prejudice with records expunged. After 2.6 years of my Rights being violated. Fair trade? Hardly.

        • “DA under negotiations stated plain out he wouldn’t let a single case go non-prosecuted to the maximum extent. ”

          I’d seriously reconsider continuing to live in an area like that, if I was able to… 🙁

        • That’s the plan. Saved enough for the move, trying to find a decent place in a 2A friendly state where house prices haven’t gone through the roof right now.

          Kinda sick of living in sub-tropical climate. Want some real winter for a change again.

  4. Would those last shots be considered more or less necessary than when cops mag dump into some skel? He ended the threat, give dude the key to city and move on.

      • “On the other hand, can anyone really blame him for wanting to skip the grilling by police and prosecutors for doing the right thing to a guy who threatened peoples’ lives for a quick score of a few dollars?”

        Doing the right thing? Really? Is this what you tell your GSL students? In this instance there was no threat when the last shot was fired and it is not the same as a mag dump by a LEO. The shooter not only fired multiple shots after the bad guy was down, but he fired the last shot after waking over and picking up the shooters gun. So guy that’s been shot multiple times, been disarmed, still presents an eminent threat? Bad guy’s actions justified the initial use of deadly force. You may be able to give the shooter the benefit of the doubt for the shots fired after the shooter went down but there is no way to justify the last shot after the bad guy was disarmed. And sorry but

        “Amen. The robber f*cked around and he found out.”

        is no justification for the use of deadly force.

        • ds,

          Most trained shooters (and ALL military) are taught to never leave a potential opponent at your back. The perp was down, and clearly injured, but are you possessed of X-ray vision, such that you could INSURE the perp was not still alive, and active enough to aim and fire a sidearm? Nah?? Neither am I. Neither was the shooter.

          Now, if you want to argue about whether or not it was “reasonable” for the shooter to act, since the gun was not a functional firearm, I’m happy to debate that, but . . . if I reasonably believe you to be a lethal threat? I may not do a mag dump, but I’m sure as HELL going to make sure you don’t wake up and shoot me.

          Laws, and standards for self-defense (and how they are interpreted/enforced by government and juries) vary wildly around the country. I’m a proponent of the three “S”s – shoot, shovel, shut up.

        • Response to Muckraker:

          The justified use of deadly force when there is an eminent threat is almost universal. The operative being eminent, the standard being would a reasonable person based on the totality of circumstance believe the threat was eminent. Mag dumps by LEO and others are “justified” by the gray area of when the threat is no longer eminent. The defense tactic is to establish the initial shots were in response to an eminent threat and then argue when a reasonable person would find the eminent threat ended. Since the mag dump occurs typically in under 3 seconds the defense submits to the jury, when would you be sure there was no longer an eminent threat. In the video the shooter stoped firing, bent over and picked up the shooters gun, then fired the final shot. Yes the bad guy could have had a second gun but I would argue could have does not establish eminent threat.

        • Thanks for your response DS. I’ve seen videos of LEO mag dumps that just curdle my blood and I can not bring myself to believe that they thought the threat was still eminent. Four cops dumping mags on a perp still standing but obviously incapacitated even before hitting the ground. I’ve never been in and hope to never be in a situation such as that ever. Personally this video is very disturbing. He should have stopped much sooner than he did and he should have stayed even if just to say he needs a lawyer before speaking.

        • “In this instance there was no threat when the last shot was fired.”

          1. you don’t know what the ‘defender guy’s perception was. the video doesn’t show the bad guys hands at that time and the guy could have thought he was still armed and trying to use they gun.

          2. you don’t know if the last shot was an accidental discharge or not. the defender guy could have been pointing his gun in preparation for further defense because there was still a threat perceived by the defender guy.

          3. the toy gun was in the hand of another patron by this time but its possible the defender guy didn’t realize that. I’ve been though several of these and believe me you get very focused on the threat and it takes a really huge and extraordinary effort to expand that to include everything around you.

          4. it could be that the last shot accidental or not actually did not hit the bad guy.

          we can’t say right now definitively from the video if the last shot was accidental or not, if the bad guy was already dead by that time or not, and don’t know the perception of the defender in relation to a threat or not.

          these are some of the things the investigation will hopefully reveal. so its a little early to be making such definitive conclusions of murder. It could turn out to be justified self defense because the law allows to shoot until the threat is no longer a threat and the defender guy may have still perceived a threat, or it could turn out to be manslaughter and not murder because maybe the last shot was an accident. it could even turn out to be an unlawful discharge misdemeanor type of thing because the guy was already dead by the last shot. and then it could turn out to be murder.

          the threat does not exist or does exist because an outside observer thinks one way or another, and that’s what people are trying to do with this video in trying to be that outside observer. sometimes its obvious and sometimes it isn’t, but in the end the threat exists to the victim perception that it will or still can cause serious bodily harm or death and that is what has to be justified for self defense.

        • DS:
          I was trained to insure that any threat was eliminated permanently. I spent 30 years overseas and when someone threatened me I knew what they meant. Now I don’t have your impressive mind reading ability nor the ability to see into the future. But I do know that an armed individual is a threat till he is no longer breathing. Anyone who says different has never faced an armed man and never fired in anger.

          Do tell us all about your vast experience. I’ve seen my share of comrades dead because they ignored common sense laws of security. One day I hope you are in the same situation and insure you take no action when the perp is “no longer a threat.” That’s how at least two of my comrades suffered horrific wounds from someone who was no “longer a threat.”

  5. Shadey @ShadeyGamez at one of the article twitter links says this

    “Jan 6
    Replying to
    @houstonpolice
    You cant shoot someone in their back… i think thats the law and the reason for calling this a homicide”

    Well, yeah you can shoot an imminent threat in the back. You just can’t do it if they were no longer a threat. This guy was still presenting a threat, his threat of use of deadly force and no one knew the gun was a toy so as far as the reality of it it was a gun being used as a threat of deadly force in the commission of a crime.

    All self/other-defense shootings are, somewhere in all the verbiage and paperwork, called or said by use of a definition in law, ‘homicides’ in the general sense. It just a matter of if its a justified homicide or not. Justified homicide is what the police are referring to when they say “it was self-defense’.

    homicide is the killing of one human being by another, self defense or not. Its a general term that has different flavors as it might refer to a noncriminal act as well as the criminal act of murder.

    • “Including five times while the suspect was down on the ground motionless“

      He better hope the guy was already dead when he went down, or else it’s murder.

      Once the attacker ceased to be a threat, use of lethal force was no longer authorized.

      But if he was dead when he hit the floor, then it’s just simple abuse of a corpse.

      • @Miner49er

        “He better hope the guy was already dead when he went down, or else it’s murder.”

        100% false.

        if the bad guy was still able to present the threat he was even though he was down and the defender justifiably and reasonably believed the threat was valid threat of serious harm or death and real its isn’t murder.

        I’ve been through this several times. you are 100% wrong.

        keep out of discussions for which you have no understanding.

        • but that being said… there did seem to be shots that we don’t know the reason for yet. however, it does not mean its murder simply because the bad guy was down and maybe appeared motionless in the video that’s publicly available or the news said. we don’t even know yet in what context the shots happened or if its simply mis-perception of timing by witnesses or a confusion of timing in the reporting. but that’s what the investigation is for.

        • I agree with you to some degree. While someones right to use lethal force ends when the threat ends. We can’t see the robbers hand or the gun. So most of the last shots may have been delivered as the robber was moving the gun or reaching for it.

          But . . . and it’s a big butt. The last shot was delivered while the patron had the robber’s gun in his left hand.

        • but even all that being said for the general…9 shots in the video, but the last one is sort of troubling and maybe the guy thought the bad guy was still a threat or maybe not but that’s what investigations are for.

        • maybe Don… but maybe the guy didn’t know or realize the gun was in the patrons hand and thought the bad guy still had it. but yeah that last one could be a problem… but thats what the investigation is for.

        • Armchair quarterbacks, in most of these cases, assume the assailant was only carrying one weapon.

          I can tell you I always carry multiple weapons when in public.

          Just because you’ve taken one weapon from an assailant doesn’t mean they don’t have another.

        • Exactly .40cal. 👍

          A suspect on the ground (partially disabled/incapacitated) that is still moving, and has a firearm within reach MOST CERTAINLY poses a DEADLY THREAT if they’re reaching for the weapon.
          Whether that’s the case in this shooting is open for debate.

          minor goes out of s/h/its way to remind everyone here on TTAG how TOTALLY CLUELESS s/h/it is.
          S/H/Its username should be Totalwasteofoxygen49er.

        • .40 cal,

          You are absolutely correct. Unless you KNOW the perp is dead, being face down and immobile does NOT eliminate the threat.

          Personally? I thought the shooter was excessive, but . . . I wasn’t there, in the moment, pumped on adrenaline, and trying to defend my friends/family (there were others in the booth with the shooter).

        • 40oz:
          “I’ve been through this several times. you are 100% wrong“

          Also 40oz:
          “but that being said… there did seem to be shots that we don’t know the reason for yet.”

          “but the last one is sort of troubling… “

          Schizophrenia flaring up again?

          As others have pointed out, the video clearly shows:

          “The last shot was delivered while the patron had the robber’s gun in his left hand“

          Never fear, it’s Texas so the shooter will probably not face any serious consequences.

          Heck, here in West Virginia a citizen shot a man in the back repeatedly as he was fleeing, he was just found not guilty by a jury of his peers so anything is possible.

          And Opossum better watch out, the Taco shooter fled in the mid ‘70s F150…

        • What’s wrong Patheticwasteofoxygen49er?

          Why didn’t you defend your “He better hope the guy was already dead when he went down, or else it’s murder.” comment?

          Oh that’s right, because it’s a steam pile of BS, just like you.

          Also, your “Never fear, it’s Texas so the shooter will probably not face any serious consequences.” is ANOTHER sh!tpile. Shoot someone who is no longer a threat in that situation (to the best out your assessment at that given moment) and you won’t get away with it in Texas.

        • So it’s unacceptable to have an opinion if that opinion happens to be wrong? If that’s the case most people here need to go away because nobody is “right” 100%of the time.

      • “He better hope the guy was already dead when he went down, or else it’s murder.”

        This is what happened several years ago in Oklahoma. 2 bad guy’s attempted to rob a pharmacy. Pharmacist opens fire, strikes 1 bad guy in head, gives chase and fires at bad guy #2. Comes back in, retrieves second weapon and shoots bad guy #1 several times in the gut. Bad guy dies, coroner testified bad guy probably would have survived head wound and bullet wounds to abdomen were cause of death. Pharmacist found guilty of murder and sentenced to life. Conviction and life upheld.

        • “Pharmacist found guilty of murder and sentenced to life“

          Exactly, I’ve seen the same situation occur as well.

          40oz thinks he has the final word on every DGU.

          At heart, I don’t think 40oz is a bad guy, he just has some funny ideas about reality.

          I don’t think there’s a jurisdiction in the US that would approve of a final headshot long after the suspect has ceased to be a threat.

        • MinorLiar,

          “I don’t think [.40 cal – I RESPECT him, so I’ll use his actual handle]is a bad guy, he just has some funny ideas about reality.”

          THIS, coming from YOU is sheer f***ing comedy gold. You wouldn’t know reality if it bit you in the @$$, MinorLiar.

          While I agree that in some jurisdictions (like, wherever Soros prosecutors scammed their way into office), actual practice differs from written law, once you reasonably believe you are in imminent danger, you are entitled to use deadly force UNTIL you are reasonably sure that the danger is alleviated. It’s, like, actually the law, or somethin’. Mirabile dictu. You moronic @$$clown.

      • They are bullets not magic beans. Been tons of people shot by someone suffering a gsw. The reason you use a revolver is so u don’t leave any brass behind. Forget about spending 50K on defense for that pos. Didn’t give a shit about his own life or wouldn’t use airsoft for robbery. If I’m having tacos, defender is my next door neighbor, I didn’t see shit, don’t know him.

        • This is a response to Miner, Dacian and any other name you guy’s chime in with:
          While you are giving us YOUR POV, we PoTG either agree or disagree (usually disagree honestly) why start off with an insult?…My point is why go to an insult calling .40 cal (.40 oz) or Lamp (especially dacian), or possum etc, etc. When you write your venom to us? Are you incapable of having a discussion without insults? Can you not comment, give your opinion without sneering @ somebody? or are you just ignorant? I know you don’t think much of us and that’s ok, if you disappeared tomorrow nobody here would miss you guy’s, and that’s really sad.
          I admit I am guilty giving you two s**t myself but you just bring that out of us so easily, you guy’s are just so unpleasant and act sooooooooooooo superior, talking down to us, with your skewed views of life and cut and paste word vomit on Weapoms, I know you are both Paid Trolls and you don’t know any better but why do you act like such S**ts????? Do you bring ANYTHING to the table in your lives other than the BS you spew here? I know I am wasting my time here but I just had to ask what does this get you other than a paycheck? My friends ask why I love this site so much ? Why? because I talk about the issues we face and the upcoming battle that we are getting ready for? I ask for advice from these people and I got Honest, straight forward responses that REALLY helped me make decisions that could affect how I handle the future. I tell you this with sincerity, We are spread all over this great country, some of these guy’s live close to me (Cali, Colorado Az, etc) others like Safe live on the east coast. We are a brotherhood! We never met in person but we have a common bond BEYOND Gunms…Do you get that? Do you have that in your life brother? If you don’t I truly feel sorry for you people. But I come on here and give my POV and NOBODY has said to me “you are so full of sh** Guardian….No one! We don’t come on here and can’t wait to jump on somebodies s**t because we are so angry. We’re PATRIOTS Miner. Some of us have been through HELL!, some are jokesters and some are stupid but they GO AWAY! but the core guy’s stay and I am grateful. Why don’t you guy’s JUST GO AWAY. I have a stressful job protecting people like you. They see the uniform and Glock and they just sneer @ us through their masks, and gloves and 6′ distancing still, maybe they are angry that they had to get vaxxed, and boostered until black s**t comes out of their noses to keep their precious jobs, I don’t know. What I do know is when the shtf they will expect me to protect them and brother I will because that’s my job. I have HONOR miner do you? What do you bring to the table in life? I admire these guy’s because while our lives have taken different paths we all have honor man. Some are current and former LE’s, some are Vet’s and most have owned gunms since we were kids, a lifetime of experience. these guy’s talk about gun builds, Debbie is just amazing w/ her builds! half the time I have to look up what she said, I am like WHAT the heck is that?? ,That’s why I am here…..why are you here? to S**t-stir? Man, I bet your mama’z proud huh? Sorry, I went there and said to myself I wouldn’t. I apologize. Life is too short to be a shit miner49’er. I just wanted you to know that. Sorry PoTG’s I had to say this… It’s like an itch you can’t scratch ya know? Here we are almost daily and these guy’s come on and spew their garbage. I come on here to relax, unwind, talk gunms, issues, current events and the crazy BS I see daily from Politicians @ my job and in the news and I sometimes just can’t wrap my brain around how far America has fallen. It disturbs me. It disturbs me to see “illegals” being bused all over the country and nobody see’s that some of them wish to do us harm? I boggles my mind the the current administration say’s “We don’t have an open boarder! We do Miner, I live in New Mexico brother and these things will affect you too! If you democrats think you will be immune to this upcoming carnage you are in for a rude awakening. Do you think that .gov is here for you? OK, I wasted enough time here. Everybody have a good day, you to Miner and Dacian, I mean that.

    • And that’s the thing. His attorneys only have to seat a jury with ONE person who feels the way you (and many here) feel. 11 out of 12 won’t convict.

      You know the saying, you can beat the rap, but you can’t beat the ride.

      My guess is he’ll make some kind of a deal to avoid the ride

    • I’d vote NOT GUILTY due to the fact that the robber created the situation of an adreline dump into the patrons of the taco joint and the robber must assume the risk that a patron may not respond in the most perfect professional response.

      I’d sleep very well after voting NOT GUILTY.

  6. The fact that it turned out to be a toy gun means nothing.

    It is interesting though that everyone left including the person with the real firearm. One thing is absolutely for certain in this. The would be armed criminal will never be a threat to anyone else. Continuing to fire does become questionable but criminals really need to start getting a clue. Places like Texas are not going to just sit there and take this abuse anymore. The odds of coming across someone that will fight back ARE increasing.

    • it would be different if violent criminals or just criminals and their crimes in weren’t so common. But the sad truth is crimes and criminals happen thousands of times daily across the country. And overall on a nationwide basis law enforcement only manages to catch and prosecute maybe on a good year 11% and over half of those are never convicted (2022 overall conviction rate for crimes was 3.6%).

      the majority of people are fed up with it.

  7. In all likelihood the man that did the killing is himself a prohibited person. The NRA likes to talk about a good guy with a gun but I’ll be plenty happy with just a guy with a gun when one is needed. Would not be looking too hard for the man if this was my case.

    • A ‘prohibited person’ isn’t likely to be the type to give everyone else their stolen property back. However, he is likely to be unlicensed. Which in Texas is legal. You might not realize it but he IS ABSOLUTELY a good guy with a gun. The only one that lost their life was the bad guy.

    • “Would not be looking too hard for the man if this was my case.“

      Now there is a startling admission…

      No idea if this is, as you suggest, a felon in possession, or even outstanding warrants… But you’re all too ready to give him a pass.

      In the business, that’s what we call ‘selective enforcement’ and is one of many forms of corruption and intentional dereliction of duty.

        • I’m not giving anyone a pass.

          I would’ve shot the ‘armed’ robber as well, but I would not have shot him if he was down because it would not be lawful.

          As another on this forum put it correctly:

          “Yeah, that final coup de grâce to the head is a problem. When the bad guy is down, he’s done. This is how you turn a good DGU into a bad one.“

      • Selective enforcement- A 100% accurate description of the Soros funded leftist states attorneys. Prosecute good people with guns, but let all the thugs walk.
        A good example is the couple in St Louis defending their home by standing out front when the BurnLootMaim crowd was there. No shots fired, but just because they showed their weapons, they were prosecuted and had to be pardoned by the governor.

        • The dangerous part is fewer people are giving a damn if it happens to work for them. Used to be a bit less than half of most people now I would be amazed if it is less than three quarters. I doubt anyone not running the show will like where that will typically lead.

        • “No shots fired, but just because they POINTED their weapons, they were prosecuted and PLEADED GUILTY and had to be pardoned by the governor“

          It is unlawful to point a gun at people who are not an imminent threat.

          “On Thursday, Mark McCloskey pleaded guilty to one count of misdemeanor fourth-degree assault. His wife pleaded guilty to second-degree harassment, also a misdemeanor, online court records showed.“

          https://www.reuters.com/world/us/st-louis-couple-who-brandished-guns-protesters-plead-guilty-2021-06-17/

      • 2a makes no allowance for permanently banning firearms ownership. If a felon has served his sentence he should be able to exercise his rights just like us. If he can’t be trusted with a gun why is he free amongst us?

      • Wow 49er condemns selective enforcement! That right there is funny as hell considering all the Democraps he worships and their history of selective enforcement and using federal agencies for just that purpose.

  8. When the robber decided to threaten gross bodily harm and even death for his score he made the choice that his actions were worth dying for. His death is on him.

  9. I maintain to shoot until the threat is over, eliminated, ended, finished, completed etc. for those who want to play word semantics with me, but Jesus Christ, the last few shots were a little over the top.

    I’d suggest to the old guy with that 1974 Ford Truck in dire need of paint on the hood to NOT TALK TO THE COPS.

    Honestly though, the robber came in waving a gun around scaring the piss out of people, you can’t hardly blame him for making sure he’s not getting up and shooting back.

    The classy move though, sit down and finish that lovely Mexican dinner. It looked mighty tasty. Just like Clint Eastwood in Hang Em High after he shoots Ringo, he’s going to go get that steak now.

    • “Killin’ don’t mix well with a man’s supper”– Sam Elliott “The Quick and the dead” I think?

      • Sam Elliott wasn’t in the The Quick and the Dead. I think its The Sacketts.

        I don’t know, that guy at the top center of the screen wasn’t too rattled. Looked like he was going to finish his Chili Verde. It sure looks to me as that thing with the screen that would be to the left of him took a round at the top right of the screen. There’s jukebox in the corner and just to the left of that, whatever those things are, one ate a round.

  10. Bulky clothing and a smaller calliber could account for the number of shots required to fully neutralize the perceived threat.

    and while to me it seemed a long time from first shot to ninth, is it possible the the defender’s perception of time was altered from adrenelane-dump? (that’s rhetoical as I have not been in a situation exactly like this – but know that excitable situations can change one’s perspective)

      • The patron was lucky as hell that the robber didn’t have a real gun because he was telegraphing his draw with capital letters saying “I’M FISHING AROUND IN MY PANTS FOR MY GUN” and the robber saw him doing it and didn’t threaten him further or drop his airgun. That was one stupid robber.

  11. Houston isn’t Texas. Don’t bet the DA won’t pursue charges.
    If you ask me, the perp rolled the dice and got what was coming to him. One less violent criminal for the Harris County judges to release on bail before sundown.

    • And what would be the possible charge? Abuse of a Corpse? Texas code 42.08

      I read the code and I doubt the elements of a crime are there with the possible exception of
      (a) A person commits an offense if the person, without legal authority, knowingly:
      (1) disinters, disturbs, damages, dissects, in whole or in part, carries away, or treats in an offensive manner a human corpse

      However, the state would have the burden to prove the very dead perp wasn’t a corpse when he ventilated his skull with the last shot. Very soon to be a corpse doesn’t count.

      While some may argue some of the shots were offensive, the argument would be made that it wasn’t without legal authority.

      They won’t charge him with jack sh–.

      • Corpse?…hmmmm…that last shot looks like the body jumped (or I guess it could have been the gun blast rustling his shirt).

        • I seriously doubt they will being charges. Even if other jurisdictions might, political considerations come into play.
          A massive shit-storm would erupt if they charged him with something and for what? Because he popped some dirt-bag in the bean a few extra times?

          Even if they did charge him, I don’t think the state could win a conviction in a jury trial.

  12. Robber did in deed find out.

    May just be a working poor guy, odder scenario would be the scenario is more akin to Jules and Vince in Pulp Fiction.

    If that’s his truck then there will be zero percent chance of these guys going unfound. It’s just way too recognizable.

  13. The news media had the expanded room video and it showed another customer right in the line of fire. It was a miracle he was not shot as well when the shooter sprayed down the robber with multiple shots.

    If that man across the room had accidentally been killed the shooter would have been charged with homicide and if he had been wounded the shooter would have been liable for his medical bills that could easily have topped 1 million dollars.

    In reality resisting a robbery makes it far more likely you will be shot by the robber.

    While victims actively resisted in only 7 percent of the robberies studied, those incidents accounted for 51 percent of the deaths.

    https://www.nytimes.com/1984/12/11/science/don-t-resist-robbery-chicago-study-warns.html

    Here is another very lengthy in depth study (not the Harvard).
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/

    Another
    https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

    https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-concealed-carry-gun-self-defense-risks-20190114-story.html

    https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-concealed-carry-gun-self-defense-risks-20190114-story.html

    I might add although few gun carrying viscous far right fantacial people have any sort of conscience, especially when it comes to gunning down minorities, a few normal gun carrying people do have a conscience and suddenly finding out the robber only had a toy gun would make a normal person regret shooting someone.

    And the robber that was shot may have had relatives which will be hounded by greed monger lawyers to consider suing for millions against the shooter. Even if the shooter wins in court it could easily cost him $200,000 in legal fees which would probably bankrupt him for life.

    Trying to play a modern day Wyatt Earp is not a good idea and Earp himself was taken to court over some of his shootings even back in the dead hand of the past.

    • Yessir. Better to be raped and murdered than defend yourself, amirite, dacian? If one person makes a mistake in his use of force none of can be allowed to use force,right?

      You just want the minority shop owners helpless the next time your ss/antifa buddies loot and burn.

      • As the mayor of NYC said, “Don’t resist when being robbed, raped and murdered” I think even .govnewsense of California also echoed that same basic theme.. Unfortunately Darcy, These skells will kill you anyway these days even AFTER you give up your wallet, wife, car, toaster the only chance at survival is to fight back. Look at the carjacking in Chiraq recently. Four perps roll up on a car with two ladies in it, the driver VICTIM pulled her piece and headshot the driver (who unfortunately ;c) rolled over stupid #4 and broke his leg, two down, two to go. Then the women ran and one got shot in the shoulder (better than not resisting and getting shot in the head ‘ey what?) She was running AWAY! no more threat and he still shot her! thankfully she survived… Google the Tribune for the rest of the story. These animals have no moral compass, they fear nothing, because why? They get the revolving door of justice now, ROR- Released on own recognizance . But YOU IDIOTS want to hang this diner for fighting back. You guys R Re-dick-cul-liss or just dick-less… go away little man

    • @daicn

      “In reality resisting a robbery makes it far more likely you will be shot by the robber.

      While victims actively resisted in only 7 percent of the robberies studied, those incidents accounted for 51 percent of the deaths.

      https://www.nytimes.com/1984/12/11/science/don-t-resist-robbery-chicago-study-warns.html

      Here is another very lengthy in depth study (not the Harvard).
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/

      Another
      https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

      https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-concealed-carry-gun-self-defense-risks-20190114-story.html

      https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-concealed-carry-gun-self-defense-risks-20190114-story.html

      all false

      I explained why previously, but here it is again, short form basically:

      1. Find in your ‘studies’ where the number of victims with a firearm resisted successfully with a firearm AND no victims were injured AND where those numbers are included in the data used to form the conclusion. Go ahead, find them. They aren’t there – this biases the data used for the conclusion. They purposely excluded.

      2. They all start with the premise that resisting = injury – or – resisting /= injury (/= is does not), in other words they all start with the false ‘correlation = causation’ premise.

      3. They cherry pick data that will support a pre-determined conclusion and exclude that which doesn’t.

      4. The scope of the studies is limited by exclusion making their results statistically insignificant when all violent crime is considered. For example, they may focus on robberies but ignore rape and domestic abuse and murder attempts etc… – in other words they leave out 99.9% of relevant data because robberies are 0.01% of all major main violent crime so they are doing their data % based upon 0.01% of the picture thus is statistically insignificant when all violent crime is considered.

      5. They all leave out causality. The causality factor has 10 aspects that determine if the conclusion is true or not. All of your studies conclusions fail to be true when causality is applied.

      6. All of your studies were conducted by biased parties.

      All of your studies have been debunked by independent research for those reasons and more and were also looked at by Rand corporation research, a leading research analysis entity used by government and private sector who determined they were ‘junk science’.

      The media links are simply regurgitating what they have been told.

      Kleck did the definitive and authoritative research on the subject. His study did not have these issues and has never been debunked, they have tried, but have not been successful:

      According to Kleck’s “Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America” – the leading authority on the subject (basically compliance vs resistance):

      1. Any form of resistance, except with firearm, carries with it an injury rate of 52%.

      2. Resistance with a firearm carried with it the risk of injury of 17%, but use of a firearm early in an encounter carries with it a risk of injury of 6%.

      Overall, in Kleck, you have a minimum of a 25% chance of being injured if you comply, but you are 4 time less likely to be injured if you have your firearm and are prepared to use it.

      Take away here summary: compliance may still result in injury (which includes death), resistance without a firearm carries a 52% chance of injury (which includes death), resistance with a firearm lowers chance of injury (which includes death) to 17%, resistance with a firearm early in the encounter further lowers risk of injury (which includes death) to 6%

      If you are armed are you willing to gamble that you are not in the 25%?
      if you are not armed are you willing to gamble that you are not in the 52%?

      Compliance or not, resistance or not – is not a decision one needs to make. The answer is already provided, non-compliance via firearms resistance offers the best chance of less injury. But if you want, you can roll the dice and take the chance of being a good-n-dead witness.

      • By the way your ncbi study has this:

        “… We adjusted odds ratios for confounding variables.

        Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P “Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05)."

        Remember that "confounding variables" thing?

        confounding variables are only used in POSSIBLE OR POTNETIAL cause-and-effect relationships research. The result from "adjusting" for confounding variables is the production of a 'supposed" cause and effect. In other words its a guess because they don't really know the outcome odds and they have data they have not included that they should have. that's what:

        ""… We adjusted odds ratios for confounding variables.

        Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P in other words they excluded even more relevant data. Not only do we have just more than one area of relevant data purposely excluded but now its “numerous”.

        Their study is complete fantasy. They excluded relevant data from the very beginning and kept excluding relevant data to keep the study trending towards supporting their predetermined conclusion.

        Now about “ncbi”, basically: Things published here are not authoritative. Anyone who is a “member” and accredited can publish their “biomedical and life sciences” ‘studies/research’ there. It does not need to be peer reviewed, doesn’t even need to be true or correct, as long as it meets the guidelines of containing certain format elements common to research – in other words as long as is formatted as research and presented as such. Your study is one such example, its pure fantasy yet is able to be published there.

        Once again, correlation does not equal causation. The study’s you presented in your post are bogus biased crap junk science, and have been discovered as such by Rand and numerous other independent researchers.

        • To the ranting Booger Brain.

          All of your rantings and gobbledygook is laughable. You lack complete common sense because of your out of control paranoia. In reality common sense tells anyone that YOU are the one that is most likely to get shot when a gun is already pointed at you and you have yet to draw your gun because the criminal had the element of surprise. Even a 5th grader can easily understand this concept but due to your paranoia you are incapable of any rational thought.

        • Clarification:

          For some reason the edit didn’t take.

          So re-writing this part:

          “confounding variables are only used in POSSIBLE OR POTNETIAL cause-and-effect relationships research. The result from “adjusting” for confounding variables is the production of a ‘supposed” cause and effect. In other words its a guess because they don’t really know the outcome odds and they have data they have not included that they should have. that’s what:

          “”… We adjusted odds ratios for confounding variables.

          Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P “we concentrated on undetected gun possession” – this is a study for only, relatively few, in Philadelphia but they only concentrated on “undetected gun possession”, in other words they intentionally narrowed even their own cherry picked data – the reason they did that is obvious when you start using their numbers and look at their data sets, its because if they did not focus on “undetected gun possession” their results start departing in favor of Klecks types of odds and since there were a lot fewer concealed carry people (back then when the study was done) involved why by golly lets concentrate on these while we try to make people believe its everyone.

          Their study is complete fantasy. They excluded relevant data from the very beginning and kept excluding relevant data to keep the study trending towards supporting their predetermined conclusion then later they change the whole focus to concentrate on “undetected gun possession”, and mix it all together and they get you.

        • @dacian

          “In reality common sense tells anyone that YOU are the one that is most likely to get shot when a gun is already pointed at you and you have yet to draw your gun because the criminal had the element of surprise.”

          How odd, because its happened to me and I didn’t get shot, and it happens to over a few million annually and they don’t get shot.

          Once again you show your ignorance of ‘context’ and understanding of the factors involved.

          Keep out of discussions for which you have no understanding or knowledge. Learn to go beyond your second grade “confirmation bias’ understanding. And for cripes sake learn some math.

        • to Booger Brain
          quote—————How odd, because its happened to me and I didn’t get shot, and it happens to over a few million annually and they don’t get shot.———–quote

          More wild bullshitting with nothing to back up that statement. And just because you happened to survive does not mean the average person would. As a matter of fact I have caught you in so many bold face lies I do not believe anything you claim to have done.

  14. Look at the guy across the table. Just sitting there. “Hey, I want to finish my dinner. Must you? “ or”let me know when you finish bro so we can beat feet..”

  15. Ok. Never mind. He does move. He just doesn’t look all that worked up about his friend putting nine rounds in the guy including a kill shot.

  16. So a hold up man comes here with what may be a toy gun and is shot by one of the intended victims? It would not matter whether the firearm was real or not. He posed a risk and was committing a forcible felony. Being shot is the risk the criminal took. He figured his life was worth the risk. He lost due to a failure of risk analysis.

    I watched the video. My take is the initial shots were justified. Why did he fire the last shot? That s where he will have to explain his actions.
    The citizen by leaving scene may add prejudice against his testimony. As we find with any incident, there is more than what we see in the first reports.

  17. The defender eventually contacted a lawyer who reached out to police.

    In my opinion, the first four shots were justified. I wouldn’t have fired the next four since the robber was motionless on the floor. However, I would have been prepared to resume firing had he again become a threat. I can’t see any way to justify the final shot.

    • “The defender eventually contacted a lawyer who reached out to police.”

      Good, he has a chance at a fair shake then, considering the video evidence.

      It will be interesting to see how this plays out. At least he had the good sense to talk to a lawyer (hopefully a good criminal defense one) before chatting with the ones that want to lock him up for a very long time…

  18. Once again, we see the ghetto fashion statement of showing one’s underwear in public in effect. That probably contributed to perception of a lethal threat from the robber. If I see a robber who is dressed like an adult, then I can perhaps hope that I’m dealing with an adult decisions-making process on the part of the robber.

    But if I see a youth with his pants hanging off his ass? All bets are off. One should assume random violence and drug-addled judgement are at work.

    As for this event and others similar to it that have occurred recently: Something that cops and DA’s had better realize is that after the BLM riots of lootings of 2020, it is quite clear to the law-abiding people of this country that the police and legal system are on the side of the communists in the streets.

    There is nothing to be gained by co-operating with police for the productive, law-abiding citizens of this country. We are going to slide downhill into vigilantism as a way to keep criminals in check because police will now avoid taking on criminals of America’s Most Favored Minority, and the police are just other players on the field, who play for the left and do the bidding of their leftist campaign contributors – such as Soros, who paid big bucks to get the Harris County DA her job.

    • Yeah, he’s gonna have problems with that last shot. It could go either way on the public opinion front.

      The cards are on the table, and the video evidence is clear. We wait and see how it goes for him… 🙁

    • America’s Most Favored?? America’s Most Worshiped minority. Untouchable. Perfect. Dare to criticize and you’re finished.

      As for this particular specimen, dying for our entertainment is a good way to go.

    • That is a concern I have raised and had dismissed with a fair bit of mockery. Fuck it, at this point it’s an improvement. Once things get bad enough we are willing to address the problems we can begin to have a hope of restoring any trust in the system a generation from now.

  19. I wonder if the dude he was dining with was surprised by the behavior……didn’t seem upset.

    Only Crime = Unlicensed Pest Control. Fine him $25.

  20. nine shots fired:
    the first four were essentially ok
    the next four are a little difficult to explain
    the last one is going to need a pretty good story to justify
    i think he probably fled because of that last one
    and/or hes got priors
    and/or outstanding warrants
    my guess is if hes ever apprehended
    he gets charged
    btw:
    honorable mention for the guy
    sitting across the table from the shooter
    who in the 3 or 4 seconds right before the shooting started
    was as cool as a cucumber
    when he saw his buddy going for his pistol
    and it was becoming evident
    that shtf was about to happen
    we should all be so cool
    if we ever find our ouselves
    in a similar scrape as this

    • I would be interested in the background history of that pair in general as I can only imagine what else they have been through where this encounter was barely off-putting.

  21. My favorite part about shootzing bad guys is your reward for shootzing bad guys is to be locked up with them ,,,,forever.
    KR got lucky.
    This guy is going to serve life without parole.

    • “KR got lucky.”

      Ah, no. Kyle made literally no mistakes, shooting only when absolutely necessary, hurting nobody that wasn’t a threat, and attempting to surrender to the police instead of running away once free of the mob. I guess you could call it lucky that the rioting idiots’ recording of the whole thing ended up being the best evidence of how clean he was.

      Agreed that the guy in this story is screwed though. Life without parole seems way too harsh so hopefully his lawyers can negotiate a better deal than that.

  22. So many “what if’s” here that could have turned this situation for the worst. I would personally never take a shot like that especially with someone in my crossfire. Just seen it too many times those that get hit can still return fire and move because they don’t even know they are dead yet – if they even do die. If you don’t have the upper hand, don’t try to create a situation that puts others at risk just trying to be a hero.

    • Montana Actual January 8, 2023 At 21:44
      ok debbie… ok…

      Put others at risk so you can be a hero. Smart.”

      You’re being an absolute idiot. She said nothing that would put others in danger. the shooting was good regardless. You never know when one of these clowns is on PCP and is able to jump off the floor and start shooting people.

      • Which is why you keep your gun at the ready and aimed at the threat… not act like you are SF and put a couple more in them. The whole shoot is questionable. Threat walking away having completed their robbery, putting an innocent in the cross fire, and then the “double tap” with a walk up and shoot to the head. If the threat was still a threat, why would you walk up to it like that? Why not just keep firing where you are without any pause? But nope, he paused, shot 4 more, then shot a final one in the head. What an idiot… in a world full of camera’s even.

        Everything debbie said was idiotic. “the man left the scene because he could probably to change his underwear and call his attorney”… (not exact wording but it’s the exact thing that was said) I swear, the intelligence of some people on this site is about the same as a gaggle of squirrels.

        • Yea I know all about that. I also know the shooting was good and I can care less if you think it wasn’t. If your life was saved by the victim shooting that fool you wouldn’t be talking your rhetoric like you are now. Get a grip. It’s going before the GJ but he’ll be no-billed and I’m sure they won’t clear it through you first.

  23. I am NOT about to ask a skell, “Excuse me sir! Is that a real firearm or is that made by Matel?”
    and if his weapom only shoots “Pez” and mine Hollow Points! Game over dumbazz ! thanks for playing! we will hopefully find out if the 9 rounds (including the headshot) was “Excessive” in the eyes of the courts…today,I wouldn’t want to leave ANYTHING to the court system… in this case I wasn’t there I could armchair quarterback all day but I won’t, the diner felt the need to make sure this skell NEVER menaced another living soul again. He even gave back the money to the other diners, He was correct in interceding to stop the bad guy, did he go too far? Thankfully, not my call. All I can really say with total honesty is GOOD CALL Lawyer-ing up and turning himself in. It looks far worse if they had to hunt him down w/ SWAT it could have turned fugly for him then.

  24. “I honestly don’t remember anything. It must have been the adrenaline guiding me – I felt as if I was not in control of my actions and someone or something else was shooting the robber.”

  25. I think the last 5 shots are problematic but I am willing to keep an open mind. Michael Lee Platt was shot through the right arm with the bullet penetrating his chest yet his was still able to kill two FBI agents. William Matix was able to recover from his initial injuries enough to leave their damaged vehicle and join Platt in another vehicle.

    I think we may be missing the point of the guy leaving. His attorney will most likely be very happy to assist him in making his initial statement to the police.

  26. Ahh the touchy feely crowd who has a problem with thugs being offed along with the ones who think they are better than others and should be the only ones to ever pull the trigger
    What a joke

  27. I’m not a touchy feely kind of person but the last shot to the head puts this guy away for life.
    It’s an execution at that point which is not covered under “self defense”.
    No attorney is getting him out of this one.

    • Think he wanted any of that? Nope. He was forced into that dark place and the fact that y’all ain’t figuring out that we no longer live in a civilized society is pretty telling of how far your heads are buried. You’ll be real lucky if you don’t have to do worse before you die. You think you’ll get it right but ya won’t.
      6 yr olds shooting teachers, 12 yr olds stabbing siblings in their sleep to death, you can’t even drive down the road without some methhead or road rager causing issues and the list goes on. The decay has reached critical mass.

    • My bet is that last shot wasn’t the kill shot. He still shouldn’t have taken it, obviously. It looked like he did it because he was pissed off. I hope there’s a follow up to this case.

  28. and some coroner will somehow determine which shot was the fatal one.
    making any additional shots superfluous as they made him even deaderer.
    i’d have that truck. clear coat it just as it is.

  29. I read tonight, Monday Jan 9 that he was identified and interviewed by homicide detectives and the case is being referred to grand jury.

    “The customer who fatally shot a masked robber inside a Houston taqueria and returned the stolen money to terrified diners is now the subject of a grand jury probe after he came forward for questioning, police said Monday”

    https://abcnews.go.com/US/customer-fatally-shot-robber-houston-taqueria-wanted-questioning/story?id=96294463

    Film at 11

  30. The shooting was a good shooting. Some folks are trained to shoot from a position on the floor. There’s no way to tell the gunman had accomplices outside or not that could’ve easily come in the lobby and started shooting. Kim Ogg is a Soros-appointed RAINBOW FREAK D.A. and is absolutely worthless. If he get referred to a grand jury he’ll most likely be cleared.

  31. 8 rounds rounds probably finished him.

    #9 in the head should be charged with misdemeanor desecration of a corpse.

    Sentence: Weekends picking up brass at the HPD gun range.

    • I previously posted this, but here it is again

      Texas code 42.08

      I read the code and I doubt the elements of a crime are there with the possible exception of
      (a) A person commits an offense if the person, without legal authority, knowingly:
      (1) disinters, disturbs, damages, dissects, in whole or in part, carries away, or treats in an offensive manner a human corpse

      However, the state would have the burden to prove the very dead perp wasn’t a corpse when he ventilated his skull with the last shot. Very soon to be a corpse doesn’t count.

      While some may argue some of the shots were offensive, the argument would be made that it wasn’t without legal authority.

      • I highly doubt the victim that shot the fool was qualified to determine if there was an actual “corpse” or not. That’s not what the statute is referring to. He’ll be no-billed. The only issue to be had is he should’ve called 9-1-1 and then waited somewhere in view of the location and then spoke to the police when they arrived. My gut instinct is the victim was eating in the taqueria numerous times and knew the owner and may have been too scared to stay if the owner was going to wait for the cops to arrive.

  32. At that close range, the defender should have started with a head shot. If he couldn’t make a head shot at that range he has no business carrying.

  33. Unfortunately if you shoot someone on the ground with “finishing shots” after they have been disabled as was the case here, you are likely to be arrested and go to jail in most cases. I would be surprised if he gets away with shooting this guy after he was clearly down and out.

    • And defense will argue it was impossible to determine if the robber had was wearing a vest and/or was otherwise able to retaliate. When you’re in fear of your life and others it’s not unreasonable to make sure the threat is indeed stopped.

  34. If the autopsy shows the rounds that killed him were before the last shots (in head) then the most they can charge him with is disturbing a corpse….

    And still the bad guy may have twitched.. hence still might get up.

    I hope they let him go… send a message to robbers that it can be YOU on that floor.

  35. Guys we should hold this up as an example of what to do (engage the perp while he is not looking) and what not to do (shooting while he is no longer a threat). The shooter may have lost his cool in the heat of the moment. The initial shoots are justified. The final one looks like murder. These is the fodder that anti-gun and anti-self defense people like to use against the law abiding. When we as law abiding citizens react to situations like this, we are painting all law abiding citizens in that same brush stroke. Good and bad shooting. If they find the guy, he better have a good lawyer.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here