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

The defensive gun use that was caught on security video when a Houston taqueria customer shot an armed robber last week has caused more than a little discussion about how justifiable all of the shots the restaurant customer directed at the crook were and what the armed defender’s fate might be. The thief, 30-year-old Eric Eugene Washington, was killed in the shooting.

Apparently not wanting to make the call herself by either charging or clearing the armed customer, Houston District Attorney Kim Ogg has decided to put the as yet unnamed man’s fate in the hands of a grand jury.

Given that District Attorney Ogg was heavily backed by George Soros in her last election, that may be about the best outcome the armed customer could have hoped for.

Immediately following the shooting, the customer removed the thief’s gun, then returned all of the cash and valuables that Washington had stolen at gunpoint. After leaving the restaurant, the unidentified 46-year-old taco lover did the smart thing and hired an attorney, then turned himself in to police.

The defender’s attorney released the following statement to Houston station KTRK . . .

My client, who wishes to remain anonymous, was dining with a friend at El Ranchito Taqueria and as it has been seen on video, a robbery suspect entered the restaurant, and pointed a weapon at my client and the other customers demanding money. In fear of his life and his friend’s life my client acted to protect everyone in the restaurant.

In Texas, a shooting is justified in self-defense, defense of others and in defense of property. The customer has met with the Harris County District Attorney’s Office and Investigators with HPD homicide. He fully intends to continue cooperating with the ongoing investigation.

When the investigation is complete, this case will be presented to a Grand Jury. We are confident that a Grand Jury will conclude that the shooting was justified under Texas Law. This event has been very traumatic, taking a human life is something he does not take lightly and will burden him for the rest of his life. For that reason, he wishes to remain anonymous. Due to the overwhelming coverage, we ask the media and the public to respect his privacy

It may not surprise you to learn that the late Mr. Washington was no stranger to the Houston criminal justice system, with a variety of infractions on his record including the 2015 murder of a cell phone store owner.

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.

Waraich had a fiancée and three sons who reacted strongly when contacted by ABC13.

“If the guy who stopped Eric was around 10 years ago, maybe I’d still have my dad,” Aman Waraich, the son of the store clerk that was killed, said.

This is all apparently part of Rethinking Criminal Justice™. In practice, that means allowing known repeat offenders — including violent felons like Eric Washington — to get out of jail early and walk the streets, committing more violent crimes and victimizing law-abiding citizens.

The more that “progressive” prosecutors fail to adequately charge, prosecute, and convict violent felons who go on to prey on the rest of society, the more law-abiders will feel the need to protect themselves from the violent recidivists the system refuses to deal with. What happened in that Houston taqueria is a clear example of what will increasingly result from “restorative justice.”

“Eric was an evil criminal that took joy in harassing and robbing innocent families. The individual at the taqueria is a true hero!” Sean Waraich, the victim’s other son, added. “He did the right thing in stopping the robber and in protecting the community from a dangerous perpetrator.”

One thing is for sure. Eric Washington’s days of serial recidivism are over. The question now is to what extent the criminal justice system will cut those who defend themselves from the Eric Washingtons of the world the same kind of breaks violent offenders are getting. Stay tuned.


Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Dude should get a Point of Light award for his community service.
    Have the burn, loot, murder crew set up a makeshift shrine for Eric yet?

    • That shrine for Eric is in the financing stage…the founders of BLM need to rake off their profit before any of the remaining funds can be spent. Democrat graft takes time ya know!

    • If it hasn’t already been suggested, or actually initiated, perhaps a Go-Fund-Me or something similar could be started. The main reason(s): a) defense/Bail, b) In the event of any form of conviction, he’ll need assistance to maintain a standard of living (above) your average repeat felon.

      Obviously the above suggestion depends on the supposed defenders criminal history and/or the lack thereof.

      • Go fund me has a history of shutting down anything 2a related. There are alternatives but don’t know them off hand

        • GiveSendGo, Fundly and GivingMail come to mind. They’re all Christian organizations.

          There are a bunch of others too. They got a lot of press with the trucker thing up in Canada when GoFuckYourself, er sorry, GoFundMe stopped donations.

      • always a point to remember before you reach for that gun…the legal ordeal before you may be daunting…your putting your future in the hands of others

    • sort of like pest control..yeah, the guy who got shot was a human being…but, by virtue of his conduct…he devalued his life long ago…

    • “i still want that truck.”

      It sure would make a nice ‘rat rod’.

      His lawyer will probably end up owning it, depending on how the DA presents the evidence to the grand jury.

      Question for the TTAG legal corps, does a DA have any leeway in how the evidence is presented to the grand jury?

      Example – Can the DA tell the grand jury to pay attention to the last shot, or do they just present the video with no comments?

      • The old saying is that a DA could indict a ham sandwich.

        With grand juries, the DA is still in charge, guiding the proceedings 100%, determining which witnesses and physical evidence can be presented or excluded. Defendant’s counsel is not permitted to be in attendance.

        • Dittos on the ham sandwich

          Spineless DA is dumping it in the lap of “Grand Jury”. It blows up in her idiot face she can blame the GJ while ruining the citizens life (whatever the indictment (or verdict)) might be. Typical big city DA POS poltroon.

          Yet again why you don’t put idiot broads in “positions of authority”.

  2. DA Ogg is UTTER garbage as a human being and hiding behind the grand jury, who will NOT indict the citizen hero. George Soros is a menace to the American people with his neo-socialist dreck.

  3. I’m curious to see how this goes.

    The 4 or so he put into the guy were 100% justified, the Coup Da Grace is going to cause him major problems though. He got the stop, he could have just let the guy bleed out there and it would have been okay. Going up to him and popping a round in his dome isn’t exactly going to go over great I suspect. Summary execution isn’t cool. I’m curious to see how he plays it at trial, the guy was going for his gun or something.

    • “Going up to him and popping a round in his dome i…”

      We don’t know about that final shot yet. Did it actually enter the bad guys body? Its could have been fired into the floor next to him.

        • He should just say he did the last shot to ease the perp’s pain and suffering since he reasonably believed he was going to die…like they do for a horse…

        • @ WTF…

          That’s not how it works lol. Best thing he could have done was made sure the threat was no longer existent and acted like he was performing life saving procedures. Like just doing CPR or some shit. Cameras everywhere and this dude is clearly not the brightest.

      • “Its could have been fired into the floor next to him.“

        Oh you’re killing me! Hilarious!

        Get a grip, because of that final headshot, it would’ve been irresponsible of the DA to not present this case to the grand jury.

        Why is everybody whining because The People’s representative, the Grand Jury, will be examining the case and deciding whether to indict.

        That’s the very essence of our system of jurisprudence, isn’t that good enough for you folks?

    • Andrew Lias,

      I came to post pretty much the exact same sentiment.

      The first few shots while the robber was still standing are 1000% justified. (Pro-tip: which way the robber was facing and which direction he was moving are irrelevant. The only details which are relevant are the fact that the victims were still in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.)

      The second volley of shots after the robber was down on the ground and not moving are much more difficult to justify. At that point, it is hard to establish that the restaurant patrons were still in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

      The last shot is not legally justified in my opinion. Whether or not a Grand Jury or a trial jury will see it that way is an entirely different kettle of fish.

      • Agreed. It started as a good shoot, morphed into a questionable shoot, and ended as a bad shoot. When the threat is neutralized, your continued use of deadly force is no longer legally justifiable. The robber went down like a sack of potatoes with the 4th shot fired (CNS hit?), and was no longer moving. Every round after that potentially sends you to prison. That last tap to the head potentially gets you the needle.

    • IMHO, if he had yelled “Drop the gun!” to prompt the perp to at least turn in his direction and have the option of surrendering before opening fire, there wouldn’t be a Grand Jury proceeding.

      Shoot to stop the imminent threat. If you must fire, then once the perp is down keep him muzzled until you’re absolutely certain he’s disarmed and no longer a danger.


      Several years ago, Massad Ayoob posted a video describing one of the court cases he was involved with as a subpoenaed expert witness. The defendant was charged with murder because he had shot his attacker after the perp’s back was turned on him. The defendant claimed he saw the man’s hand still on his gun, and was about to shoot him by firing backwards. The D.A. was arguing that nobody can be a danger – not even one with a gun in his hand – if he’s facing away from you, and an older female juror believed it and became the holdout.

      Massad demonstrated (with an approved empty revolver mimicking the one held by the now-dead perp) how a person can certainly draw and fire behind him very quickly. The juror stated her disbelief before the entire courtroom, so Massad asked her how quickly could she aim and fire a gun in her own hand if she were in the defendant’s place and was looking at an armed perp’s back. She said something like “two seconds”.

      Massad said okay, time me. Facing away from a mannequin representing the defendant, and wearing the revolver on his support-side (left) hip facing backwards, he successfully drew, aimed (in the general direction of the mannequin without looking), and pulled the trigger in 3/4 of a second. He then looked at the juror and said, “Madam, you’re dead.”

      Massad said the juror immediately understood the defendant’s stated fear for his life during the incident, and the jury acquitted him of the charges.

      I wasn’t there for this Taco Shop incident, but Mr. Hero Guy may argue a similar defense.

      • I’ve taken Mas’s MAG40 class, I’ve taken Andrew Branca’s classes. This customer better have good answers for that last shot, actually the last few shots also. It looks like he turned his valid self-defense case into an unlawful killing case.

        As Branca says, if you kill someone with your gun and even if you think you did everything right, the chances of you going to prison are automatically greater than zero. He says at least 10 percent no matter what because no one knows what juries will do.

        I would not want to be in this guy’s shoes right now.

        • “He needed killing” will throw you in prison. Giving rope to hang yourself to the DA who is already portraying you as a maniac killer? Real smart.

          Look, I know everyone is happy this scumbag is dead. But people have gone to prison for really firing too many shots and really saying stupid things like this at trial. You want to follow that strategy, be my guest.

        • I’ve taken Massad’s MAG40, but not Andrew’s, although I get his email discussions. I would not want to be in that situation because someone on that jury is going to mention “something, something, he shot that guy in the back!” if it goes to trial. His defense better be well versed on DGU.

      • Speaking of revolvers, I think the defender would have avoided most of this heat if he had used one. I think the target angle will be irrelevant, but that 9th shot will make many jurors cringe.

      • I Haz a Question,

        I hear what you are saying. And a good defense attorney should be able to fisk any Prosecutor’s suggestion that an armed attacker who is facing away from you is not an imminent threat.

        The simple fact of the matter is that an attacker who has a gun in hand can turn and fire on you in less than 0.5 (one-half) second. Another simple fact is that very few people–even with a gun drawn and already pointing at the attacker–could pull the trigger before that 0.5 second time span. Finally, even if a righteous defender could somehow squeeze off one shot in that 0.5 second time span before the attacker fires, that single shot is anything but guaranteed to incapacitate the attacker. (Remember that handguns are “weak sauce” and rarely incapacitate an attacker with a single shot.)

        In a nutshell: if an attacker is facing away from you, he/she can turn and deliver a fatal shot to you before you can incapacitate him/her, even if you already have your firearm pointed at him/her. Period. Thus, your attacker is still an imminent and credible threat of death or great bodily harm. THAT is your defense. And it is ironclad.

      • “Massad asked her… “

        Interesting, an expert witness and a tour having a discussion during court, never really seen that sort of thing…

    • I don’t really care what the law says anymore. the law said this a$$h0le should have been in prison, not robbing people in restaurants. when the government employees start obeying the law I may reconsider. but right now this is the only justice anyone will get.

    • You nancys and your “execution shot” pansies. How about the old BS Hollyweird Western rule on “can never shoot ’em in the back”?

    • That may be true, but it doesn’t change the fact the defender’s very life is now in her hands…

      • The grand jury decides and unless self defense and the defense of others is politicized it ends there. If it does not then a jury decides…Should it land in court the charge will not be murder, negligent homicide, manslaughter, etc. Considering the threat level displayed and disregard for others I am not concerned about the last shot like many seem to be.

        • that guy threatened everybody in the place..don’t really think the direction the shot came from is relevant..but when you walk up and finish him you’re basically saying “Well, that’s one less”….

        • “Should it land in court the charge will not be murder, negligent homicide, manslaughter, etc.”

          I’m sorry, but that’s not the way it works, Deborah.

          Apparently, the DA leads the grand jury around by the nose when she presents the case to them.

          That’s a *serious* problem for our hero, even more so when the one doing the leading has a clear political agenda. And a political agenda is *why* George Soros donated 500,000 dollars to get her elected in the first place… 🙁

  4. I don’t think it’s the defensive gun use he’ll have to worry about but the deliberate bonus-balling he gave the guy after he was on the ground (including one to grow on after he’d picked up the attacker’s weapon) and then splitting afterwards.

    I’ve never been in that situation and I can’t say how I would handle it. I can certainly see being very angry when someone robs you, your family or friends, and your community at gunpoint in the sanctity of a local restaurant. But my plan does include sticking around afterward for law enforcement (after all, I am the victim of the crime) and possibly having to answer for my actions in court.

    • Ya, he shot a guy in the back that was leaving and probably no longer a threat then went over and finished him off like they do in the movies!

  5. Getting up and walking over and finishing off the creep could send him to the big house. And subsequently he left the scene. That behavior could easily have turned a justifiable homicide into a crime.

      • Just 1 like me.

        The robber put the patron in a state of high adrenelin and it shouldn’t be expected that Joe Public act like a pure professional. That’s the risk you have to bear if you’re being a dirtbag.

        I’d vote NOT GUILTY in a minute, hang the jury, and sleep like a baby.

        • “The robber put the patron in a state of high adrenelin and it shouldn’t be expected that Joe Public act like a pure professional.“

          Very good, that is exactly the argument that a competent defense attorney would use successfully.

          The imminent threat presented by the criminal with the apparent deadly weapon would induce an altered state of consciousness because of the traumatic stress, his attorney should bring these facts forward.

          Hiring the appropriate expert witness to testify to the defendant’s extreme stress and fear would be one tactic to support this defense.

        • Might win this case, but would also publicize the idea that the average armed citizen gets so hopped up on adrenaline that they can no longer distinguish between legitimate self-defense and vigilante justice. Does anyone truly want to be handing that argument over to the gun-grabbers??

        • H8_the_deep_state:
          “The robber put the patron in a state of high adrenalin, and it shouldn’t be expected that Joe Public act like a pure professional.”
          That’s my take on it too. However, I’m betting the charge, if any, will be manslaughter. But I’m not a lawyer.

        • From moral and practical perspectives, multiple things are true, even if they contradict each other.

          1, get training. Training for high intensity situations may be the difference between extra rounds in the back of someone’s head and realizing the exact moment the threat is neutralized.

          2, be understanding. I’ve never been in a life and death situation where my gun might save me. I hope I never am. Would I be perfect in such a situation? Would a high percentage of the population be perfect?

          3, Just as you said. Who caused the situation? The guy who responded imperfectly or the guy who initiated with clear malice?

  6. This is a complicated case and if the shooter also had a shaky record it may not go well for him when the grand jury makes a decision.

    I would say when you stand there and pump shots into a prostrate body it does not go down well for you as Bernhard Goetz found out the hard way. Bernhard could not resist putting another round into an unarmed seriously wounded person when otherwise Bernard would have probably only been charged with carrying a weapon without a license. He also ended up with an astronomical fine.

    In the Goetz case he was twiced ruled against by the judges on pumping another shot into a prostrate person.

    Although the criminal in this case had a long horrific record it remains to be seen how the grand jury will react as the “Authorities” never like seeing an ordinary troglodyte worker slave challenge their absolute authority. In their way of thinking only the Gestapo should have the right to execute someone on the street without trial.

    • this can easily be turned from justifiable defensive shooting into a hate crime…let’s hope that doesn’t happen…

  7. I hope this creep’s priors aren’t withheld from the jury if this goes to trial. Someone said something about people complaining that the prisons are overcrowded. Nope, we aren’t.

    • If this creep had still been in prison he’d still be sucking off of the taxpayers at least until 2030 and none of this would be news. At least not until after 2030 when the idiot got out to resume his career of collecting cash for college.


  9. The best thing to come of this is one less community organizer. It’s too bad the dude with the truck will probably be sacrificed to the BLM gods. Just one more argument to stay away from large cities and their community organizing inhabitants.

  10. Based off the two CCW classes I have taken, it is questionable of self-defense. But they also taught to empty the entire magazine into the criminal to ensure he would not present as a threat. I am okay with that.

    However, the Soros backed soft on crime DA is partly responsible for this criminal being back on the streets. The hero was doing society a service by putting down a career criminal down, obviously.
    Had I be on the Grand Jury, I would rule in the hero’s favor.

    And this is where we have come to.

  11. yes
    the world is a better place
    now that eric eugene washington
    is no longer in it
    having said that
    i would be surprised
    if this doesnt go to trial
    if i was on the jury
    i would probably vote to acquit
    and while i probably wouldnt feel great about it
    -because of that last shot-
    i would probably feel better
    than if i voted to send it to trial
    i would live with myself
    by continually telling myself
    that eric eugene washington
    should have still been in prison for murder
    or in jail
    awaiting trial for assaulting his girlfriend
    and me voting to stop the criminal justice system
    from putting this shooter away
    in the big scheme of things
    isnt anywhere near as bad
    as the criminal justice system
    continually failing
    to keep eric eugene washington
    off the streets
    where he belonged

  12. The piece of shit was already dead. The final shot is just desecration of a corpse.

    Seriously saved a lot of grief to have not fired that shot and not have run.

    The DA making the right call, let the grand jury decide.

  13. If “good guy” gun owners can’t exercise good judgement and proper control, then you will rightly hear more voices for gun control.

    If you can’t see that the defendant did something heroic and then something illegal, then you aren’t really interested in the TRUTH about guns.

    • Say you haven’t read people’s responses without saying you haven’t read people’s responses…

    • common sense
      this has absolutely nothing to do with the truth about guns. it has to do with the actions of a person. that person could have used a hammer, a chair or a fork.

    • “If “good guy” gun owners can’t exercise good judgement and proper control, then you will rightly hear more voices for gun control.“

      You are correct, the final headshot will add fuel to the anti-gunners fire portraying all DGU as violent murders.

      Taco Man did not do us any favors with his coup de grâce.

  14. Had they put him in jail and left him there, he would not be robbing taco shops, and still alive. Therefore it is the state’s fault.

  15. I’ve been on grand juries. There has never been a case where a DA just gives facts to a grand jury to see if they want to indict. If it’s going before a grand jury, bet your ass the DA wants to hold a felony indictment over someone in an attempt to get them to plea. Every. Time.

  16. Glad I’m not the defender here. I can’t help wondering if he actually meant to kill the robber. I mean, I have no problem with that, if it is true. But legally speaking, intent to kill is a very bad thing. He better have a convincing story that he thought the robber was still reaching for his own weapon when that last shot was fired. Best if one or more witnesses was in a position to see the robber still reaching for his weapon, or lifting the weapon, or something, anything.

    From my position, watching the video, it looks like a coup de grâce. 9 shots, the first four easily justifiable. Each of the next four begins to be harder to justify. That last shot . . . things look bad for our hero.

  17. Let’s wait for all the facts come in before postulating.

    When I first saw the video (no audio), my gut reaction was “looks like it may be a good shoot, but let’s wait and see.”

    When I saw a version of the video with audio (which, if it is accurate, reveals a pause after the first 4 shots, and after the second four shots, and raises questions about the final shot), I’m definitely in the camp of “more information needed.”

    I don’t know if the autopsy results have been released (which will likely show, inter alia, whether the last round hit the decedent, and if so whether it was the / one of the fatal shots).

    Who knows what other evidence is out there that we haven’t seen — evidence that may well exonerate or condemn the shooter.

    Let’s not rush to judgment either way. Let the system work.

    • In case you haven’t noticed, the system is rigged to support unrighteousness. Maybe it will prevail, but look what they did to Rittenhouse. DAs are generally very evil and this woman is.

    • “Let’s wait for all the facts come in before postulating.”

      One bit I’d like to know is, who released that particular edit of the camera video?

      That person (or agency) might have an agenda they want the public to see.

      I’d like to see the unedited video starting when the assailant entered the camera view in the restaurant…

  18. I hope the grand jury “no bills” him. That’s the best possible outcome. If it goes to trial, I wouldn’t want to be on the jury. My sentiment would be to vote not guilty because, although he made bad mistakes, he was the defender and the deceased was a violent criminal in the midst of yet another violent crime. However, as a juror sworn to uphold the law, I’d have a hard time excusing shots five through eight, when the robber was already down, and, especially, the ninth one after he had been disarmed.

    • Andrew Branca has an excellent analysis of the legal issues up over at Legal Insurrection:


      But as he points out, the emotional responses of jurors can often overweight the pure legal analysis. In “awful but lawful shoots” (such as that of the Dallas cop who got off on the wrong floor of her apartment building after a long shift, and shot an 100% innocent man she mistakenly believed was an intruder) where the shooter ticks all the boxes for a lawful shoot but still is found guilty by a jury that is outraged and wants to “do something.”

      You also can have the converse, which MIGHT be this situation: a questionable or even “bad” shoot, but of a very bad hombre in the course of committing a violent crime, and who probably deserved to be removed from the gene pool. The grand jury / trial jury (or at least one member of either) may let that visceral reaction outweigh the strict legal issues.

      • “where the shooter ticks all the boxes for a lawful shoot”
        How is that even possible that what she did was lawful?
        Not arguing just a serious question.

        • Read Branca’s analysis of that case.


          His analysis is (1) had the shooting occurred in her own apartment, would it have been justified (answer: almost certainly); and thus because it was undisputed that she actually believed she was in her own apartment (2) was her going into the wrong apartment criminally reckless or just a negligent mistake.

          Branca thinks there was insufficient evidence that her mistake (coming home at the end of a very long shift, getting out on the wrong floor and going to what she very clearly (but mistakenly) believed was her own apartment) rose to the level required for criminal recklessness beyond a reasonable doubt.

          At best, the charge probably should have been manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide, not murder. But the case serves as the example of the “awful but lawful” shoot problem, especially when you then add racial politics to the mix.

        • The thing I always wondered in that case was how she actually got in to the apartment.

          If her key doesn’t work then the door must be unlocked, which you could see raising suspicion if you really think it’s your place and you know you locked it when you left.

          Or did the key work because the management company were cheap bastards and keyed groups of apartments the same to save money? In which case that’s even more on her side provided she didn’t know this in advance. Now she definitively has reason, provided she believes this to be her place, to believe she’s caught a burglar in the act.

      • For the last shot? How can we tell which shots were fatal and which shots were overkill? What if the medical examiner finds that the first two shots were the ones that caused actual death?

        • Question the Grand Jury will likely consider is whether the shooter knew the guy to be dead before the final shot, not whether the M.E. thought he was dead by then. If the shooter believed that his last shot was killing the robber, that’s likely not going to be well received in court.

        • That’s assuming the last shot actually entered the bad guys body.

          We don’t know yet. It could have been fired into the floor next to the ‘head or upper torso’ area.

  19. I’m in the “this guy doesn’t have all his marbles” category about this shoot. Putting someone innocent in the cross fire, shooting as the threat was leaving, and firing more shots than needed after a pause once the threat had dropped to the ground… Not smart. He wanted to be a hero and he got his moment, and as usual, the ones that want to be a hero do dumb shit and end up in the news and/or a major case. I’ll be honest, I hope they drop it all, but I won’t be surprised if they don’t. Stay safe out there and only draw/shoot when you have the upper hand and the threat isn’t walking away with nobody in the cross fire. Then, stick around and comply, but remain silent and let your lawyer do the talking. Don’t do what this guy did, at all.

  20. It’s a place that makes tacos and the cops found a body.
    Throw down all your silver,,,spoons
    Pick it up piece by piece
    Pick it up piece by piece
    Where,,, oh where,, are my bodies for dinner
    I want my food

  21. Thirteen years ago, during the commission of an armed robbery, an OKC pharmacist pumped five additional rounds into a prone thief who the pharmacist had already righteously shot in the head. That pharmacist is serving life in prison for murder. In that drugstore video, the pharmacist’s actions appeared to be past the point of “neutralizing the threat.” But judging actions in the aftermath of a violent crime becomes very subjective. The video of this Taqueria shooting bears much similarity and may go the same way legally.

    I’m an old, retired guy who legally carries a firearm whenever I leave the house. But I am more than a bit anxious about the long-term repercussions of any defensive engagement. Everyone and every facility have a camera. Every DA is adversarial. Every lawyer is expensive. Every jury is tasked to be armchair quarterbacks. Sometimes I wonder if it wouldn’t be better to just be the victim rather than risk making some miscreant the “victim.”

    • “Every DA is adversarial.”

      Not true, but in this particular incident, the DA is about as adversarial as it gets… 🙁

  22. The perp was still moving, and the shooter obviously reacted to that, and made sure he was safe from the prospective killer. I hope the jury sees it the same way. If the man gets charged I will contribute to his defense fund. Please keep us all posted, TTAG.

  23. This does not look good. But I’m not surprised it happened this way. This is the result of a Justice system that is not interested in prosecuting criminals at all.

    So in the perverted world we live in now. You’re supposed to allow criminals to rob you, beat you, and rape you instead of killing them where they stand.

    Shooting a criminal in the head after they’re down, is the natural result of the revolving door, catch and release, justice system that we currently have now.

    And the Left wants it this way. The racist white left is happy to have an elderly white man kill a known vicious black young criminal. So they can scream racism. And work to disarm our society.

    The soft bigotry of low expectations, racist white s0ci@list pr0gressives, do not care about black people. They want black people disarmed. And if they have to disarm the majority of white people, in order to do it, they will make that happen.

    I vote jury notification.

    I wonder how many of this robber’s victims in his past were other black people???
    And did racist gun control prevent his victims from getting a gun for self-defense???

  24. Shots 1-4 justified 100%
    Shots 5-8 – slightly problematic. On the video it is clear that the criminal lost control of his “firearm” when he fell down after the 4th shot. It’s not clear that our hero knew this, or could react to this change. Which means it’s well beyond reasonable doubt.

    Shot 9… Honestly looks like an unintentional discharge to me. The shooter goes to retrieve the dropped weapon, bad guy on the ground moves slightly, and the 9th shot goes off reflexively since the shooter still had his finger on the trigger. Doesn’t look aimed, and certainly not aimed at the head.

    If I’m on the jury: “The state has failed to prove it’s case beyond a reasonable doubt”.

  25. By the time the Grand Jury gets this case, the dead perp will be the new crucified Black Jesus. bigger/more perfect than the original white guy.

  26. I look at this two ways.

    The first, IIRC, 8 shots are legit. The 9th is in question.

    On the one hand you could argue the anchor shot is immoral and illegal, as the DA would like a Grand Jury to believe.

    On the other hand it entirely depends on what the guy actually saw as he approached. If he saw movement, or thought he did, that he can articulate as being a potential sign of a threat then the last shot isn’t really an anchor shot but a continuation of a response to an ongoing threat.

    Cops do this all the time. If you watch the shootings Donut Operator covers an “anchor shot” is applied surprisingly often. The cops argue it’s because of movement or some other factor that convinces them that the threat has not passed. Generally, if their statements are true, that’s a perfectly acceptable logical and legal argument and it works. Just because the guy’s down doesn’t mean he can’t still shoot you dead.

    The shooter in this case lawyered up essentially instantly (smart). If he can continue to avoid being stupid he can claim that he’s basically following police protocol (similar to suggestions that you carry the same ammo the cops do so as to avoid being accused of using sUpEr LeTHal MuRder bOoLits! in court) and his attorney can show a ton of YouTube videos where cops did this and no one batted an eye at this “SOP” and probably put a parade of “expert witnesses” on the stand in the form of various LEOs to confirm it.

    Even if this goes to trial I’d suspect guy’s got good odds as long as he just lets his lawyer do the jawboning.

Comments are closed.