Taqueria robber shot dead by patron. video /bad shoot?

[two70]

Have you noticed these days you can look at a news story and replace "activists" with "stupid people" or "dumba***s" and it actually makes a little more sense?

If other recent "activists" are any indication, a good number of them likely have criminal backgrounds.

 

[Hookeye]

Not just backgrounds, but in their actions of supposed "fundraising".

 

[KLB]

If they charge him and trial they are just wasting $$$. The prosecuter has to ask himself if all 12 TEXANS are going guilty on shooting too many times. I suppose if he is in a liberal controlled city then he will have to just to keep his liberal votes. If this happened in WI it would be another Kyle case for sure. I say shoot until there’s no more threat. I’m not sure in the end if robber still had his gun. If he had dropped it and guy still shooting because he thought he still had it, that’s good enough for me for him to keep shooting.

Huh? He literally picked up the bad guy's gun before shooting him the last time.

 

[DragonGunner]

Huh? He literally picked up the bad guy's gun before shooting him the last time.

Thanks for info. I have not seen the entire video just the very beginning, and then stops and only see aftermath.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Have you noticed these days you can look at a news story and replace "activists" with "stupid people" or "dumba***s" and it actually makes a little more sense?

In my head, I read "commie bastards". I figure one or two in every group are judas goats who are in contact (whether they know it or not) with a foreign backed handler.

That one or two hooks up with some other local losers and it is off to the craft store with a pocket of chinese/saudi/israeli/etc money for poster board and grievance politics.

 

[KLB]

In my head, I read "commie bastards". I figure one or two in every group are judas goats who are in contact (whether they know it or not) with a foreign backed handler.

That one or two hooks up with some other local losers and it is off to the craft store with a pocket of chinese/saudi/israeli/etc money for poster board and grievance politics.

You forgot the Russians

 

[Shadow01]

Activists don’t speak for the majority.

 

[greg]

Why do you keep indicating the robber was dead before the headshot? As I mentioned above, we have no proof of when he died. We do not know what shots hit him or if any of the initial ones were instantly fatal. The raw video does not provide enough information to make a definitive decision, one way or another.

This ^^^ …. So if you’re still breathing you can still be shot? Where is the threat!

 

[nonobaddog]

This ^^^ …. So if you’re still breathing you can still be shot? Where is the threat!

Lethal bad breath.

 

[HoughMade]

This ^^^ …. So if you’re still breathing you can still be shot? Where is the threat!

I look at this from a defense perspective. From that perspective, I'm going to make the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was alive for the last shot. The defense DOES NOT have to prove he was dead.

 

[mark40sw]

 

[d.kaufman]

Bumping this for a member that can't seem to find the thread

Anyone hear any updates on this?

 

[greg]

I look at this from a defense perspective. From that perspective, I'm going to make the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was alive for the last shot. The defense DOES NOT have to prove he was dead.

I would think someone would have to prove he was a threat when he was shot laying on the ground ‍! maybe not!

 

[schmart]

I would think someone would have to prove he was a threat when he was shot laying on the ground ‍! maybe not!

With due respect... you have it backwards. In court the shooter is presumed innocent. Defense doesn't have to prove anything. Rather the prosecutor has to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he was no longer an apparent threat, and therefore the further shots (somewhere between shots 5 and 9) were not justified. Not prove that he wasn't a threat, but prove he didn't appear to be a threat any longer. How do you prove that? What if the body moved as the chest relaxed making it look in the .25 seconds you have to react like he was rolling over to engage w/ another gun. Prosecutor has to prove that in that .25 seconds of real time it was very apparent he was NOT a threat. I certainly can't make that determination. I can only start to think that by careful study of the video in slow motion. The shooter didn't have that time.

Just as in other areas of life, it is easy to prove something exists, but very hard to prove it doesn't. This is the situation before the prosecutor.

--Rick

 

[KLB]

With due respect... you have it backwards. In court the shooter is presumed innocent. Defense doesn't have to prove anything. Rather the prosecutor has to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he was no longer an apparent threat, and therefore the further shots (somewhere between shots 5 and 9) were not justified. Not prove that he wasn't a threat, but prove he didn't appear to be a threat any longer. How do you prove that? What if the body moved as the chest relaxed making it look in the .25 seconds you have to react like he was rolling over to engage w/ another gun. Prosecutor has to prove that in that .25 seconds of real time it was very apparent he was NOT a threat. I certainly can't make that determination. I can only start to think that by careful study of the video in slow motion. The shooter didn't have that time.

Just as in other areas of life, it is easy to prove something exists, but very hard to prove it doesn't. This is the situation before the prosecutor.

--Rick

Really, he doesn't have to prove the guy wasn't perceived as a threat. He only has to convince the jury.

 

[GregD]

A question for our lawyers on here. About how long will it take them to seat the grand jury?

 

[schmart]

Really, he doesn't have to prove the guy wasn't perceived as a threat. He only has to convince the jury.

I agree I misspoke. Please replace all my uses of "prove" with "convince the jury" as that is much better verbiage!
--Rick

 

[chipbennett]

This ^^^ …. So if you’re still breathing you can still be shot? Where is the threat!

That's not at issue. What is being discussed is a potential charge of murder, resulting from shot #9.

 

[GregD]

Has any body got more information from Texas ?

Or are we just talking?

 

[chipbennett]

Really, he doesn't have to prove the guy wasn't perceived as a threat. He only has to convince the jury.

Not even that. He merely has to provide a modicum of evidence that he believed him to be a threat. That is the standard for a self-defense claim. It is up to the state to disprove that the decedent was a threat.