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

[cg21]

They would be. At least in IN.

I know if perps A and B try to rob a store and store owner shoots A and B; A dies on scene and B runs away and seeks medical treatment. B would be arrested for robbery of the store and a form of homicide for A.

I cant imagine that if in the same scenario, A and B are both injured and a customer was killed in the crossfire that the robbers wouldnt be charged in the death of the customer, not the clerk that actually shot her.

I am saying in my scenario perp a & b get shot at by the employee and employee hits C that is just someone getting a coffee. Would be tragic and we don’t want everyone just slinging lead but I still believe any and all charges should fall on A & B not the clerk.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Not to belabor the point, but assessing what actually happened by comparing it to a situation in which the attacker was crawling out the door is an invalid comparison. I'll explain below.

I'll disagree.

And the reason is because the hypotheticals raise points of agreement and sharpens/focuses where the disagreement might lie. And, I don't necessarily disagree with anything you say below.

And thank you for answering...

And, as I've already pointed out would get me excused during voir dire, I would (in a vacuum) hold to all deadly force used being justified if the initial deadly force was justified, with respect to number of rounds expended.

With respect to the number of rounds expended, we agree that there is no magic number that is enough... or in a vacuum too many, only enough to unambiguously end the threat is enough. There are documented cases where, IIRC, 18 hits was not enough to stop the immediate and imminent threat.

No. Because in that scenario, the aggressor has clearly demonstrated intent to end the aggression (and, therefore, the threat).

I agree.

Assuming the aggressor, as above, had clearly demonstrated intent to end the aggression (and, therefore, the threat), then further use of deadly force would no longer be justified as self-defense.

I agree.

I would add that for me, this also extends to when the attacker unwillingly becomes unable to remain being a threat.

They are not medical experts, and would merely be speculating about whether the aggressor was "lifeless" but still alive.

True, but I don't think that would prevent their testimony describing what they saw. For example, hypothetical testimony that immediately following the alleged final shot to the head, the perp's body slumped and went limp.... the jury would be the "finder of fact" whether he was still alive.

That is possible, but it is also an assessment based on an imperfect view of what was going on with shot #9. Or, as I said up-thread: perhaps my eyesight is just that poor, and others can discern details from the video that I can't.

I agree that the video is too grainy/low res to say it was definitively a shot to the head, so I've tried to use "allegedly" a shot to the head.

Head shot or not, that last one, after a pause and while holding the perp's firearm, is in general a bad idea, IMO, and would generally need an immediate/imminent threat justification for that shot - which does not appear on the video (but may exist nonetheless). I.e. pause and retrieve the perp's firearm, perp's on the ground with 8 rounds in him, the calculus has changed from what is was prior to the first shot.

 

[GregD]

I wonder how long it will take them to start the grand jury ?

 

[KLB]

I wonder how long it will take them to start the grand jury ?

I wonder what the prosecutor is looking for. It's been said around here that a prosecutor can pretty much get a grand jury to indict if that is what he is wanting.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

The robber/POS had every opportunity to plan out this scenario.

They had all the time in the world to set up this incident to look after their own safety.

Instead they put everyone's life in danger.

The shooter had a few seconds to OODA loop. He only shot the bad guy.

Wringing your hands over the last shot is a bit much.

The shooter had a head full of adrenaline and he didnt cause the problem. He was eating a taco and threatened with murder by a murderer. He was forced to deal with the problem and he did good enough.

 

[chipbennett]

I'll disagree.

And the reason is because the hypotheticals raise points of agreement and sharpens/focuses where the disagreement might lie. And, I don't necessarily disagree with anything you say below.

I suspect we're kind of saying the same thing, albeit in different ways.

I would add that for me, this also extends to when the attacker unwillingly becomes unable to remain being a threat.

That, I'm not sure about. IANAL, but most statutes with which I'm aware, involving the justified use of force/deadly force in self-defense, put the onus on the initial aggressor to clearly disengage and indicate intent to end the aggression. I'm not sure that it would always be readily apparent, in the heat of the moment, that an aggressor has been incapacitated. In any case, I'd still defer to the person acting in self-defense.

True, but I don't think that would prevent their testimony describing what they saw. For example, hypothetical testimony that immediately following the alleged final shot to the head, the perp's body slumped and went limp.... the jury would be the "finder of fact" whether he was still alive.

Again, IANAL, but I think that the testimony of such witnesses would have to be kept on a very tight leash/maintain a fine line between what was actually seen and speculation about what was seen. Saying "he was slumped over and I didn't see him move" is vastly different from "he was already dead".

I agree that the video is too grainy/low res to say it was definitively a shot to the head, so I've tried to use "allegedly" a shot to the head.

Head shot or not, that last one, after a pause and while holding the perp's firearm, is in general a bad idea, IMO, and would generally need an immediate/imminent threat justification for that shot - which does not appear on the video (but may exist nonetheless). I.e. pause and retrieve the perp's firearm, perp's on the ground with 8 rounds in him, the calculus has changed from what is was prior to the first shot.

There's a lot of gray area there, because of what is unknown about shot #9. It is valuable to discuss it from the MMQB vantage point that we have, and use it to think about what we might do in similar circumstances, and it's all to easy to say that shot #9 is unwise/exposes him to legal trouble/etc. But, still, I defer to the person acting in self-defense - precisely because only he can explain his actions, and because only he knows what actually happened.

(And even still: adrenaline does funny things. At the end of the day, the attacker got himself righteously shot because he chose to threaten people with a deadly weapon.)

 

[SheepDog4Life]

At the end of the day, the attacker got himself righteously shot because he chose to threaten people with a deadly weapon.)

No disagreement there... he deserved shootin'...

 

[Shadow01]

Why would that be patriotic?

The texan would be patriotic because of his character long before his actions as a juror. You added meaning in your reading of my post that was not there. Nice try.

 

[Shadow01]

Murder..... at the time of last shot the guy wasnt a threat.
I asked the same question to a LEO I know and that was his answer!
He also said a dead man can't testify.

Was he alive at the time of the last shot? If your answer is yes, please show where that was determined and by what legal authority it was reported.

 

[Shadow01]

I don't know. If you do not KNOW it is a corpse, it might apply.

If you shoot a dummy thinking it is a person, is that attempted murder? I think it might be. I am sure it all boils down to the laws of the state you are in and the prosecutor that is looking at the case.

If you can’t assume his is dead, then you can’t assume he is alive

 

[nonobaddog]

A lot of the mental gymnastics people are going through would be frequently reduced or eliminated by instructions from the court on various interpretations and what the specific job of the jury is.

 

[bobzilla]

If you can’t assume his is dead, then you can’t assume he is alive

Schrödinger's perp?

 

[KLB]

If you can’t assume his is dead, then you can’t assume he is alive

In a trial it will be about what can be shown to be in testimony.

 

[chipbennett]

If you can’t assume his is dead, then you can’t assume he is alive

The defendant is presumed innocent. That means that the defendant is assumed not to have committed the crime for which he is charged. The state has to prove all elements of the charge, beyond a reasonable doubt. That means that all assumptions fall to the benefit of the accused, in practical terms. The defendant doesn't have to prove the deceased was dead at the time of the alleged act of murder (i.e. shot #9); rather, the prosecution has to prove that the deceased was alive at the time of the alleged act of murder (shot #9), and that the act of murder killed the deceased.

 

[Route 45]

 

[bobzilla]

Good for them. I want the activists rounded up and shipped to Syria

 

[chipbennett]

Completely unsurprising, unfortunately.

 

[nonobaddog]

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?

 

[DragonGunner]

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.

 

[SkullDaddy.45]

He won't walk out of a courtroom over this. He most likely will be carried out upon the shoulders of the jurors. .... Hey man... Nice Shot!