There is much more at the link, and anyone who regularly and legally carries a firearm for self defense will find much of value in Mr. Branca's dispassionate discussion adn analysis.
It’s a legal shooting, but the fact the guy left the scene is suspect, and probably illegal.
The robber crazily waves around a gun threatening the lives of everyone in the store.
Now the person, who risk his life in pulling out a gun and successfully making sure that the robber did not threaten anyone any more, is being questioned and denigrated by people who have probably never been in a similar imminent life-threatening situation as a civilian.
The gunfire occurred over nine seconds, and given how close the shooter was to the robber, there may have been motions by the robber that the shooter saw that were not picked up by the camera, even after he retrieved the robber’s gun. Also, the gunman did not medically examine the robber to see if he was still alive, or was unconscious, or pretending to be. Furthermore, the gunman did not frisk the robber to see if he had other weapons on him that he might be trying to use. And we should realize that the gunman probably had high adrenaline level during this time and would be highly sensitive to any perceived threatening movement by the robber, even as he was laying on the floor, and even if it was just a death throe, or reaction from being previously hit.
Based on these observations, in this situation, every round fired could be reasonably justified as self-defense, except by anti-Second Amendment fanatics.
Some of the pro-vigilante comments puzzle me. It seems to be a misunderstanding of what is and what should be. I don’t claim to know the self defense laws in Texas, but I am reasonably familiar with them in my state. We are not given executioner status when we are under threat of death or great bodily harm. We are allowed to use deadly force until the threat (not the person) no longer exists. Going only off what is seen in the video, it’s hard to find any legality for the last shot. Maybe additional evidence will justify it, but the optics of aggressively moving toward the robber while firing, even after he is down and appears to be motionless, doesn’t help his case. Not to mention leaving the scene before police arrived.
Back in the 1980s, NYC subway vigilante Bernhard Goetz was acquitted of attempted murder under very similar circumstances. The jury accepted the case presented by the defense — that a crime victim’s state of mind is not conductive to sound, rational decision-making in a highly charged situation where self-defense action is taken under threat of death or serious injury.
It was no longer deadly force when the person was already dead.
So, a lawyer who is an expert in the law of self-defense wrote a long column examining the legality of three sets of shots, knowing from the video the effects of each set. The shooter had 2 sec, 0:14 to 0:16 on the video, to do the analysis.
In the so-called wild west shooting anyone in the back, even a criminal, got you a rope necktie.
KABONG! "I thought I saw him move just a little bit" KABONG!.... KABONG!
Have you seen some of these police shootouts. Either one or multiple Police Officers, mag dumping, several times, on a suspect, until, the one decides to cease fire or one of the multiple, finally, decides, to yell cease fire. I saw one, from the dash cam, where the Officer, standing, next to the suspect vehicle, shot at a suspect, that was running away. Unless, the suspect was running backwards, the officer was shooting at his back.
Put me on the jury and he walks. One, for taking out the trash, and two, saving taxpayers, years of paying for this thugs incarceration.
I look at it this way: if the robber had come into the restaurant and not robbed people, would he have been shot and killed by the customer? Since the answer is no, all actions prompted by the robbery are the responsibility of the robber. First, second, and ninth shot. None would have occurred except for the robber’s actions.
If the perp still had gun in hand, that last shot was not perfect police work, but probably ok for a layperson who will claim to have been scared shitless that the guy would jump up and start shooting. Making sure the threat was over. A police officer would have stepped on his gun hand and cuffed him even dead, but the layperson just put in another round to be sure. At least that would be my argument.
common sense would say if you walk into a public space waving a gun around and robbing people you accept the consequences of your actions. Unfortunately it is 2023 and common sense seems to be rare these days.
Bad title. Legal and execution are not mutually exclusive
Branco is the absolute best for the correct information on the use of self-defense. Those who were at FR at the time, may recall his play-by-play of the Zimmerman trial, much as he did the recent Rittenhouse trial. He explains things succinctly and in terms the layman can understand.
Doesn’t a lot of the potential criminal charge depend upon knowing which shot killed the guy? If the guy was dead after the first four shots (which many feel were justified) then aren’t the remaining shots irrelevant as far a ‘murder’ is involved?
On the other hand, if the robber was still alive, but obviously incapacitated, when the final head shot was taken, I can see the case for a charge. As I understand it, you are shooting to stop something, not inflict a punishment (however justified it may seem).
"A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be."
Citizens are not professionally trained LEOs and these lefties who come after people who act in self defense are criminals themselves. Only criminals believe in disarming honest people. When someone pulls a weapon and threatens to harm others that person has forfeited all rights in that moment. If some citizen acts maybe too zealously in self defense, that’s just too bad.
But the judges and prison guards need jobs. Thus all the fake angst over criminals being blown away.
I love reading Andrew Branca. He has a very logical way of presenting information. I bet he is a helluva lawyer.
My older brother was my hero when I was but a lad. When he was about 65 years old he worked nights at a gas station. One night two men came in to rob the station, instead the murdered him and took no money.
So, I say rob anywhere and risk being executed on the spot.
Several years later the police had the man they wanted in my brothers murdered cornered and a basement, he was carrying the same gun he murdered my brother with. Rather then go to prison he turned the gun on himself and died in that basement thinking of my brother no doubt,
That last shot is problematic. Likely the fellow was already dead.