Posted on 01/28/2024 4:27:10 PM PST by TigerClaws
A suspected robber is dead after police said he was shot and killed by a bystander who caught him in the act.
The suspected robber reportedly pistol-whipped a man who was pumping gas at a gas station on Ella Boulevard at Greens Parkway before demanding his wallet. That's when the bystander stepped in.
"Is in another car parked in front of the store. He sees the robbery. He gets out of his car with a pistol. He shoots once maybe twice at the suspect that’s running away, and the suspect goes down," said Houston Police Department Lt. R. Willkens.
Surveillance video captured the incident, which lasted roughly ten seconds. After the shooting, the bystander is seen going over to the robbery victim before getting back in his car and taking off.
The bystander later called and met up with detectives to give them a statement. Detectives called the Harris County District Attorney's Office which determined this investigation would be presented to a grand jury.
KHOU 11 legal analyst Carmen Roe doubts the bystander will be charged but said there's always a chance.
“And looking at this video, anybody would think that this shooting was justified under the circumstance," said Roe.
She said the location is important because it appears the robbery suspect was shot in the back but says the bystander could have believed the threat was still real, considering police said the suspected robber first pistol-whipped the man pumping gas.
"It’s an interesting case because it’s very similar to the taqueria shooting, we had about a year ago."
We reported about that taqueria shooting. An armed, masked man entered the restaurant and demanded money and wallets from customers. A customer who shot the masked man was never criminally charged.
(Excerpt) Read more at khou.com ...
“You also can’t assume he will repeat the actions he just took somewhere else.”
Yes, you can; you must.
“you must.”
Sure, I can assume he can or he can’t. But taking a life based upon an assumption that he might is a whole lot different than he is going to. So taking the life before he could by determining he might is an unlawful act in itself. That’s how the law is written. There is no presumption of guilt of a crime that hasn’t happened or even been considered yet. Neither the law nor the shooter has a crystal ball.
wy69
“Have you seen what is happening to our country?”
Violating the law is not the answer either. What the shooter did was an act of vigilantism. In the United States, vigilantism is defined as acts which violate societal limits which are intended to defend and protect the prevailing distribution of values and resources from some form of attack or some form of harm. There are repercussions in the law for that.
When the perp was running away, the shooter was not protecting or preventing a form of attack or harm. He was executing the perp. He doesn’t have that privilege of jury and executioner for a crime that isn’t happening yet or even hasn’t been determined is going to happen.
In simple thoughts the perp could run out into the street and get hit and killed by a car while trying to escape the crime he commited. But in the thoughts of a future crime, outside of jaywalking he isn’t going to commit a crime. Only God knows the future. And the above scenerio has just as much an assumption as he is going to commit that next violent crime.
wy69
I'm not saying it's the case here if it's a corner gas station, but who's to say that the robber isn't running to a car or other defensive position to return fire?
It's like, he's running away until he's not. How long does one have to wait to give the other guy a "fighting chance," so to speak?
-PJ
Skeet, Trap or Sporting Style ?
“How long does one have to wait to give the other guy a “fighting chance,” so to speak?”
The only way I can answer that is to consider that shooting a man, criminal or not, that is fleeing is not an immediate threat. He wasn’t fighting, he was running away. Now if he stops and turns the gun, he is fighting. But in this case the criminal was running away. We don’t know if there was cover in the direction he was going, just darkness. But that’s a “what if.” And there could be a number of those at any time a crime is accomplished. So as long as the situation is minimized maybe no one will get killed.
And if the shooter had fired and missed he might have driven the perp to return fire at the shooter or the victim. There could have been someone supporting him in the dark with a gun. We don’t know. But letting him escape with no one getting killed at that point was a better choice than trying to drop him. It opened up a fresh can of worms that wasn’t necessary and could have been far worse.
Wounds heal, credit cards can be cancelled, driver licenses can be replaced, but humans can’t be brought back from the dead. And there was a good chance people other than the perp could have been in that status just as easily as what happened. And that’s the reason the stand your ground law was adopted in many states. Not to invite harm, but to make it the last resort.
wy69
“How long does one have to wait to give the other guy a “fighting chance,” so to speak?”
The only way I can answer that is to consider that shooting a man, criminal or not, that is fleeing is not an immediate threat. He wasn’t fighting, he was running away. Now if he stops and turns the gun, he is fighting. But in this case the criminal was running away. We don’t know if there was cover in the direction he was going, just darkness. But that’s a “what if.” And there could be a number of those at any time a crime is accomplished. So as long as the situation is minimized maybe no one will get killed.
And if the shooter had fired and missed he might have driven the perp to return fire at the shooter or the victim. There could have been someone supporting him in the dark with a gun. We don’t know. But letting him escape with no one getting killed at that point was a better choice than trying to drop him. It opened up a fresh can of worms that wasn’t necessary and could have been far worse.
Wounds heal, credit cards can be cancelled, driver licenses can be replaced, but humans can’t be brought back from the dead. And there was a good chance people other than the perp could have been in that status just as easily as what happened. And that’s the reason the stand your ground law was adopted in many states. Not to invite harm, but to make it the last resort.
wy69
Remember the urban fad called the Punching Game?
Yutes would walk up to an unsuspecting person and sucker punch them in the face to knock them out, and then turn and flee.
Do these people get a "free punch" because they turned and fled? I'm not saying to shoot them, but if a bystander chased the fleeing assaulter and tackled and injured him, is the chaser guilty of battery?
What are the limits of the "turned an ran" defense for a random unprovoked attack?
-PJ
“In Texas , Texas Penal Code 14.01 states that a peace officer or a private citizen can make an arrest, without a warrant for any felony or breach of the peace that is committed in their immediate presence.”
Chapter 9 of Texas Penal Code on 9 Deadly Force.
“Deadly force” means force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.
Chasing down a perp that has hit someone and is running is not chasing a felon in most cases. If he turns on the chaser without a weapon, or throws a knife and it misses thus making him unarmed, you can’t use deadly force.
he Texas Penal Code does not define force. Deadly force, yes. Still, it generally means any action that is capable of causing bodily injury (i.e., physical pain, illness, or impairment) but not so much force that it would cause serious bodily injury (i.e., substantial risk of death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of any bodily member or organ).
So if you tackle the perp, and hold him down until the police respond, that you can do. But you can’t shoot him while he is fleeing as he is not a threat.
wy69
Title 2, Sec. 9.42.2.B DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property
Right after (B) was (3):
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
That part was already over and the perp was running away. It could have constituted the use of force to recover the wallet, but the use of deady force was not required at that point. Please don’t think all force is alike. A man without a weapon can be taken easily by one who knows how without shooting him. The shooter failed in that he shot a man that was not an immediate danger thus used deadly force that wasn’t justified. You don’t kill someone for a wallet and the man at the pump was no longer in immediate danger unless the perp went back. And he never made an effort to do so. And if the shooter had yelled at him to freeze and drop his weapon, would he? Maybe, and the shooter wouldn’t have had to.
There are too many variables that can be considered, but the facts display a committed crime and a person using the wrong type of force at the moment trying to counter it. As an evaluator of the scenario you can’t assume something can or will happen and can only work with the actual exhibit of what happened. And the facts given were that the a man jumped another at the gas pumps, beat him, stole his wallet, and then tried to escape. That’s when the shooter dropped him and the perp never turned on him or the victim. Wasn’t justified.
And that’s what the jury is going to see on the video if it is allowed in court. If it is denied, then it’s word against word if the perp turned on anyone. And that can’t be observed so there is no hard evidence to back the “word” of the shooter. Thus the jury is working with forensic and witness trusting. And that probably won’t work for the shooter unless the jury doesn’t do its job and decides the perp deserved it.
You’ve got a dead perp, shot from an obtuse angle, right side, possibly 10 to fifteen yards from the victim, running away. Not a pretty picture. And the only witness we know about was in the car and may not have seen anything from that location except the victim she was riding with. That wasn’t described in the narrative and we couldn’t see in the video, a video that may not be admissible in court record.
wy69
As far as I’m concerned he just saved many victims who would have been assaulted or murdered. Good riddance to the scumbag.
“...saved many victims...”
And he may or may not have. But in this case, it was done wrong.
wy69
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.