Search found 8 matches

by Beiruty
Wed Jan 11, 2023 1:05 pm
Forum: Self-Defense Reports
Topic: Houston: Customer Kills Robber
Replies: 42
Views: 55692

Re: Houston: Customer Kills Robber

Revenge attack against the establishment
by Beiruty
Tue Jan 10, 2023 11:16 pm
Forum: Self-Defense Reports
Topic: Houston: Customer Kills Robber
Replies: 42
Views: 55692

Re: Houston: Customer Kills Robber

Paladin wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 9:11 pm
(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.
Once the BG was down and their "weapon" was removed... it's a lot harder to argue this to a prosecutor, judge, and jury in a criminal case. Even more so in a civil lawsuit.

The anchor shot is a step too far... but we'll see what the grand jury thinks.
I agree that one or 2 more shots may have been an overreaction. However, the stated (B) is used to establish the initial justification of the use of deadly force, which would be justified as the incident unfolded.
The question again, Texas law does not state what is deadly enough, or even if the threat is stopped or not.

If deadly force has to be qualified or restricted in the Texas law, a DA/or a lawyer can sue the actor (shooter in self-defense) why did he shoot more than 1 round?

Also, note in Texas law, "reasonably believes" is also deferred to the actor (in self-defense) if the deadly force is warranted.
by Beiruty
Tue Jan 10, 2023 11:10 pm
Forum: Self-Defense Reports
Topic: Houston: Customer Kills Robber
Replies: 42
Views: 55692

Re: Houston: Customer Kills Robber

PriestTheRunner wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 5:42 pm
Beiruty wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 4:34 pm However, is it stated in any section of law in Texas?
That is a VERY good question, and good points.

It may be a lawsuit issue and not a criminal issue. I imagine the prosecution will state that the justification no longer existed after a certain point in time by cause of common law. Not sure which other cases they would use to support but I've seen them before in LEO excessive force suits.
I still remember correctly, in the case of the castle doctrine, when the father and son pursed the aggressor who threw bricks at their house and shot him dead. The shooters were found not guilty because there was no time/distance limit after the justification started.
Both cases are different. I could be wrong, but the in terms of justification, once deadly force is justified and used, the law is mute on what is deadly enough.
by Beiruty
Tue Jan 10, 2023 10:24 pm
Forum: Self-Defense Reports
Topic: Houston: Customer Kills Robber
Replies: 42
Views: 55692

Re: Houston: Customer Kills Robber

Paladin wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 9:30 pm Ordered To Face Grand Jury By Soros-Funded DA

Standard procedure to go to a Grand Jury.

And this is standard procedure for a Soros-DA:
District Attorney Kim Ogg, the Soros-funded prosecutor who appears to have let the career criminal he put down out on bond.
...On Monday, the medical examiner identified 30-year-old Eric Eugene Washington as the robbery suspect who was killed.

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.
Very bad news for the DA if he wants to move ahead and convince the Grand Jury to indict. The DA would try to disallow the pre-incident criminal history as relevant to the case.
A repeat aggravated robbers who was involved in deadly felony crime and who was convicted on lesser charge. It is not good news at all for the DA.
by Beiruty
Tue Jan 10, 2023 4:41 pm
Forum: Self-Defense Reports
Topic: Houston: Customer Kills Robber
Replies: 42
Views: 55692

Re: Houston: Customer Kills Robber

Justification of the use of deadly force in case of robbery:
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(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; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
by Beiruty
Tue Jan 10, 2023 4:34 pm
Forum: Self-Defense Reports
Topic: Houston: Customer Kills Robber
Replies: 42
Views: 55692

Re: Houston: Customer Kills Robber

PriestTheRunner wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 11:02 am
Beiruty wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 10:15 am This case raised few more questions.
First, it happened in Texas.
We know, the Texas law justifies the use of deadly force in those cases.
Second, there is no higher force than deadly force.
Add to that, If I recall correctly, and please prove me wrong if otherwise, the law does not limit the actor on what deadly force or the level of force, or in this case how many rounds to shoot or when to shoot or not shoot.

This is why in Texas such case could or could not be prosecuted even if it looks "ugly"
He is going to be prosecuted based on the length of time between the 3rd, then the 4th 5th and 6th shots, and then the final shot.
You shoot until the threat is stopped. The threat stopped and he walked over and shot him in the back of the head.
Have you guys seen the full video?...... Its going to be a nasty court case that he will most likely lose.

Edit to add: I'm not saying what he did wasn't just or expedient, and I'm not saying he wasn't "in the right". I'm saying the the location and DA is going to chase this hard. He may get off on a lack of medical training in whether the perp was conscious or still a threat, and if a reasonable person would consider the perp still a threat based on the speed of the encounter.

That last shot may be his downfall.
I watched the longer video. "Shoot until the threat is stopped" We all agree, that is part of the principal of not using excessive force. And it is on the tip of the tongue of any firearms instructor.

However, is it stated in any section of law in Texas?
by Beiruty
Tue Jan 10, 2023 10:15 am
Forum: Self-Defense Reports
Topic: Houston: Customer Kills Robber
Replies: 42
Views: 55692

Re: Houston: Customer Kills Robber

This case raised few more questions.
First, it happened in Texas.
We know, the Texas law justifies the use of deadly force in those cases.
Second, there is no higher force than deadly force.
Add to that, If I recall correctly, and please prove me wrong if otherwise, the law does not limit the actor on what deadly force or the level of force, or in this case how many rounds to shoot or when to shoot or not shoot.

This is why in Texas such case could or could not be prosecuted even if it looks "ugly"
by Beiruty
Sun Jan 08, 2023 2:46 pm
Forum: Self-Defense Reports
Topic: Houston: Customer Kills Robber
Replies: 42
Views: 55692

Re: Houston: Customer Kills Robber

JakeTheSnake wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 1:34 pm Serious question, can you execute a dead person? Or is that abuse of a corpse?

No ID on the robber yet. Just got out on $50 bail for prior violent crimes?
Left leaning media would not want to shed light on felon criminal. Aggravated Robbery of multiple victims is a felony with fake firearms or otherwise. Such crime would justify the use of deadly force under Texas law. The customer who shot the criminal found out that the pistol is fake and tossed to the wall. He left the scene fearing being charged with a murder.

Best if the DA/PD closes the case since it a lose-lose otherwise. However, Houston PD/DA maybe sympathetic to criminals.

Return to “Houston: Customer Kills Robber”