NewsVine_Mariyam
Platinum Member
When I saw the news story and video (not either of the ones below posted in connection with the story), I had no doubt that the shooter whom I'll designate as V1, was perfectly within his rights to shoot the person who was committing this armed robbery whom I'll designate as R1.
The armed robber R1 pointed his gun at the shooter, V1 as well as at each of the other patrons in the restaurant, demanding their money. I saw the robber R1 point his gun at the shooter V1 at least once, I thought twice actually - once when he made his first general announcement that everyone should hand over their cash and swept the room with his weapon and again when he specifically was collecting money from each of the patrons. The shooter V1, who waited until R1 was done collecting the money from V1's table and had turned his back on VI who then shot him several times. R1 made it to the door where he collapsed. V1 approached the downed robber R1 and retrieved from his body the money that he had taken from everyone. He slapped the money down on one of the tables and told everyone in the taqueria to come and retrieve their money. He then grabbed R1's weapon and after examining it, threw it against the wall enraged perhaps because it turned out to be a toy. Surveillance video shows V1 and his dining partner leaving the taqueria and now the police want to talk to V1.
This is Texas where I would not expect any charges to be filed against V1 but I just posted a story last night about a case that appears at least to me to be the railroading of a young woman who dared to use a firearm against a known male (former/current intimate partner) who had beaten and raped her. She shot him because he had her younger brother in a headlock and thought that he was going to hurt him as well but the judge in that case refused to allow her to use the law that allows deadly force to defend one's own life or the life or another. My concern is that V1 may be viewed as having shot the armed robber R1 because he was pissed and wanted his money back as opposed to the situation being viewed as the allowed use of deadly force to protect oneself or another from IMMIMENT grievous bodily harm or death. In his favor I would think (hope) that the fact that R1 pointed the weapon at him multiple times may have made V1 think he needed to act before he pointed the weapon again with the intention of pulling the trigger that time (no way to know).
I'm just curious about what our concealed carry and lawful self-defense aficionados have to say about this scenario. The video is compelling in my opinion but again, I saw this on a T.V. news story and the videos below don't quite match what I remember (or think I remember
) seeing.
HPD: Robber shot, killed by customer at taqueria in SW Houston
Taqueria owner still in shock after customer allegedly shoots, kills robbery suspect in SW Houston77
The armed robber R1 pointed his gun at the shooter, V1 as well as at each of the other patrons in the restaurant, demanding their money. I saw the robber R1 point his gun at the shooter V1 at least once, I thought twice actually - once when he made his first general announcement that everyone should hand over their cash and swept the room with his weapon and again when he specifically was collecting money from each of the patrons. The shooter V1, who waited until R1 was done collecting the money from V1's table and had turned his back on VI who then shot him several times. R1 made it to the door where he collapsed. V1 approached the downed robber R1 and retrieved from his body the money that he had taken from everyone. He slapped the money down on one of the tables and told everyone in the taqueria to come and retrieve their money. He then grabbed R1's weapon and after examining it, threw it against the wall enraged perhaps because it turned out to be a toy. Surveillance video shows V1 and his dining partner leaving the taqueria and now the police want to talk to V1.
This is Texas where I would not expect any charges to be filed against V1 but I just posted a story last night about a case that appears at least to me to be the railroading of a young woman who dared to use a firearm against a known male (former/current intimate partner) who had beaten and raped her. She shot him because he had her younger brother in a headlock and thought that he was going to hurt him as well but the judge in that case refused to allow her to use the law that allows deadly force to defend one's own life or the life or another. My concern is that V1 may be viewed as having shot the armed robber R1 because he was pissed and wanted his money back as opposed to the situation being viewed as the allowed use of deadly force to protect oneself or another from IMMIMENT grievous bodily harm or death. In his favor I would think (hope) that the fact that R1 pointed the weapon at him multiple times may have made V1 think he needed to act before he pointed the weapon again with the intention of pulling the trigger that time (no way to know).
I'm just curious about what our concealed carry and lawful self-defense aficionados have to say about this scenario. The video is compelling in my opinion but again, I saw this on a T.V. news story and the videos below don't quite match what I remember (or think I remember
) seeing.HPD: Robber shot, killed by customer at taqueria in SW Houston
Taqueria owner still in shock after customer allegedly shoots, kills robbery suspect in SW Houston77
