The Briefing Room
State Chapters => Texas => Topic started by: Elderberry on January 12, 2023, 02:26:19 am
-
Legal Insurrection by Andrew Branca 1/10/2023
Importantly, at the moment this ninth shot was fired, not only was the robber now disarmed of the only weapon he was known to possess—the “pistol” recovered by the shooter—but he appears completely inert and unmoving on the ground.
Last Thursday, on January 5, 2023, 30-year-old career violent criminal Eric Eugene Washington made the unwise decision to commit a late-night armed robbery of a Houston taqueria, threatening customers and workers with an apparent pistol (later discovered to be a fake gun).
Washington would not survive the experience. One of the taqueria’s customers was in possession of an actual pistol and would use that weapon to fire nine rounds at Washington, with fatal results.
Although the shooter initially fled the scene, along with all the other customers, he has now reportedly retained legal counsel and is cooperating with the authorities investigating this event. It is reported that the case will be presented to a grand jury for consideration. The shooter has not been arrested, and as a result the authorities are allowing him to remain anonymous.
The question now, of course, is whether the shooter’s use of deadly defensive force to stop Washington’s armed robbery was justified on the legal merits.
The answer? Yes, maybe, and almost certainly not.
Confused yet? Let’s clarify.
Basics of Legal Justification for Use of Deadly Force Under Texas Law
Shooting someone dead is, of course, normally a crime. Under Texas law, and the law of every other state, however, the use of deadly force upon another might be legally justified, and not a crime, if it meets the conditions for deadly force defense of persons—meaning either defense of self or defense of others.
Additionally, and unique to the Lone Star state, the use of deadly force upon another might be legally justified even in defense of mere personal property—again, if the required legal conditions have been met.
Importantly, the legal conditions for justification must be met for each individual use of deadly force in the encounter—meaning, in this case, for each round fired by the shooter–and that’s where we arrive at the “yes, maybe, and almost certainly not” nature of whether this shooting is lawful.
The bottom line, of the nine rounds fired by the shooter at Washington, the first four were almost certainly legally justified, the second four may be legally justified, and the ninth and final shot almost certainly was not justified, based upon the only evidence currently available to us, which is the surveillance video of the encounter.
Video of the Shooting
And having referenced that video, here it is:
More: https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/01/houston-taqueria-shooting-legally-justified-killing-or-simply-an-execution/ (https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/01/houston-taqueria-shooting-legally-justified-killing-or-simply-an-execution/)
-
The first 4 shots put the suspect face down, not moving. That's the end of the threat, and usually the time to quit shooting.
The next 4 were into someone who did not appear to present a threat (maybe there was movement I missed).
Anything after that was just wasting ammo, perhaps in the heat of the moment.
Considering the number of times the perp was hit, the question arises of which shot was fatal.
1-4 justified.
5-8 sketchy, he was already down and did not appear to be moving to me.
If the fatal wound came from the last shot it was an execution.
Can those shots be sorted out as to which came when?
If so, and if the first four shots were fatal in and of themselves, the worst the rest is is mutilating a corpse.
-
Some people just need killing. 1 shot or nine shots. It just don't matter.
-
The only possible charge is abuse of a corpse...
-
She's looking for blood
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-16NEl4NNFWw/V2T4Qx3njHI/AAAAAAAADoQ/p9-Mz8VZh4I5XfcMtnrMFAstr9scHJFvwCLcB/s1600/Lee8.jpg)
afterall it was one of her 'people'.
-
That's a lot of lead.
Heat of the moment to me... And making sure he ain't gonna come back from it.
Myself, that would have been a double tap, which would have done about the same as all but the last shot...
And I would have taken that final tap too, not knowing if he had a spotter, and not wanting to worry about my 6... And then would have backed into a corner, and would not have surrendered my weapon until a recognized cop could take the scene.
But that dude was jacked up. I don't blame him for it at all...
-
That's a lot of lead.
Heat of the moment to me... And making sure he ain't gonna come back from it.
Myself, that would have been a double tap, which would have done about the same as all but the last shot...
And I would have taken that final tap too, not knowing if he had a spotter, and not wanting to worry about my 6... And then would have backed into a corner, and would not have surrendered my weapon until a recognized cop could take the scene.
But that dude was jacked up. I don't blame him for it at all...
Let's put it this way. If I was on the jury, NOT GUILTY.
Play stupid games...
-
Remind we never to wave a gun around in front of you guys.
I shudder to think how messed up he would have been if there had been 3 or 4 gunners in that shop.
Ouch.....
:thud: :thud: :thud: :thud: :thud:
-
Let's put it this way. If I was on the jury, NOT GUILTY.
Play stupid games...
That's right. :beer:
-
The only real question I have is WTF is a 'taqueria'?
Webster says a taco joint. Somebody needed a weirdo word for that?
-
The only real question I have is WTF is a 'taqueria'?
Webster says a taco joint. Somebody needed a weirdo word for that?
It’s a Mexican/Spanish word.