Current Events > Some houston activists want the "vigilante shooter" who killed that

(+) Yeah! (+)

If the threat has passed you stop shooting. The execution shot sealed it as no longer self defense.

Sounds like it should definitely be desecration of a corpse at minimum. Must have been the guy's disgusting wet dream for years.

No, props to the shooter for defending everyone. Doesn't matter if the gun is fake you assume it's real. I'm a big democrat but this absolutely is self defense.

Dan_Haren- posted...

No, props to the shooter for defending everyone. Doesn't matter if the gun is fake you assume it's real. I'm a big democrat but this absolutely is self defense.

He shot the guy in two different circumstances. The first was selfdefense. The second was either some dumb, gross macho grandstand to defile the corpse or it was an execution. Places seem to say the guy was already dead, but not 100% sure if thats confirmed or not.

Dan_Haren- posted...

No, props to the shooter for defending everyone. Doesn't matter if the gun is fake you assume it's real. I'm a big democrat but this absolutely is self defense.

He literally put everyone's life at a far greater risk. The thief was on his way out.

Dan_Haren- posted...

No, props to the shooter for defending everyone. Doesn't matter if the gun is fake you assume it's real. I'm a big democrat but this absolutely is self defense.

Another example of a person who is

1. Not to be taken seriously
2. Lying and presenting themselves as a liberal to try and lend some sort of "streed cred" to their bloodlust

Shadow_Don posted...

He literally put everyone's life at a far greater risk. The thief was on his way out.

Lmao you have no idea he was on his way out, he barely walked passed him with his gun out arm extended and everything.

Yes cuz pointing a gun with your arm fully extended means your done robbing people.

You guys have no idea if this guy could've shot everyone on his way out. A guy robbing a restaurant at gunpoint clearly isn't thinking logically.

There's absolutely no way this isn't self defense.

Dan_Haren- posted...

You guys have no idea if this guy could've shot everyone on his way out. A guy robbing a restaurant at gunpoint clearly isn't thinking logically.

There's absolutely no way this isn't self defense.

criminals are always the victims in 2023

Dan_Haren- posted...

You guys have no idea if this guy could've shot everyone on his way out. A guy robbing a restaurant at gunpoint clearly isn't thinking logically.

There's absolutely no way this isn't self defense.

Actually we do have an idea because the part he's getting charged for, the gunman was on the floor unconscious or dead already.

Only thing I don't agree with in this scenario was the kill shot/excessive force used after the robber was clearly incapacitated. I get adrenaline and emotions running high, but that's no excuse to just shoot someone in the back of the head after all that.

I didn't see the part where he shot him in the head after he was down. Can't find that link.

Ok just watched it again he fired 9 times into his back then once in the head the first 4 put him down after that is execution

Dan_Haren- posted...

I didn't see the part where he shot him in the head after he was down. Can't find that link.

Then stfu if you haven't seen the video. You don't know what you are talking about.

adrenaline is a hell of a thing. sucks for the robber.

Shadow_Don posted...

Then stfu if you haven't seen the video. You don't know what you are talking about.

I saw most of the video, so saying I didn't see the video ur just wrong and proud of it apparently.

Shadow_Don posted...

He literally put everyone's life at a far greater risk. The thief was on his way out.

Unless he's put his arms down and is no longer brandishing his weapon, he is still an active threat. It is better to consider a brandished weapon as an active threat, rather than an inactive one, becuase all it takes is a split second decision and someone is dead or dying.

Now you can argue that his excessive use of force (multiple rounds fired) put everyone in danger because bullets can punch through people (even if atypical for a small handgun) and into other people. Plus, if he misses his target, ricochets can maim or kill others around him. Nothing happened though so I'm not sure it's worth punishing him over that, in particular.

I'm not even sure exactly what he should be punished with. Murder? Doesn't seem like it would stick. Corpse desecration? Excessive use of force? Public endangerment?

wackyteen posted...

Unless he's put his arms down and is no longer brandishing his weapon, he is still an active threat. It is better to consider a brandished weapon as an active threat, rather than an inactive one, becuase all it takes is a split second decision and someone is dead or dying.

Now you can argue that his excessive use of force (multiple rounds fired) put everyone in danger because bullets can punch through people (even if atypical for a small handgun) and into other people. Plus, if he misses his target, ricochets can maim or kill others around him. Nothing happened though so I'm not sure it's worth punishing him over that, in particular.

I'm not even sure exactly what he should be punished with. Murder? Doesn't seem like it would stick. Corpse desecration? Excessive use of force? Public endangerment?

Voluntary Manslaughter is the likely charge. He committed murder in a situation where any reasonable person would be intensely emotional.

That depends. Ever since that Supreme Court ruling, he can't really be charged, can he?

Dry_Seesaw2446 posted...

That depends. Ever since that Supreme Court ruling, he can't really be charged, can he?

What SC ruling? I don't know any that would prevent charges here.

SenlinDescends posted...

Voluntary Manslaughter is the likely charge. He committed murder in a situation where any reasonable person would be intensely emotional.

But the argument against that would be he was doing so in public defense and the headshot came after the victim was already dead.

I guess it would be the best charge to pursue, given a jail/prison sentence was the goal

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Shadow Don was talking about prior to that. He was talking about the vigilante putting people in danger by engaging him in the first place

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Grand jury is deciding if to charge him or not

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


And you all have seen the whole video and still talking out of your asses. Imagine that.

Dan_Haren- posted...

I saw most of the video, so saying I didn't see the video ur just wrong and proud of it apparently.

The issues that are in contention are the parts that happen after what occurs in the edited video. The edited version of the video shows the robber being shot a single time as he's walking past the ggwg, then it pauses, then it resumes again with the ggwg handing everyone their money back. What's being discussed is the events that occur when the edited version of the video is frozen. Try and look for the uncut version of the video then come back to the discussion.

wackyteen posted...

Unless he's put his arms down and is no longer brandishing his weapon, he is still an active threat.

You misunderstand. The thief is for sure an active threat.

What I'm saying is that it is far safer to just let the guy get away than to engage him. Could the thief turn around and start shooting people? Sure it's possible. I'd rather take that chance than have some psycho vigilante who fantasizes about killing trying to take matters into his own hands. It doesn't matter if a bullet comes from a hero of a bad guy, a bullet is still going to put me in the hospital or kill me.

Honestly anyone who thinks otherwise needs to stay the fuck away from firearms. You aren't trained to deal with these matters. Even in the video you can see someone in the background that is literally in the line of fire when the vigilante starts mag dumping and that guy is lucky as fuck he wasn't hit.

wackyteen posted...

But the argument against that would be he was doing so in public defense and the headshot came after the victim was already dead.

I guess it would be the best charge to pursue, given a jail/prison sentence was the goal

he had no way of knowing Id the guy was dead

thronedfire2 posted...

he had no way of knowing Id the guy was dead

He already shot him 8 times then paused to assess his body before shooting him a final time. He knew what he was doing. It's absurd you'd assume a gun owner didn't know what he was shooting at.

Whether or not it was self defense, he shouldnt have left the scene

A_Good_Boy posted...

He already shot him 8 times then paused to assess his body before shooting him a final time. He knew what he was doing. It's absurd you'd assume a gun owner didn't know what he was shooting at.

Sadly though a defense of bullet proof vests exist.

A_Good_Boy posted...

He already shot him 8 times then paused to assess his body before shooting him a final time. He knew what he was doing. It's absurd you'd assume a gun owner didn't know what he was shooting at.

yeah no one ever gets shot accidentally or anything

Some of you are legitimately sick in the head and I implore you to get some help.

Baha05 posted...

Sadly though a defense of bullet proof vests exist.

He stumbled and fell. He's not the goddamn Terminator. Besides, he already inspected his body before he shot him a final time, sop he knew he wasn't wearing a vest since he touched his body.

Do you guys really need to come out and say the dumbest shit you can think of to defend this guy?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

And not tossing his gun away while leaving him filled with 8 holes?

A_Good_Boy posted...

He stumbled and fell. He's not the goddamn Terminator. Besides, he already inspected his body before he shot him a final time, sop he knew he wasn't wearing a vest since he touched his body.

Do you guys really need to come out and say the dumbest shit you can think of to defend this guy?

Wouldnt matter. Again its a fucked up situation for sure but at the end of the day you have to consider the in the moment sort of thing when shit like this happens. Its not like the shooter did this shit for the intent to just murder someone out of the blue.

Baha05 posted...

Wouldnt matter.

Yes it does, considering there's a grand jury for a reason.

Baha05 posted...

Wouldnt matter. Again its a fucked up situation for sure but at the end of the day you have to consider the in the moment sort of thing when shit like this happens. Its not like the shooter did this shit for the intent to just murder someone out of the blue.

I mean, when you shoot someone in the back of the head, you intended to kill them

This is still a murder. Sorry, you're not allowed to get caught up in the moment and kill people and face no consequences. This is the literal definition of second degree murder.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Scariest part about all of this is knowing that probably most people who actively carry handguns are the same type of people who think that behavior is completely justified.

Baha05 posted...

Wouldnt matter. Again its a fucked up situation for sure but at the end of the day you have to consider the in the moment sort of thing when shit like this happens. Its not like the shooter did this shit for the intent to just murder someone out of the blue.

"in the moment" is not an excuse that will hold up in court my dude