Armed Robbery Suspect Killed by Armed Customer.

[AustinBR]

I think he was good with the first 4 shots. Shots 5 through 8 might be questionable as he seemed to already be neutralized. Shot number 9, after he had already picked up the robber's gun, might be a big problem for him. That said, the robber effed around and found out and he won't offend again.

Did he really fire another shot after he picked up the gun? I didn't see that (or read that).

 

[WhereIsIt?]

Did he really fire another shot after he picked up the gun? I didn't see that (or read that).

Yes.. He shot him as he grabbed the gun.. Look at the end of it when he bends over.. Kinda funny imo.

Tactitools and blanket statements... Welcome to Bayoushooter.

 

[Abby Normal]

I think Kim Ogg should be the one facing a grand jury for letting a convicted murderer back out after assaulting another person. Another reason to vote in the small local elections so that soros can’t Buy local DAs to screw up your community.

 

[Fugum]

Did he really fire another shot after he picked up the gun? I didn't see that (or read that).

He really did. The 16 second mark in the video from post #4. He's gonna have a hard justifying that shot. I'm guessing he's going to say it was accidental, and it may have actually been accidental.

 

[drill sgt]

Taking this to the grand jury is political power play because they (grand jury panelist) are guided by the District Attorney.. Which means by being selective as to what evidence is or is not presented determines whether a "true bill" or " no true bill" is the outcome. The actual truth and the law be damned. That way the DA can wash his hands and say I have to prosecute because of the "true bill" or say I can not prosecute because of the "no true bill"........Political discretion................................................... drill sgt.

 

[SVT Bansheeman]

I would not want to try to prove to 12 people he was still a threat after the gun was taken away.

 

[AustinBR]

Taking this to the grand jury is political power play because they (grand jury panelist) are guided by the District Attorney.. Which means by being selective as to what evidence is or is not presented determines whether a "true bill" or " no true bill" is the outcome. The actual truth and the law be damned. That way the DA can wash his hands and say I have to prosecute because of the "true bill" or say I can not prosecute because of the "no true bill"........Political discretion................................................... drill sgt.

It's actually not...it's actually standard procedure for when someone is shot in TX.

 

[thperez1972]

He really did. The 16 second mark in the video from post #4. He's gonna have a hard justifying that shot. I'm guessing he's going to say it was accidental, and it may have actually been accidental.

Unless an autopsy concludes that final shot was the fatal shot, I'd bet that shot will be scrutinized but won't amount to as much as people would think.

 

[Magdump]

Here’s a real good breakdown of why the guy could very well be charged. The last shot. Number 9. After the defender had secured the gun, he went coup de gras on the perp, planting one in the head (or thereabouts), which has some case law behind it for a conviction. Maybe that don’t mean much, but I wouldn’t discount it. As the attorney in the vid states, shots one through five: deserved it! 6-8: uh, dang dude…
Number nine: dude really?

Anybody remember the old guy that shot the young woman who broke into his home? (It was a guy and a girl, 18-20 yr olds I think. Stood over her and fired the kill shot after she was laying on the floor, unarmed. Doing time iirc. Only thing this guy has going for him is that it happened in Houston, TX. If it were Austin, head shake. I believe if a prosecutor decides to put this guy on trial for any lesser charge than murder, strong chance of conviction.
Just my 1.9 cent opinion and I’m glad I got no dog in the hunt.

 

[Magdump]

He really did. The 16 second mark in the video from post #4. He's gonna have a hard justifying that shot. I'm guessing he's going to say it was accidental, and it may have actually been accidental.

For his sake, I hope he doesn’t say anything like, “he moved” or “I saw him take a breath”…..

 

[SwampyDog]

He really did. The 16 second mark in the video from post #4. He's gonna have a hard justifying that shot. I'm guessing he's going to say it was accidental, and it may have actually been accidental.

I was thinking something along those same lines when I saw the full video. The initial one I saw was cut right the end. I also wouldn't be surprised if he flat out didn't realize how many shots he'd taken until it was over. Colion Noir just did a piece about the shooting in relation to some FOF training he did where he thought he fired 3 but it was 8

 

[AustinBR]

For his sake, I hope he doesn’t say anything like, “he moved” or “I saw him take a breath”…..

Probably was a bad final shot.

But, it sounds like he's only spoken to the police with an attorney present. If that is the only camera angle available, then the burden is on the DA to prove that without a reasonable doubt he murdered the guy.

The doubt could simply be that the guy did something not seen on the camera and the defense would just have to articulate that.

I think it'll be hard to prosecute him.

 

[MOTOR51]

Here’s a real good breakdown of why the guy could very well be charged. The last shot. Number 9. After the defender had secured the gun, he went coup de gras on the perp, planting one in the head (or thereabouts), which has some case law behind it for a conviction. Maybe that don’t mean much, but I wouldn’t discount it. As the attorney in the vid states, shots one through five: deserved it! 6-8: uh, dang dude…
Number nine: dude really?

Anybody remember the old guy that shot the young woman who broke into his home? (It was a guy and a girl, 18-20 yr olds I think. Stood over her and fired the kill shot after she was laying on the floor, unarmed. Doing time iirc. Only thing this guy has going for him is that it happened in Houston, TX. If it were Austin, head shake. I believe if a prosecutor decides to put this guy on trial for any lesser charge than murder, strong chance of conviction.
Just my 1.9 cent opinion and I’m glad I got no dog in the hunt.

I believe the shooting you are talking about involved the older guy baiting them in and then ambushing them before executing them. I’ll see if I can find the story.


EDIT: Here it is

Minnesota man guilty of murdering teenage intruders

Bryon Smith claimed he was defending himself during break-in at his home, but prosecutors argued the killings were premeditated

www.theguardian.com

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Magdump]

I believe the shooting you are talking about involved the older guy baiting them in and then ambushing them before executing them. I’ll see if I can find the story.


EDIT: Here it is

Minnesota man guilty of murdering teenage intruders

Bryon Smith claimed he was defending himself during break-in at his home, but prosecutors argued the killings were premeditated

www.theguardian.com

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Yeah, I don’t know where baiting came up at all, but I remember distinctly the discussion about these teens breaking in previously and him lying in wait while armed. I think he would have been gtg except for standing over the already incapacitated girl and shooting her again while recording the event. I know that he had reported the break in or break ins prior to the last one and I can imagine he felt frustrated and likely afraid, which can infuriate an old man. I don’t find his actions unwarranted, up until he decided to finish the girl.
Same with this guy, up until shot number 6 or so. If they charge him, I believe it would be foolish to think he doesn’t stand a strong chance of being convicted of some degree of homicide.
The key takeaway here is, in a person’s self defense plan, one should predetermine a standard in their mind as to when to turn off the kill switch. Shooting after you’ve disabled or disarmed the perp is always going to appear excessive to someone. If the someone is a DA or a jury, I’m thinking that can be problematic no matter how justified you feel about it. At the end of the day, it won’t matter what your intentions were, but how they’re perceived.

 

[Magdump]

Probably was a bad final shot.

But, it sounds like he's only spoken to the police with an attorney present. If that is the only camera angle available, then the burden is on the DA to prove that without a reasonable doubt he murdered the guy.

The doubt could simply be that the guy did something not seen on the camera and the defense would just have to articulate that.

I think it'll be hard to prosecute him.

Lol, you obviously have more faith in the judicial system than I do. If only every case had the same judge and jury, huh?
Speaking to police with an attorney present is the right thing to do, but it won’t change what people can see in the video.
I’ll say again, I support the defender’s actions to a point. I’m 100% with the guy on the shoot until the perp was motionless on the floor. Shots 6-8 could prolly go either way, but I don’t support them and it’s not like they were all strung together either. That happened after a brief pause, literally a second volley and the guy didn’t even twitch. After picking up the gun, to shoot the guy yet again is going to be as equally hard to defend as prosecuted. Would I vote to convict? Hellz no.
Last point, if you read the article that Motor posted, the old guy moved his truck. Seen by the prosecution as baiting. Along with all the “premeditated” so called evidence, which were actions the old man took inside his own home that got him convicted. Nothing the man did forced the teens to illegally enter his home. The teens had apparently broken into at least one other home. I’m not sure about Michigan law so I can’t even guess as to how it may have gone differently if all the old man had done was wake up being robbed and shot them as opposed to all the other home defense planning he did. He may have set up the recorder thinking it would support his defense but the prosecution described it as some sort of trophy. It’s all about how things are portrayed to the jury and if you think every guilty verdict comes beyond a reasonable doubt, you might want to think again.

 

[thperez1972]

Here’s a real good breakdown of why the guy could very well be charged. The last shot. Number 9. After the defender had secured the gun, he went coup de gras on the perp, planting one in the head (or thereabouts), which has some case law behind it for a conviction. Maybe that don’t mean much, but I wouldn’t discount it. As the attorney in the vid states, shots one through five: deserved it! 6-8: uh, dang dude…
Number nine: dude really?

Anybody remember the old guy that shot the young woman who broke into his home? (It was a guy and a girl, 18-20 yr olds I think. Stood over her and fired the kill shot after she was laying on the floor, unarmed. Doing time iirc. Only thing this guy has going for him is that it happened in Houston, TX. If it were Austin, head shake. I believe if a prosecutor decides to put this guy on trial for any lesser charge than murder, strong chance of conviction.
Just my 1.9 cent opinion and I’m glad I got no dog in the hunt.

Yep...that's exactly my point. In the case you mentioned, the fatal shot was made while the girl was not a threat. If the last shot at the taco shop were found to be the fatal shot, the taco shop shooter could be in the same position. But if an autopsy shows the fatal shot had already occurred before the final shot, that final shot would likely not lead to murder charges. And if it did, the defense should be easy. A person needs to be alive to be murdered. You can't murder a dead person.

 

[SVT Bansheeman]

I disagree becauase I think he has to prove his life was in danger before that last shot (after he was disarmed) reguardless of what an autopsy says.

 

[thperez1972]

I disagree becauase I think he has to prove his life was in danger before that last shot (after he was disarmed) reguardless of what an autopsy says.

I'm not saying that nothing would come from that last shot. Only that anything won't be as big as what people seem to think.

Let's agree his life wasn't in danger before that last shot. So what's the charge?

 

[AustinBR]

All we can see is one camera angle. Is it possible or even plausible that the bad guy did something after the good guy moved the gun that prompted the next shot?

If the "good guy" just executed the bad guy on the ground to get one final shot in, that's bad. But I'm not sure that the video linked above shows that.

 

[Swampman1]

Man the shooter was doing sooo good till the last 5 shots. Unfortunately he will pay the price for the last shot.