If the fatal shot occurred in the first few shots, what would the charge be for the last shot?
Armed Robbery Suspect Killed by Armed Customer.
- Thread starter JBP55
- Start date
The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Unless the last shot was the fatal shot, how was the last shot an execution?
SVT Bansheeman
No more laughing dog
I think I'm not understanding the train of thought on the majority of the responses here. He has to prove he was in fear of his life before that last shot. He has no idea if he was dead or not. It's not like the guy had a heart or brain activity monitor hooked up to the robber. With that said, it isnt relevant if the guy was dead or not since he didnt know.
I think Montana is the only State that has the "sh**s and giggles" statute. But then again, I am NOT an attorney.
I keep reading comments that only consider “murder” as the charge this guy could potentially face…..well that’s not realistic at all, is it?
Pretty sure a prosecutor could come up with a few degrees of a homicide type charge any number of manslaughter charges with adjectives ranging all the way down to involuntary or negligent… but ok…I’m not an attorney and as far as I know, there are no attorneys weighing in here except for the guy on in the vid I posted. He also does not go into specifics when it comes to potential charges and definitely doesn’t seem to be clinging to a murder charge.
Without looking it up, can anyone here tell us how many charges or degrees thereof are possible relating to the taking of a life? Feel free to omit any that end in the word “murder”.
Pretty sure a prosecutor could come up with a few degrees of a homicide type charge any number of manslaughter charges with adjectives ranging all the way down to involuntary or negligent… but ok…I’m not an attorney and as far as I know, there are no attorneys weighing in here except for the guy on in the vid I posted. He also does not go into specifics when it comes to potential charges and definitely doesn’t seem to be clinging to a murder charge.
Without looking it up, can anyone here tell us how many charges or degrees thereof are possible relating to the taking of a life? Feel free to omit any that end in the word “murder”.
Last edited:
How is it not relevant if the guy was dead or not? According to Texas law, "a person commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence causes the death of an individual." If the last shot did not cause the death of an individual, what the shooter knew or didn't know is not relevant. If the guy was dead and a fatal shot was one of the justified shots, then the last shot cannot meet the legal definition of murder or manslaughter or any degree of homicide.
If he is charged with murder and the fatal shot was one of the justified shots, his defense would most certainly be "he was dead already." Again, I'm not saying the last shot isn't problematic. I'm saying it's not as problematic as a number of people seem to think it is. Illegal discharge of a weapon comes to mind as a more appropriate charge, assuming Texas has similar laws as Louisiana. But I would love to see the evidence presented by the prosecution that shows how the guy's last shot killed a dead person.
SVT Bansheeman
No more laughing dog
Because at the time, the shooter couldnt know he was or was not. A person shoots until they precieve the threat was stopped, not dead.
Bigchillin83
Well-Known Member
i think its all about "intent" and i dont think he intended to harm the "suspected innocent robber" 
I believe you said that already. According to Texas law, "a person commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence causes the death of an individual." Assuming some of his shots were justified and one of the justified shots was fatal, do you believe his actions when taking the last shot meet the legal requirement of causing the death of an individual?
SVT Bansheeman
No more laughing dog
I think he intentionally, knowingly and recklessly caused the death with the last shot.
I am aware I am playing Monday morning quarter back.
So he caused the death of someone who was already dead. Got it.
SVT Bansheeman
No more laughing dog
I misread the below in bold.
I get what you are saying. But why must any one assume he's already dead? That's the part I dont get. The shooter doesnt know when he died. You want me to assume he's dead at a certain time, I wont. It doesn't make sense.
If you want me to assume he was dead already so we can agree they wont charge him for something specific on that last shot, I won't. I agree if he was already dead, then you can't kill him again.
Last edited:
Lot of good points to read all around. When it comes down to being in the clear in this shoot, there’s a lot more to consider than the obvious I guess.
Houston Texas, as opposed to many other cities or states.
DA in that area.
The jury pool in that area.
The actual charges, if any. I think it would be much easier to beat a “murder” charge of any degree on a defensive shoot than say, “manslaughter” of whatever degree.
Houston Texas, as opposed to many other cities or states.
DA in that area.
The jury pool in that area.
The actual charges, if any. I think it would be much easier to beat a “murder” charge of any degree on a defensive shoot than say, “manslaughter” of whatever degree.
I don't assume the guy is dead. I know the guy is dead. When he died is important. I believe the shooter was justified in using force to stop a threat against himself and/or others. Given the type of threat, that force could up to lethal force. At some point, the guy was no longer a threat. At some point the guy was dead. If the threat was over and the shot that killed the guy was the last shot, the shooter is going to have major legal issues. But if he died from a justified shot, the last shot didn't kill him. If the last shot didn't kill him, that last shot won't be as big of an issue as people think.
I'm really not asking anyone to assume. I've never said "we should assume" anything. My statements were presented as an if...then. "Assuming some of his shots were justified and one of the justified shots was fatal" is the if part.
Last shot = Abuse of a Corpse, misdemeanor, fine and release.
Section 42.10 of the Penal Code addresses the matter of the abuse of a corpse and provides in pertinent part:
(a) A person commits an offense if, not authorized by law, he intentionally or knowingly:
(1) disinters, disturbs, removes, dissects, in whole or in part, carries away, or treats in a seriously offensive manner a human corpse;
(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
Section 42.10 of the Penal Code addresses the matter of the abuse of a corpse and provides in pertinent part:
(a) A person commits an offense if, not authorized by law, he intentionally or knowingly:
(1) disinters, disturbs, removes, dissects, in whole or in part, carries away, or treats in a seriously offensive manner a human corpse;
(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
Of course you guys know that when the coroner decides whether a shot is considered fatal, he’s not saying that the victim was deceased at the time. He’s saying that this shot or that shot or more than one shot could have ultimately killed the person. In other words, all that the coroner is really saying is that this person was likely going to die once this shot was fired. Nobody but God knows whether the perp was dead or alive when the defender took the pudding shot. Knowing what I do and the fact that only a few seconds passed between shots one and 8, I’d bet he was still clinically alive. Was he salvageable? Prolly not. But it doesn’t matter.
Beautiful wasn't it?
