# Houston armed robbery suspect shot dead by armed customer, police looking to question shooter



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

*Houston armed robbery suspect shot dead by armed customer, police looking to question shooter*




> As the suspect was gathering money from patrons, the armed customer can be seen standing up as the suspect walks by him and firing his gun at the suspect multiple times.
> 
> The armed customer, described by Houston police as a white or Hispanic male, fired at least 9 shots at the suspect who dropped to the ground and died. The armed customer fired multiple shots, including one at the suspects head, after the suspect had dropped to the ground.
> 
> The armed customer collected the stolen money from the body of the suspect and returned money to patrons before fleeing the scene.












Houston armed robbery suspect shot dead by armed customer, police looking to question shooter


Police are looking for a man who was seen on video shooting and killing an armed suspect during the attempted robbery of a taqueria in southwest Houston.




www.foxnews.com


----------



## Cypher (May 17, 2017)

I saw the video on Twitter and I don't know how else to say it the customer walked up behind the robber and executed him. 

If they ever find the guy that video is going to hang him

I could almost justify shooting the guy in the back. Because there were customers at the door that he could have been approaching. And I will give the shooter the benefit of the doubt on that.

But when he got up and approached the guy who was laying on the floor and shot him in the back of the head he went over the line.

I don't know if I could say in good conscience that he committed murder but he went way beyond the bounds of self defense.

They have a clear picture of his face and a clear picture of his vehicle. Unless he is some random traveler who was just passing through that town and is never going to go there again they're probably going to identify him. The smartest thing he could do is retain a lawyer and turn himself in


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

I have not seen the video... just read the story.

If you are defending others, you can shoot someone in the back. Life is not a tv show where you yell "freeze," like old cop shows.

But from what you said about the rest of what he did. Yes, you can't keep shooting after the threat has stopped.

Plus, he left. He probably was carrying the gun unlawfully.


----------



## Higgy Baby (Aug 10, 2021)

I saw the video. He did shoot the guy in the back -BUT the perp was still pointing the gun around at other 'victims' and as far as anyone knew the gun was real. 
Unless the authorities have changed their stance- they said last night that they had no intentions of charging the guy with any crime. 
I say- good job.


----------



## Tangof (Jan 26, 2014)

I saw the video and thought it was justified. I did NOT see the part where he shot him in the head when he was down. Changes the story a lot.


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

Likely a prohibited person


----------



## Alte Schule (4 mo ago)

Tex. Pen. Code § 9.42, states "the use of deadly force may be justified to prevent imminent arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime, where the land or property cannot otherwise be protected or recovered".

IMO, under Texas law the use of deadly force, under these circumstances, is clear. It matters not whether he had a real firearm or a replica.Even though Houston is a liberal sh** hole, I doubt the Houston PD is investing much time or manpower trying to find the person responsible for terminating this animal.


----------



## old tanker (10 mo ago)

There is no sound in the security footage, but it sure looks like he walked up to him laying there and finished him. He then reaches over to the left and recovers the bad guy's gun, which appears to have been out of reach. A determined prosecutor could very well argue he went past self-defense. Look at video and judge for yourself. Edited to add .security footage with sound


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

I do not make judgement calls on videos. A video is just one view without context of what was really going on. I know of way to many videos released that shows one view but when other videos it changes the entire story. Example a video released to public was an officer shooting a man standing on the passenger side of a car, two other camera views showed the man had a pistol and a woman on the ground. Both showed the same shooting but made a lot of diffence in why the shooting happened.


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

Hero!


----------



## hike1272.mail (Nov 19, 2021)

Cypher said:


> I saw the video on Twitter and I don't know how else to say it the customer walked up behind the robber and executed him.
> 
> If they ever find the guy that video is going to hang him
> 
> ...


Look closer!
The criminal is waving a gun around and threatening the patrons in the restaurant.
The criminal is acting in an erratic manner.
The armed citizen shot to protect and save the lives of the other patrons.
Regardless of your thoughts of the citizen's saving actions, lives were under threat and the citizen stopped the threat.
The last shot MAY have been more than actually needed BUT who knows if the criminal dead? Or had a second weapon? Or could have raised up and returned fire?
There is a lot of "unknowns" in the video (we don't see all the video, for example) but we do see that all the patrons of the restaurant lived and the threatening criminal did not. That innocent citizens walked away alive is a good outcome.

To me it sounds like you have not been in a real/adult gunfight. (The little kids playing doesn't count.) If you had, you would realize it is never as black-and-white as you made it out to be. When you are in the situation and make your decisions, feel free to judge this citizen who saved lives.


----------



## hike1272.mail (Nov 19, 2021)

Shipwreck said:


> I have not seen the video... just read the story.
> 
> If you are defending others, you can shoot someone in the back. Life is not a tv show where you yell "freeze," like old cop shows.
> 
> ...



And you know that the threat was stopped How??
And you know that the citizen shooter knew that the threat was stopped??
The definitive way to know that a threat is most likely eliminated is a head shot but even then it is not 100%. We train for muscle memory expecting the muscles to take over and act when the brain does not.
And how do you know he was carrying his firearm unlawfully?? Are you a Texas lawyer?? Are you a Texan?? Do you even know the Texas law governing this threat??


----------



## BackyardCowboy (Aug 27, 2014)

The shooter has been located and questioned by detectives and released. 
The information has/will be presented to a grand jury with the expectation of no charges. 








Texas grand jury weighs whether Houston armed diner who shot, killed robbery suspect will get criminal charges


A Harris County, Texas, grand jury is to weigh whether the 46-year-old unidentified shooter who thwarted a Houston taqueria robbery, killing the suspect, will face criminal charges.




www.foxnews.com


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

I would not trust a grand jury in a city like Houston, Now a city like Alpine, or Pecos would be safer.


----------



## NulodPBall (Aug 11, 2013)

Since I wasn't there to articulate what happened, but too many unknowns, even with video, to say what happened.

What I do know is that discretion in enforcement, unfortunately, is up to both law enforcement and the DA, so their views can determine how hard the prosecution effort comes down on someone (look at Los Angeles and what happened with the DA there).

If I were to pull a movie reference, look at the movie Rambo... the movie premise, and the movie, never would have existed if "selective enforcement" is always a positive thing... and I think many an evil act has been committed by someone believing that they were doing something for the common good.

So now that I've got all my vague/not vague references to why people do sh!tty things to other people...

The general standard is to "stop the threat" so having an explanation or being able to articulate "why" is generally pretty important... unless the DA (or the public) is planning on making your backside hurt as much as possible and is willing to ignore facts.

Having been the initiator of at least 3 safety briefings and had the ability to walk away from said safety briefings without limping too badly, I can say that my ability to not only articulate why I did what I did, but to have the evidence to at least partially back up my views, was important... and at least one of those incidents could have been (technically) considered an International Incident and I probably should have been thrown in jail immediately until the investigation... judging by law enforcement reaction to a similar (but lesser severity, in my opinion) incident that happened later... but for the later incident the police basically said that they appreciated my report but they could find no evidence of anything I needed to be responsible for (other than the obvious damage they saw on me) so I was free to go, after they had me wait until they could check out my story.

Sorry for the high word count but I'm just backing up my point: 

No matter what outside people think or say, what is important is the attitude of the people charge of prosecuting you. 

And your ability to put in words, your viewpoint at the time, is important.

Due to the various, standard reactions of people's reactions to a traumatic event, many defense lawyers apparently prefer that while you defer giving anything more than a bald statement of facts (or nothing at all), that you write down on paper as soon as you can, what you remember and don't share until you can talk to your lawyer privately.

That doesn't excuse people for leaving the scene of a crime... but people do many things that don't seem reasonable to others, for reasons that make sense to them.

LoL, I had someone interrupt my fishing day with my niece and nephew, because I had to save his life for doing something stupid, then he wanted to go meet me back at the dock, so I ghosted him and proceeded to give my young niece and nephew their best (and only) day of fly fishing... I just realized that the reason the ranger probably came up on me later (I did a long distance crappie release in his direction accidentally, before I noticed him) was to ask me about the incident, and not to give me a ticket for illegally practicing Catch-and-Release, and I suppose he didn't want to interrupt our hot streak.

Sorry again... I was trying to avoid saying that someone I know, would probably get in trouble in a shooting because you practice what you want to happen, so it happens automatically, and this person practices "one to the chest, to create a pause" and "two to the head, to stop the threat" and this evolution ensures a stop to the threat without checking for ballistic protection, because you don't always have time to check... or so I'm told.

Darn, I did it again... so saying "even with the video, you don't always know what's going on" I'm signing off.

(But yes, everything after the first shot can have problems... but in his favor: civilians are usually held to a lower standard than law enforcement in shootings, in my opinion)


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

hike1272.mail said:


> And you know that the threat was stopped How??
> And you know that the citizen shooter knew that the threat was stopped??
> The definitive way to know that a threat is most likely eliminated is a head shot but even then it is not 100%. We train for muscle memory expecting the muscles to take over and act when the brain does not.
> And how do you know he was carrying his firearm unlawfully?? Are you a Texas lawyer?? Are you a Texan?? Do you even know the Texas law governing this threat??


Well, a couple of things. One, I am not going to argue with you. We are all free to have our own opinion and talk civilly, last time I checked.

Two, I live in Texas, and I work as a probation officer. So yea, I know the law.

Three, go watch the video. Have you see the end of his shots? My understanding is that he shot the guy in the head at the very end, after the guy was face down and not moving.

Four, he left the scene. Now, I read 1 article by a lawyer who claims the guy had no obligation to stay after it happened. I don't think I agree with that. It is a VERY bad choice to leave after a self defense shooting.

Had he not left, things would look a bit differently, IMHO. But, what he did at the end MIGHT come back to haunt him.

Five, Houston is blue. The prosecutor is blue. He may win in the end, but from what I have read, some sources say he will likely be charged. We will have to wait and see. How much is this going to cost him even if he wins?

Do I think he should be charged? No, the guy was a threat. But I would not have done what this citizen did.

He should not have left. And, he was justified to take action. But his final shot may come back to haunt him. That was a poor decision IMHO.


----------



## Arizona Desertman (10 mo ago)

Shipwreck said:


> Well, a couple of things. One, I am not going to argue with you. We are all free to have our own opinion and talk civilly, last time I checked.
> 
> Two, I live in Texas, and I work as a probation officer. So yea, I know the law.
> 
> ...


*Indeed it was a VERY BAD CHOICE.* It's almost an admission that the shooting may not have been justified. He should have just stayed put and refused to answer any questions until a lawyer was there to represent him. As the old saying goes: "Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law". If he wins in a criminal case more than likely he will be subject to a civil suit which will cost him either way win or lose. Defending yourself in a civil suit doesn't come cheap. I wouldn't want to hire the lawyer that told him that he had no obligation to stay there. It's almost like hitting a pedestrian that was jaywalking then taking off.


----------



## Cypher (May 17, 2017)

hike1272.mail said:


> The criminal is waving a gun around and threatening the patrons in the restaurant.


The criminal was laying on the ground when the defender picked up the robber's gun with his left hand and shot the criminal again with his right. 



hike1272.mail said:


> Look closer!Regardless of your thoughts of the citizen's saving actions, lives were under threat and the citizen stopped the threat.


Yes he did _and then_ he shot the guy in the back of the head.




hike1272.mail said:


> The last shot MAY have been more than actually needed BUT who knows if the criminal dead? Or had a second weapon? Or could have raised up and returned fire?


Given that the old man has the robbers gun in his hand I'm pretty sure he wasn't going to return fire. 



hike1272.mail said:


> There is a lot of "unknowns" in the video (we don't see all the video, for example)


Yes actually, I have seen the whole video from the moment to Robert walked into the restaurant to the moment that everybody left. I saw the part where the defender picked up the robbers gun with his left hand and shot the robber with his right. I also saw him grab a coffee cup and bounce it off the robber's head as he was leaving the store.



hike1272.mail said:


> To me it sounds like you have not been in a real/adult gunfight. (The little kids playing doesn't count.) If you had, you would realize it is never as black-and-white as you made it out to be. When you are in the situation and make your decisions, feel free to judge this citizen who saved lives.


I've actually been in one 

And right in the middle of 3 more. 

If you don't know what you're talking about maybe you shouldn't.


----------



## Cypher (May 17, 2017)

Arizona Desertman said:


> If he wins in a criminal case more than likely he will be subject to a civil suit which will cost him either way win or lose.


Lawyers do civil suits on contingency. A wrongful death lawsuit when the person who died was a multiple convicted felon ex-con who had already committed murder, let me know how finding a lawyer who's willing to take that on contingency works out for you. Especially since it's fairly obvious that the defender was broke.


----------



## Arizona Desertman (10 mo ago)

Cypher said:


> *Lawyers do civil suits on contingency*. A wrongful death lawsuit when the person who died was a multiple convicted felon ex-con who had already committed murder, let me know how finding a lawyer who's willing to take that on contingency works out for you. Especially since it's fairly obvious that the defender was broke.


I didn't know that, thanks!


----------



## old tanker (10 mo ago)

Cypher said:


> ... Especially since it's fairly obvious that the defender was broke.


Lawyers always go after the DEEP pocket. You are pretty lawsuit proof if you don't have anything. Any time a lawyer and an insurance agent meet at a party they should kiss each other full on the lips. You buy insurance because you are afraid of being sued. The insurance guy makes sure the policy is big enough that you will be. Adding insult to injury, your insurance company will fold and offer to settle. You policy limit is almost always less than the cost of fighting even the most frivolous or bogus claim.


----------



## Arizona Desertman (10 mo ago)

old tanker said:


> *Lawyers always go after the DEEP pocket.* You are pretty lawsuit proof if you don't have anything. Any time a lawyer and an insurance agent meet at a party they should kiss each other full on the lips. You buy insurance because you are afraid of being sued. The insurance guy makes sure the policy is big enough that you will be. Adding insult to injury, your insurance company will fold and offer to settle. You policy limit is almost always less than the cost of fighting even the most frivolous or bogus claim.


That's because they can't get blood out of a stone no matter how hard they try.


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

There are plenty of originations that will cover the legal bills to sue. So, you might be surprised that someone will file such a suit


----------



## Alte Schule (4 mo ago)

In Texas the only law, that I am aware of, that requires you to remain at the scene is a vehicle accident. IMO this guy may have had a moral obligation to stay at the scene but not a legal requirement. Reviewing the full video with sound I can see why he did not. If it was me I would have probably remained at the scene, not answer any questions and called an attorney but then again I don't believe I would have taken the final "coup de gras" shot.

Based on the shooters appearance and vehicle I would hazard a guess that the shooter is not a man of monetary wealth so a lawsuit wouldn't get much. A civil judgement doesn't mean anything if you can't pay. I will say here I do know someone that is fairly well off financially but you would never know it. He drives a '98 Ford pickup, wears clothes that are at least 20 years old and lives in a modest house. He does have a nice firearm collection though.

The perp that was shot was released on parole in '21. He served 10 years of a 15 year sentence for armed robbery and had several prior's for domestic violence and previous armed robberies. I think the shooter will not be indicted by the grand jury and if he is he walks after a jury trial.


----------

