>

I think it is relevant as we should question why someone who robbed and murdered a store clerk was on the streets. He clearly was still a risk to society and should have been behind bars. I have no problem with reduced sentences/bail for non violent crimes, but someone who commits armed robbery and murder should be locked away for a looooong time.
Headline's a bit misleading, Grand Jury will decide if charges are warrented, jury of peers will (if charges are filed) decide fate. >

I’m guessing they’ll recommend an indictment, he executed that man. You can’t claim to be defending yourself when the guy is on the ground with four rounds in him, and then you give the coup de grâce. >

I don't know, if I decided to shoot a guy I thought had a gun, I would probably keep pulling the trigger till it clicked. You sure don't want him getting back up. >

There's is a vast difference between pulling the trigger until the gun clicks and walking up to an unresponsive man and firing your last bullet into their brain matter. >

It puzzling to me how people can understand when a woman kills an abuser by stabbing him 100 times while terrified but somehow when a gun is involved they want to draw some imaginary line about when it’s proper to stop shooting. That man was dead the second he walked in that restaurant with his intentions, everything else is semantics >

The entire shooting process was less than half a minute. That will surely be the defence. That it was in fact one seamless action by a guy pumped up on adrenalin. Pausing for 6 or 7 seconds in the middle of that can still be sold as a continuous event. Time will tell. >

Yep. Heat of the moment. He won't be charged. "Your honor, I felt like this man was going to kill me or one of the children present. I was just trying to bring him down and save our lives. I don't know how many times I pulled the trigger, it's all a blur. I feel terrible that this man died, but in that moment I was only thinking of protecting myself and the innocent people in that room." >

And that is why I shot him a final time after I picked up his gun and inspected it, because the possibly dead guy might shoot someone with the gun he no longer has >

If that is really what happened, charges might be layed. The issue is all he has to do is say the guy moved or something, and he was still perceived as a deadly threat.
It’s the perception of the shooter in a self defense case that counts, not the reality of the situation. >

"if that's is really what happened" as if it it wasn't entirely on video or anything. >

WOW at the dead guy previously killing someone during a robbery and only doing six years >

He previously murdered someone but brought a fake gun? >

Because felons can’t legally purchase a firearm. That doesn’t stop millions of them from acquiring one anyway, but maybe this guy didn’t have any connected friends or something. >

Millions? Source? >

46yo ??  Is that a typo?  I’m old, and he looks like he could be my Grandpa. >

Yeah, the video makes the guy look like he’s at least 60. Must have lived a hard life. >

City miles. >

For anyone who hasn't seen the full video of the incident, the situation is a bit more legally questionable than the way it's described in the article.  The customer shot a robber who appeared to be pointing a gun at people in the restaurant.  However, the customer also shot the robber once after he was lying on the ground and his "gun" had been taken away.  Firing that final shot when the robber was no longer a threat could result in criminal charges, particularly if the final shot is believed to have caused the man's death. >

I have a CHL, carry every day. My reaction when watching the video the first time was literally:
"Yeah looks clean... OH FUCK."
Last shot (like everyone has said) was flat out execution. However, it's only legally execution (obviously) if the guy wasn't already dead, and there is a decent chance he was. Definitely a curious case. >

If the robber was deceased at the time of the headshot, I wonder if the vigilante would be charged with attempted murder or desecration of a corpse.
IMO the vigilante is guilty of a crime. He even fled the scene, which indicates a guilty conscience to me. He crossed a line and he knew it. >


He even fled the scene, which indicates a guilty conscience to me. He crossed a line and he knew it.

Or:
1) He didn't want to talk to cops without a lawyer
2) Didn't want the cops to show up and shoot him.. they don't exactly have a glowing record of late. 
3)Maybe he did, none of us know what was going through his head, what he was thinking.  
Either way, still did a service to the restaurant and the community.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.  The robber was clearly out looking to take the room temperature challenge and he found it. >


1) He didn't want to talk to cops without a lawyer

Which would be illegal or at least negligent to the point that cops could charge him with an additional crime if they wanted. He has the right to remain silent, if he wanted to talk to a lawyer the officers would have read him his Miranda rights. Can't just go home and take a nap after you shoot a dude 9 times. 

2) Didn't want the cops to show up and shoot him.. they don't exactly have a glowing record of late. 

Still legally dubious. I get what you are saying but if he had called the cops and explained the situation I'm sure the patrons and owners of the restaurant would have vouched for his actions and the dispatcher would have stayed on the line with him. 

Either way, still did a service to the restaurant and the community.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. The robber was clearly out looking to take the room temperature challenge and he found it.

I mean i guess, the question isn't if he protected the community at that given moment, it's if he had intent to kill with his final shot after the thief was down and not a threat. >

There was no legal obligation to stay at the scene. This wasn’t a traffic incident. You don’t know what you’re talking about. >

Imagine robbing people in tx with a fake gun lmao >

I’m guessing the fake gun was insurance for if he ended up arrested. I know committing a crime while in possession of an actual firearm adds a significant multiplier to the charges/sentencing.  But if it isn’t a real gun, you can avoid that extra penalty.
There’s an ex jewel thief on YouTube who has mentioned that he would use a BB gun during his robberies for this exact reason. 
Also possible the dude was just dumb and didn’t consider the prevalence of concealed carriers in Texas, idk.
Edit: not sure why this is getting downvoted, I was just adding my 2 cents. >

46? Ain’t no way. Dude looks 66. >

If you have to shoot someone, stay in the area and call 911.  You look a lot less guilty if you are the one reporting it.  Be sure you holster your gun before the cops show up.  When they do show up, you shut up.  Tell them something to the effect of, "I will be happy to provide a complete statement as soon as I have an attorney present." >

Delusional thinking that cops will come on the scene with a calm head. Leave, make a call to an attorney and then deal with the police. >

A Texas Grand Jury is 12 people and 9 of them need to vote "indict" to indict. Is my understanding correct? >

Remember kids: if you shoot someone you're going to need a lawyer; right or wrong. >

It's Texas lol, I mean come on. I wouldn't be surprised if he gets high fives from each member of the Grand Jury. >

State medal >

This the one where dude took a moment to reflect after shooting a guy a few times, then shot the guy in the head? >

Don’t forget that he fled the scene after killing the robber. >

Leaving the scene of a shooting is not a crime in Texas. You are only required to stay at the scene for car accidents. >

It doesn’t have to be a crime to indicate a guilty conscience. To me, it shows he knew that he went too far.
There’s no explanation why a law-abiding citizen would flee the scene in my mind. >

Well thank goodness the real world doesn’t operate based on your personal thoughts and feelings. >

How long till he runs for office in Texas? >

CCW training: you shoot to stop the threat, when that is stopped, you stop. Any more is considered aggression. Having had CCW, this guy is in deep shit imo. >

In another state maybe but this was in Texas so going up to a jury, they'll almost certainly acquit (I think that's how it's spelled) him. >

I don't think so. The finish shot, after he was down, is what's going to doom him. >

Hmmmm yeah that's a good point. >

Spoiler alert: The individual identified as the robber has killed someone in the past. Pled guilty to aggravated robbery down from capital murder in 2015 killing of a store clerk.