>

I found the video very satisfying.
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. >

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. >

Which is irrelevant to the case >

It's relevant if the shooter could claim they recognized him from previous news reports etc. And "knew" he was a really man.  That should be a go-to tactic for the defense. >

That would likely increase the charges from being adequate justification to second degree.
If he decided to execute them only after he found out who they were, it’s no longer self defence and is instead a non-premeditate murder based on who the person was. >

I understand this is a fantasy for some people.
But…
Ol boy now has to hire a lawyer.  This fantasy just got real f’ing expensive >

Mainstream news seems to censor the part when the guy took the fake gun and put one apparently in his head.
I’m not saying the guy didn’t deserve it, but claiming self defense with those last shot(s) is more difficult >

Genuine question: How is the shooter expected to know the robber is no longer a threat? I mean, sure, he’s down  on the floor but whose to say he couldn’t get back up? Whose to say he doesn’t have another weapon? I guess the right decision would’ve been to hold the gun on him just in case and wait for the police to show up. Look at that, I answered my own question. >

The vigilante picked up the robber’s fake gun and then shot the robber in the head after disarming him. >

He could have another weapon. Is he supposed to strip him naked to check? >

Another gun he was going to whip out after already taking 8 hollow-points rounds in his body? Sure, lol. Seems perfectly reasonable. >

When you just fought for your life and you’re in fear for your life then absolutely. 
If you shot someone who had robbed you and threatened to kill you with a gun, and they aren’t dead are you going to wait for them to pull out a second gun and kill you? 
Why is it on the victim to strip this guy naked to make sure he’s not packing more weapons? The guy who stopped the robber is no doctor. He’s no expert. How is he to know he’s no longer a threat? >

Strip the guy naked…the guy that’s laying lifeless on the floor with 8 rounds in him…lol. C’mon. Vigilante guy simply executed him. And he knew it wasn’t right, hence fleeing the scene. Dude went overboard. If he stops at 6 shots and a body on the floor, he’s a hero. Couldn’t help himself with the head shot though. >

He didn’t simply execute him. He feared for his life because the gun man robbed him and threatened to kill him. Because of that fear, he did what he did. 
Leaving the scene is his right. He didn’t rob anyone. And talking to a lawyer before talking to the police in that situation is also his right. 
How the fuck are you going to try and deny the rights of someone who feared for their life due to the action of a gun man threatening to kill an entire restaurant?
If the gunman was truly lifeless he didn’t “execute” him. And if the gunman was alive he was still a threat because he could still have more weapons. The robbery victim doesn’t have x-ray vision. He doesn’t know that the gun man doesn’t have another gun. All he knows is that gun man threatened to kill him with a gun 4 seconds prior. And as long as he’s able to pull a trigger he’s a threat. 
If I robbed you and threatened to kill you with a gun it is reasonable to think you would defend yourself. You may even shoot me 8 time and take my gun. If you then thought it was over, but I had another gun I’d try to kill you the moment you let your guard down. If you think that’s a possibility you may fear for your life. If you fear I might shoot you because I said I would, then you might shoot me first. >

That last shot was a simple execution my guy.  There was a very long pause between the initials shots and the last one.  That last shot wasn’t reflex, and the guy was face down on the ground, bleeding out.  The dude wasn’t Michael Myers, he wasn’t getting up after those first 8 shots. >

I would like you to define very long pause. Apparently less than 1 second is a long pause now? 
The guy clearly still feared for his life. >

And the other murdering criminal on the street. >

I personally could not convict the guy who shot him. Doubt if the folks in Texas will either. >

I wouldn’t until the execution shot. That was straight up, cold blooded, psychopath murder. >

I know it looks like that, but being  in a robbery is stressful and you just don’t know what he was thinking. 
We will have to see if he indicted for it, >

He literally disarmed him after shooting him 4-6 times, then turned around and shot him in the head. >

So he shot a corpse in the head? >

Considering he didn’t take a pulse and no one has said which shot killed him, no, as far as he knew he executed a man. Oh, and then ran away like a little bitch. >

Why is he even being charged? If a cop did exact same thing while off duty, they'd be fast-tracking his raise and promotion. But a "normal" citizen does it and suddenly there's a chance that he's criminally liable? The "justice" system in the US is such a mind fuck >

Your comment insinuates (to me, anyway, am I misunderstanding?) that the issue you have with this is the the shooter is not just able to walk away without being criminally liable. But the actual problem is that police are not held accountable, not that the civilian is. Anyone having done what he did should face criminal charges, cop or civilian. >

After reading some of these comments, I honestly thought the dude took like 10 seconds to think about it after the guy was on the ground and then shot him in the head but the whole shooting was done in like 8 seconds tops. 
I seriously doubt he sees any punishment even if he probably technically deserves it because I seriously doubt any jury will find him guilty for killing a murderer who was robbing a restaurant >

Especially in Texas. He won’t have to pay for a beer for the rest of his life down there >

I’d say the chances of being indicted in an incident like this in Texas are nearly zero.
The only variable is that it’s Houston, but still very unlikely.
If you stick a gun in people’s faces and demand to take their property, sometimes you have to pay the ultimate price. Hopefully they let the guy who shot him walk. >

If you've seen the video, charges are warranted and will probably be issued. Not sure how you could watch it and think otherwise? The shooting was clean up until he just straight up just executes the guy in the end after he was disabled and disarmed. 
This is going to be a tough one for the jury if it gets there though. There are arguments to be made about someone's mental state after something like that, the situation wasn't created by the shooter >

Because he still could have been a threat. We only know in hindsight that he didn’t have additional weapons. Taking one gun away from a gun man doesn’t mean they don’t have more guns. >

A potential threat is not a threat that authorizes lethal force. >

Right, but how fast can someone reasonably say a threat is now a potential threat in that situation?
Keeping in mind that your adrenal glands and medulla have just flooded your brain and body with adrenaline after what you believed to be a threat to your life and the lives of others. That adrenaline peaks and doesn’t get fully metabolized for up to 1-2 hours. >


finishing the job is the only way to make sure they don’t come after you when they inevitably get out of the system again

There is no legal basis for that in any state. >

Just everyone here? >

This could go either way.  Because it's Texas. They'll say if you've already made the decision to shoot and kill someone, a few more bullets makes no difference. The jury will decide to charge him for leaving without paying >

Customer deserves a medal >

It's going to be a no-bill.  Don't want to get shot?  Don't rob others at gunpoint. >


taking a human life is something he does not take lightly 

The video indicated otherwise.  He reveled in it.  And then he realized what he had done and fled. >

Last shot looks wrong after the fact, watching the video on the toilet, sure.. but 
that’s like 0.035 seconds of adrenaline, multiple-life-saving, heartbeat at 300bpm, shit your pants momentum there. Easily argued it was done to assure there was no longer a threat