comment: >
  
  Because you found the one time it worked?  This is a fucked situation.
context: WARNING: Uncensored video of the shooting >
  
  Having watched the full unedited video the good samaritan is going to be in legal trouble.
  The initial shots until the suspect went down we completely justified. The follow up shots on the downed gunman I'm less sure about but the could probably still be justifiable. The shot to the head after the gunman was disarmed is completely unjustified and what will get the good samaritan in legal trouble. >
  
  Wait so the shooter didn’t even stick around after shooting the robber? That’s not a good look. >
  
  He might not be a citizen or he might not be legally allowed to own/carry that gun. In the latter case the justifiable use of deadly force goes out the window and they throw the book at him. >
  
  Not true in all states. In Wisconsin you can be in commission of a crime and still claim self defense >
  
  That is wild to me because the fact that you're the one committing the crime cause you to be in the position to need to defend yourself. >
  
  I think it entirely depends on what the crime you are committing is leading up to having to defend yourself. I highly doubt you can rob someones house and get off on killing the home owner by claiming self defense.
  If the shooter in this video was illegally carrying the firearm I don't think the self defense laws should suddenly disappear. Nor do i think the charges for illegally carrying a gun should either though. >
  
  guy robbing store kill clerk he was robbing >
  
  In Texas you can fire until the threat is no longer active, it'll be up to a grand jury to decide his fate. He probably made a mistake by leaving the scene, he should be in contact with his attorney and the Houston pd. >
  
  I feel like he’s lucky that this happened in Texas because they’d def let him off, but maybe not in a lot of other states 
  But also why tf did the robber not realize that this was Texas and everyone was carrying?! >
  
  I heard of similar robberies in Texas where the robbers got away without a scratch after robbing a group of people in a restaurant, which surprised me, to be honest given Texas politics.  Robber was unlucky and picked the wrong group to target. >
  
  The video was clipped off just after the customer points his gun. Anyone have the missing part? What happened to the robber’s body? >
  
  Shoots several rounds till the guy falls over, then walks over and mag dumps on him, then picked the robbers gun up and put one in the back of the guys head.
  Wasn’t pretty >
  
  I mean, on one hand, JFC, but on the other, I mean he made sure the threat was eliminated. >
  
  
  In fact, the “threat” would have walked out the door
  
  Your use of quotation marks implies you don't consider a masked man with a gun a threat.  That's just silly.
  And "in fact" you don't know he would have walked out... for all anyone in that room knew, he just as easily could have turned at the door and shot everyone before leaving. >
  
  
  
  by your logic, most people in America are a threat because they carry guns.
  
  
  Except we know for a fact this guy was a threat because he was in the act of using said gun during a robbery. He had people on the ground with the gun pointed at them. Should an armed bystander just wait to find out if he means them more harm? Great logic there. Save your bleeding heart >
  
  Even if he does get brought up on charges, no Texas jury will convict this man. I doubt DA wants to take this case. >
  
  They still need to find him. He left the scene after killing the robber and giving everyone their money back. This one's tough, as the robber was just asking for an armed citizen to light him up. However, it could be argued that the armed citizen used excessive force (headshot after target was no longer a threat). Leaving the scene without staying to provide your story to law enforcement, especially after literally killing another human, may be what gets this guy in trouble. It's Texas, though, so who knows? >
  
  It could be argued, sure. 
  90% of people see this as Mr. Criminal fucking around, and finding out. >
  
  I agree, overall, though I think him leaving is a bit sus. I think the robber deserved the first few shots, for sure. He's a fuckhead stealing from innocent people. That said, Jesus, the guy worked his ass over. I know adrenaline and such were amping up the situation, but I feel like he should have stopped after the target was neutralized and stayed to wrap things up with law enforcement. Him leaving could potentially open him up to legal action. Badass and all, but is this really want we want in America, people straight-up murdering people and taking off into the night, with no accountability? >
  
  Not talking (leaving) doesn't make it any more suspicious. If he committed a crime he committed one, not talking to the cops isn't making it any more likely for him to get charges brought up on him. In reality it could only hurt his case to talk to police, especially when he was probably still flooded with adrenaline, that can make you say pretty stupid shit.
  Leaving & lawyering up is probably your safest option in a situation like this from a "not getting charged" standpoint, its not like there weren't witnesses to tell the police what happened. >
  
  The execution after he disarmed the perpetrator might result in just a few legal complications. >
  
  Did you watch the video? The robber had the gun pointed at someone when he was shot. >
  
  Yeah…guess you haven’t seen the full video yet?
  First four shots were good, he was standing. Next four…suspect was down, but you could still claim he was a threat. Unfortunately, the customer got up, took the gun from the suspect, and then shot the robber in the head.
  I.e., based on the video he’d be a hero for intervening, but then committed murder for executing the suspect after he had been disarmed. >
  
  I thought the last one after he took his gun was the audio lagging but nope... he put one in his head after shooting him 8 times and taking away his gun.
  It will be interesting to see how this one plays out in the courts... assuming he actually gets charged with something. >
  
  
  assuming he actually gets charged with something
  
  Assuming they actually find him. >
  
  Man, I ain’t seen shit. >
  
  Motto of the man sitting in the back right corner... >
  
  That’s some crazy shit. I think he was pretty much dead after the fourth shot. The additional five were for good luck >
  
  Zombieland taught me to double tap, triple tap…..hundredth tap. >
  
  I don't know why but this feels like something that would happen in Breaking Bad. 
  The bad-judgment robber decides to hold up a restaurant where a Cartel hitman is having lunch and gets blasted by a real killer who then casually finishes his coffee, calmly collects and gives the robbery victims their belongings back, and leaves the restaurant without any visible distress. >
  
  If I were going to rob a restaurant I can think of a million better targets than a small family run taqueria in SW Houston. It even had gaming machines which aren't really legal, but they perfectly set the scene. I know not everyone is familiar with that part of the world but it's not the place to go looking for trouble thinking you're gonna hold people up with a fake gun. This dude must have been twacked out of his mind to venture in there. >
  
  On the other hand, businesses like that transact in cash a lot more than gas stations or fast food restaurants, especially if those gaming machines have under the table prizes. >
  
  My emotional reaction is that if you decide to take away the right to life from other people (which is what you do when you point a gun at people who've done nothing to you) then you've forfeited your own right to life.
  I realize that's not how the law reads, and If I said that in an interview for jury duty, I would not get chosen for jury duty.
  I don't think there's ever any justification to steal and no justification to threaten to kill someone who might try and stop you from stealing. >
  
  That's not the problem here. The Samaritan shot the robber who fell down. Shooter walks over and mag dumps, THEN disarms the robber and shoots the robber a final time in the head. Then flees the scene. It's overkill and pretty concerning that he ran too >
  
  The criminal threatened to take his life along with everyone else in the restaurant. The Good Samaritan made sure the criminal lost his. Sounds pretty proportionate to me >
  
  If you don't like the rule of law, then there's plenty of countries other than America that are probably a better fit for how you think the world should work. >
  
  Good,people are tired of these assholes making life miserable for law abiding citizens. >
  
  The head shot gut wrenched me a bit, but on the flip side, what if the robber decided to shoot any patrons, we’d be calling for the death penalty, so I’m torn. A violent crime met a violent end, thats the game you play so you become subject to the rules of said game. >
  
  yeah, as well as that there’s always a chance the dude could’ve rolled over and shot back as well. just because someone’s down doesn’t necessarily mean they’re out. >
  
  Well there was one more shot after the robbers gun was already secured >
  
  The robber would have done the same given the chance. >
  
  That last one seemed excessive. >
  
  Desecration of a corpse at that point. >
  
  Shame NOBODY knows this guy.  Yep, NOBODY knows him and we might as well stop looking. >
  
  Not every hero is a law abiding citizen. Nobody here knows if the “hero” was a legal gun owner. Dude could have been a parolee or out on probation. Dude could have had warrants. Nobody knows. What we know for sure is that this guy took action and took down the bad guy in this scenario. >
  
  The cheaper alternative to lethal injection >
  
  life in prison? >
  
  nah dying right away definitely costs less than 50 years of free food and shelter >
  
  It’s was justified until he kept unloading after he was down (even then I could stil justify a couple more) but popping him in the back of the head after he disarmed him, it then becomes aggravated. >
  
  Bloodlust Redditors downvoting you. >
  
  The final shots don't change the circumstances that lead up to the first few shots. Law isn't meant to be a series of check boxes to fulfill the requirements of a crime in a vacuum. It's meant to be interpreted and applied on a case by case basis. In this situation, to claim he was "justified right up until he shot one too many times" doesn't make sense. Self defense law is meant to codify the rights of a victim of a crime, not contrive an impossible situation so the courts can play "gotcha!" He was shooting to kill that person, and to claim he was allowed to do that "right until he did it a little too much" is such a typical fart sniffing redditor thing to put out into the world. >
  
  He was allowed to shoot in self defense, shooting the guy more once he was totally incapacitated and possibly dying was no longer self defense. >
  
  so what do you think he's guilty of?  You implicitly admit he was justified in shooting the guy, do you think guns have a special "don't kill" setting?  You think he was justified in killing the guy right until you don't think he was?  Pretty arbitrary of you. >
  
  ... with poaching. >
  
  Maybe he should become a cop in Uvalde >
  
  The last three or four shots in the longer video were totally unjustified.  The plastic gun was on the ground away from the robber when the “good” Samaritan’s last few shots started.  The plastic gun was in the Samaritan‘s hands when he shot the final coup de grâce from about six inches from the robber’s head. >
  
  The Customer fucking left, did not even stay around for an affidavit or talk to the police, that's not what law abiding citizens do. >
  
  As I got to that part, had me wonder if he was legally carrying in the first place. >
  
  Texas is an unlicensed carry state, so the answer is 'yes' as long as good samaritan isn't a felon or couldn't otherwise legally possess a firearm. >
  
  Eh, shoot wasn't the cleanest, but fuck that dude. Don't rob people and you won't get lit up. >
  
  If more people did this, the crime would drop tremendously! >
  
  My head says this is illegal.
  My heart says reload and keep shooting. >
  
  Biggest problem here IMO is the guy leaving the scene afterwards. I hope he beats the worst of the charges that are likely coming. The headshot happens in such a way that it's potentially defensible with an adrenaline/heat of the moment argument, and a Texas jury is definitely helpful, but I'd be very curious to see how this plays out. I'm sure they'll find him, either way. >
  
  Ehh, I'm actually hoping they convict him. That last shot is indefensible in my view and shows the person to be more than just someone afraid for his and others safety. Just screams of someone waiting for a day when they can play hero and get away with murder. >
  
  Don’t mess with Texas. >
  
  How dare he interrupt my meal. >
  
  It’s Texas. We don’t play around down here. >
  
  Yeah that was excessive >
  
  What the fuck, the robber is a scumbag but he was subdued... The good Samaritan absolutely went overboard... I know in the moment you might feel like you deserve vengeance but killing someone like that is still wrong... >
  
  Like I get wanting to carry a gun, but at the same time, these mfers are carrying just so they can fulfill this type of fantasy. >
  
  Lethal force was justified period, no need to find the customer. Case closed >
  
  I would at least want to be sure the shooter didn't get any instructions to rob the place .  If it was a trap, then it would definitely be full premediated murder.  If you set up a petty criminal who knew too much to die, this would be a decent way to do it since most people would say he got what he deserved and not look too hard behind it.  Most likely, it was a robbery gone bad, but sometimes people are clever.  But shooting someone you clearly disarmed is ... sketchy at minimum. >
  
  I wonder if that gave him an erection. >
  
  Do you also wonder about his balls? Seriously this question isn't even related. A good citizen removed a criminal element from our society. >
  
  Damn is the robber dude gonna be okay??? He looks like he got dinged up pretty good! >
  
  Broooooooo FKKKKKK YEAHHH 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
  Fk that lil boy and his grieving mama!!!!!
  Ps the censored and longer version on Instagram is way better, the Good Samaritan finds out it's a rubber/fake gun, gives the patrons back their money, takes a swig of his drank, spills some on dead bastard and then spikes the glass on the dead SOB 🥶🥶🥶 >
  
  I realize the sarcasm, but appearing to threaten people with death is a deadly game that tends to trigger your own death.  There is a reason realistic toy guns have orange non-removable tips on them.  The customers and staff in the video aside from the shooter appear to react the way you would expect if they were threatened with a real gun. >
  
  Did they find the shooter yet? He’s prob gonna go to jail for the execution shots at the end once the suspect was down (who was armed with a plastic gun, btw).
  EDIT: My guess is that because this happened in Texas, cops will probably not file any charges or even try to find the “hero” (but the family of the deceased might have a civil case here). >
  
  
  cops will probably not file any charges
  
  Cops don't file charges, District Attorneys do that.
  And them asking for people to come forward with info is the first step in finding the customer... but it sounds like you'd prefer an APB be issued for the guy that defended himself and all the other people. >
  
  
  *look to file
  
  A wise person once told me: if written words generate “sound” in your mind, you should re-evaluate your position in life.
  EDIT: To be clear, don’t get it twisted, I’d side with the experienced contract killer who’s clearly done that before over the moron trying to rob a restaurant with a fake gun in f-ing Texas.