quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
This doesn't mean you could shoot someone to the ground, stopping the danger, and then check on him and then finish him off.

Well, that's exactly what Charles Bronson did in that video.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Let's say this guy had an AR pistol in his bag and shot the robber thirty times.

Is there no such thing as excessive force in a situation such as the one we're discussing?

How about if he dragged the body into the parking lot and ran over it with his car several times?

I consider a couple principles of the 2A community to be that we see ourselves as "good guy with a gun" who "fires until the threat is stopped". No more, No less. If we judge him from our standard, yes he went too far. I am sure each of us has thought through scenarios such as this. I tell myself I would only do that which is necessary to stop the threat. Of course not having been in those shoes and hopefully never having to be, I can't say that my adrenalin would't override my decency and common sense.

Alternatively in scenarios I could envision, another principle of 2A comes to mind. No cameras and no witnesses, "one story is better than 2".

I would posit that if the bad guy was 'dead' after the 5th shot, the others may have been unnecessary but wouldn't be excessive force

If I remember my CCW class here in AZ, you shoot until the threat is stopped. The decision maker of when the threat is stopped is the person doing the stopping

now, shooting 30 times, or dragging his sorry ass outside and running over him with a car?

that's not excessive force, that's desecrating a corpse - most likely a $100 fine and a promise not to do it again

I would say the shooter has no obligation to try and arrest or stop the baddie. Therefore judging him to the standards we would place an officer at is foolish and wrong. The shooter obviously shot the baddie until he was down…it’s not his responsibility to provide or render aid…and I’m ok with that.

Some fuck was waving a gun in peoples face and robbed them. He got shot and it’s HIS fault, if he wasnt out robbing and threatening people with a gun he wouldn’t be dead. No one is expected or required to recognize non-guns or fake guns while they are being robbed.

My guess is the guy is "undocumented", and possibly involved in illegal activities. Looks like a shaved head guy from Sicario minus some tattoos.

Even "bad guys" do good things.

Could be very much the same and Jules in the diner in Pulp Fiction.

The shooter may have other legal issues he wants to avoid. But shooting the perp after he's down may be less of an issue than it might seem at first glance. Watch the video I'm linking blew (not embedding because the age restriction means you have to go to YouTube to view it anyway.)

Defender empties his gun into the robber, most of which happens after the robber is down. No charges filed. And this was Philly, which is likely a much less gun friendly jurisdiction than Houston (certainly Texas has more gun / self defense friendly laws.) Of course a lot will depend on the mindset of the local DA. I know Houston is more liberal than most of TX.

https://youtu.be/vjEyn3v5_bI

Part of the problem here is we don't know when the bad guy died. He could have been dead on the way down after the first 4 shots, or maybe he was alive until the 9th, or even after that. Was the good guy/hero shooting a 9mm, 380 or 22? Its kind of important because if it was a 22, the good guy might have worried, if momentarily the guy might have had a 2nd gun. Those are lawyer type questions (I didn't finish law school). But if the good guy goes to trial, I bet his lawyer will ask them. Its important because the reasonableness of the final finisher might be reasonable.

So does anyone know what caliber? Firing until he's out of ammo could be important. So too could be the prosecutor wanting to run for office again. Crucifying the good guy might be a smart move in Soro's territory. Maybe not in Texas.

If you're ever involved in a SD shooting, and you're quoted as saying something along the lines of, "I shot to kill," or, "I train to shoot until the bad guy is dead," then you'll get yourself into a lot of trouble.

You shoot until the threat is over. Whether your assailant(s) lives or dies is a side effect of being neutralized.

After eight shots, the robber looks to be lying on the ground motionless. The shooter picks up the robber's gun, then shoots him once more in the head. As Para posted, you may be glad he took out the trash, but that ninth shot is not a good look for someone's case of SD.

If that shooter has citizenship south of the border, now would probably be a good time to go home.

I’m curious- has the robber been identified? I’d be very interested in knowing his, um, status. I can’t find his identity in any news story. I wonder whether he was a US citizen or was he here after illegally entering the country?

Perhaps it’s even possible that he might be missing a future court date over asylum…

Why did you shoot him nine times?

I ran out of ammo.

So, is there anything at all considered excessive force? What if the patrons had dragged the body outside and hung it from a tree upside down, a la Benito Mussolini?

Shoved him into a wood chipper? Chopped him into small chunks and shot them out of a potato cannon? Carried him to the nearest zoo and tossed him over the fence into the bear exhibit? Tied him to the bumper of a car while yelling "ROAD TRIP!!"?

You know- in order to "neutralize the threat"

I don't think we're allowed to desecrate a body anymore.

Though it seems a just little bit excessive, it does send a clear message.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
So, is there anything at all considered excessive force? What if the patrons had dragged the body outside and hung it from a tree upside down, a la Benito Mussolini?

I don't know. Lynching is a "hate crime" and that's even worse than murder. Hanging a dead body upside down in a tree is a gray area though.

But how can we be sure he's no longer a threat?

I think I see the problem with the premises I'm suggesting. What about this- a patron goes to the gun store to buy more ammunition for the shooter, so that the shooter can continue shooting the robber until such time as EMT personnel show up and say "WHAT THE FUCK?? Would you stop shooting, please?" err I mean until they determine that the robber is, in fact, dead and therefore no longer a threat.

quote:

Originally posted by rburg:
…
(I didn't finish law school)… It’s important because the reasonableness of the final finisher might be reasonable.

Are you sure you didn’t finish law school? Sounds pretty lawyerly.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
If I remember my CCW class here in AZ, you shoot until the threat is stopped. The decision maker of when the threat is stopped is the person doing the stopping

True.

The last shot in the unedited video does show that after the guy picks up the perp's gun off the floor, he fires the 9th round into his head. Was that because adrenaline was rushing through his body that made him do that, fear that the threat was not stopped yet, or something else entirely?

I guess one could argue that the body was still moving after picking up the gun, and the guy was concerned that the perp might reach for a 2nd gun under his hoodie, but that seems a stretch.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
If I remember my CCW class here in AZ, you shoot until the threat is stopped. The decision maker of when the threat is stopped is the person doing the stopping

Sure, but that doesn't always mean he is correct or won't be dissected to death by a DA & Grand Jury.

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:
I guess one could argue that the body was still moving after picking up the gun, and the guy was concerned that the perp might reach for a 2nd gun under his hoodie, but that seems a stretch.

Private citizens don't get the same latitude and benefits of doubt in SD shootings that LE do. They don't (and shouldn't) get to shoot someone b/c of a furtive movement or mag dump 15-20 rounds into a perp 'just to be sure' or 'just to be on the safe side.'

I must be a complete chump, because it has never and would never occur to me to leave the scene after a shooting. The mantra these days is "Don't talk to the police" but even if you adhere to this, it seems to me that remaining on the scene until they arrive is the correct thing to do.

quote:

Originally posted by iron chef:

If that shooter has citizenship south of the border, now would probably be a good time to go home.

Now would be a good time for all of them to go home.

The fact that the guy left has several possible meanings. Given that he gave a coup de grace shot there at the end (I’m not complaining) gives me the impression that he ain’t from around these parts and has probably returned to them. That struck me as an act of someone from a “that’s how we do things around here”. Not your average gun owner IMO.

Both he and his truck would be fairly easy to identify if they had been around for a while or was a regular denizen of the locale. If he was here as a border crosser, hopefully he went back and chooses to stay. 2 birds with 9 stones…