[Houston Crime] foiled robbery at S. Gessner taqueria

Right. The 'good guy with a gun' fetishists just salivate over this stuff and always promote it far and wide to support a bunk narrative.

It's a tragedy first and foremost, not a cause for celebration, unless you're a bloodthirsty simpleton or so beholden to ideology you view everything through a pro-gun political lens first.

 

What an asinine, exaggerative statement. This robber was a recidivist a-hole with a history of crimes that threaten public safety. Does that mean he should be be sentenced to death on his first crime? No, absolutely not. Should somebody with that pattern of behavior be allowed out on the streets to commit more crimes? Also, no, absolutely not. He should have been locked up and stay locked up. If he isn't going to be locked up and be out in public threatening people with violence, then those around him have the right to protect themselves and if he gets got, so be it. Let it be a lesson to all the punks that try to mess with people. Eff around and find out.

 

@IBTL
These vegans in the d&d don’t know about south gesner or Fondren or Wilcrest or Harwin
Or hillcroft

they never been to fiesta , they get offended when you post stories about Portland or Oakland , they know nothing of H town breh

they can’t tell you where the original gallery furniture is

 

the final head-shot is overkill (pun intended), but i have zero problem with what the shooter did. as far as im concerned he did the community a favor.

my question is how was someone with such an extensive criminal record and history of violent crime and even murder out walking the streets?

 

I think these type of brains can easily be brainwashed by fascist leaders.

 

If you have zero problem with it I have a problem with you and your idea of morality and humanity.

 

Exactly. I must have missed the part where the shooter pulled up the robber's criminal history before deciding to put that final shot in his head. There is stopping a threat and there is an execution. I'm fine with the first. Not so good with the second.

 

HELL YEAH! LET'S TURN THIS COUNTRY INTO BRAZIL!

 

That last bullet did strike me as 'I'm going to make sure he's dead'. However, I have a hard time faulting him for it given that he was not 5 seconds prior assaulted by that person with a deadly weapon. The reality is the perp had just very seriously threatened to kill him and several other people. I cannot in good conscience charge a man with a crime for killing someone who had just put a gun to his and several other people's heads.

 

Execution style is hard to stomach but then so is this:
"
In 2015, records show Washington was convicted of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and sentenced to 15 years in prison in connection to the shooting death of a business owner, 62-year-old Hamid Warrich. "

https://www.fox26houston.com/news/h...killed-by-customer-in-self-defense-spekas-out

The killer is reported as being 46?
That's a rough 46 dang

 

I'm fine with him killing the guy. I'm not fine with the guy being on the ground, then taking his gun, then shooting him in the head.

 

I definitely don't have a hard time faulting him. Psychopaths like that shouldn't be running around with firearms.

 

Well I guess it is a good thing the shooter knew this guy's record before shooting him 8 times, removing the gun, then shooting him in the head. At least he knew the guy had and extensive criminal record and wasn't a 16 year old kid before doing that. I'm sure the shooter having knowledge of the criminal record played into his thought process...

 

I said both are hard to stomach..both can be true

 

Agreed, I wish we all had that sort of database for our immediate use to make decisions to execute someone.

 

I am pretty sure the outcome of this case would be different in Germany compared to Texas.

 

I don't have a problem with engaging this bad guy. If you watch the longer videos of the robbery he is recklessly pointing his "gun" at everybody in that restaurant. Very reasonable to be in fear of your life or someone else's life. No, I don't want to kill someone over "stuff", but this guy would make me edgy as hell the way he sticks that gun in everyone's face.

HOWEVER, the guy that opened fire absolutely sucks. Pause his first shot... hard to tell from the camera angle but looks way to close to being in line with the innocent guy in the far corner. I'm sorry but when the robber guy goes down and is not in possession of the "gun" you can't move forward while continuing to put rounds on the guy. Then to pick up his gun and put one more in him is just asking for a charge.

 

So the shooter somehow knew the robbers criminal record?

What if this was the robbers first crime and he was doing it because he had a family member who needed money for medicine?
You're justifying this based on information that couldn't be known at the time.

 

There is certainly an issue with whether someone with a repeat criminal history is back on out on the street but that's actually a different discussion.

In this case there is no evidence that the shooter knew the criminal history of the robber. This is an after the fact justification.

The problem with these arguments are that people want to paint it as a binary that either you accept that people can do anything to defend themselves "F^(% Around and Find out" or you're somehow for allowing crime and not doing anything. That's a very flawed argument and as a martial artist it's one I deal with.

I can't just go around and if someone threatens me in anyway then kill them. For example if someone throws a punch at me I can't put them in a submission choke and keep on choking them until their dead. It doesn't matter if the guy was out on bail for aggravated assault and had beaten his girlfriend. It doesn't matter if they started it and or where threatening others. Once I go beyond stopping the immediate threat I'm liable and at that point I'm the criminal. Me saying "I told them F^(& Around and Find out " isn't an excuse.

 

Under self-defense that's not the law. The response has to be proportional to the threat and once the threat is neutralized that ends the response.

Again it's why I keep on stating I can't just kill someone if they try to punch me. FOr that matter if they have a lethal threat like a knife if I render them unconscious cannot just keep on choking them until they are dead just because my life was threatened earlier.