Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Armed Customer Takes Down Gun-Wielding Thief at Houston Restaurant

Armed Customer Takes Down Gun-Wielding Thief at Houston Restaurant

“The armed customer, described by Houston police as a white or Hispanic male, fired at least 9 shots at the suspect who dropped to the ground and died.”

An armed robber at a taco restaurant in Houston, Texas got more than he bargained for this week when an armed customer took him down with multiple shots.

Crime is still a big problem in much of the country, and people have had it. Until our leaders try to address the problem, they should expect to see more of this.

FOX News has details:

Houston armed robbery suspect shot dead by armed customer, police looking to question shooter

Police in Texas are looking to question a man who was seen on surveillance video shooting and killing an armed suspect attempting to rob a Houston taqueria.

Houston police are asking for the public’s help to find a man who was seen on video, inside Ranchito #4 Taqueria in southwest Houston, shooting and killing an armed robber after the suspect entered the store and demanded valuables from customers at gunpoint.

In a Friday press release, Houston police say charges have not been filed against the man who fled but police want to speak to him about “his role in the shooting.”

The video and witness reports show the suspect, who police say was in his 20s, wearing a black ski mask entering the restaurant and pointing his pistol at patrons and demanding their money.

As the suspect was gathering money from patrons, the armed customer can be seen standing up as the suspect walks by him and firing his gun at the suspect multiple times.

The armed customer, described by Houston police as a white or Hispanic male, fired at least 9 shots at the suspect who dropped to the ground and died. The armed customer fired multiple shots, including one at the suspects head, after the suspect had dropped to the ground.

The armed customer actually took the money off the thief and returned it to other customers before leaving.

Here’s the video. Turn the sound on.

Police are looking for the man, but supposedly do not want to charge him with anything.

Some reports claim that the robber’s gun wasn’t even a real firearm.

Cam Edwards of Bearing Arms explains why that doesn’t really matter:

It’s clear the robber intended for his victims to believe he had a real firearm, which means that the armed citizen in question had a legitimate fear of death or great bodily injury as long as the robber was waving his gun around. He might have been moving towards the door, but he also pointed his gun at the armed citizen’s head a split second before the gun owner drew his own pistol and fired.

Democrats want you disarmed.

This is a good reminder of why every American should reject that idea.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting.

Featured image via YouTube.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Yeah, but that last shot to the head, that’s what they want him for

They are definitely going to charge him

Welcome back to the Wild, Wild, West….

    Colonel Travis in reply to gonzotx. | January 8, 2023 at 12:22 pm

    It wasn’t just the last shot. The robber was down, the “gun” fell out of his hand, he clearly wasn’t moving. Those last few shots were unnecessary.

    You can go from self-defense to murder real quick.

      With the amount of adrenalin running through his system, I’m not surprised he kept firing until it went click. He may very well not even know how many rounds he fired. I’ve seen situations before where the shooter thought he’d only fired 2 or 3 rounds, only to find out he’d emptied the clip.

        daniel_ream in reply to txvet2. | January 8, 2023 at 1:45 pm

        I noticed this as well. It is not uncommon for amateur shooters in their first live fire situation to just empty the clip.

        What I’m wondering is if, once down, the perp made a move towards the gun while the shooter was trying to retrieve it. That would explain his reaction.

        I’d like to see The Firearms Lawyer or similar weigh in on this.

        Colonel Travis in reply to txvet2. | January 8, 2023 at 1:54 pm

        I bet he definitely doesn’t know how many rounds he fired. A responsible gun owner needs to understand when the threat is over, not how many rounds he fired. Guy on the ground not moving, no gun? Threat is over at that moment. Stop shooting. That does not mean he could not become a threat again. That customer has a lot of questions to answer. Maybe he has good answers, I don’t know.

        I, a concealed carrier, not an executioner. I pray to dear God in heaven I am never in this kind of situation, but the reason I train regularly is to give myself the best chance of surviving two challenges – physical and legal. Once that gun comes out, and your life and freedom are on the line, all bets are off. This is serious shit right here, and I’m reading a bunch of John Wicks below who are giving this no serious thought whatsoever.

          E. Zach Lee-Wright in reply to Colonel Travis. | January 8, 2023 at 10:30 pm

          I know the Colonel from PLB and this is the first time I have disagreed with him. Travis is right about when to stop however you can’t. You simply can’t. Many police officers have over shot; to the point of empty. The guy won’t be charged unless he quit shooting, perhaps reloaded, and walked up to the now unarmed dude and put the gun in his ear for the last shot. That would get you prosecuted but going full mag would not (at least in Texas or my state of Tennessee). Travis, I hope to see you at Ammo Girl’s this April.

        TheOldZombie in reply to txvet2. | January 8, 2023 at 8:36 pm

        Disagree here. He didn’t mag dump the gun. When you watch the video you see the initial shots and the robber falls to the floor. There’s a pause. Than the shooter shoots again. Pause. Shoots again. Pause. Shoots again. All while walking slowly towards the robber. Than picks up robbers gun. Than shoots robber in head.

        If he had just unloaded everything immediately your argument would be good but the pauses between the final shot shows he had some measure of control over what he was doing.

        4fun in reply to txvet2. | January 8, 2023 at 10:19 pm

        The account of a defensive shooting. I’ll add just a bit but you should read the whole story.

        When multiple shots are fired, relatively few participants remember the round count correctly. This was true here as well. Adam and Shannon each thought Adam had fired three shots, while one eyewitness insisted five shots were fired. All were incorrect: Evidence incontrovertibly proved Adam had unleashed four rounds.

        After you’ve been in an incident like this, people treat you differently. Dr. Walter Gorski, the great police psychologist who is credited with defining “post shooting trauma” as something separate and distinct from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) referred to it as Mark of Cain syndrome. Sometimes, you are excoriated as a murderer. On the opposite end of the spectrum, you may be treated like a hero. The latter of course is better, but can still leave you wondering whether people still see you as the good neighbor, the good professional, the good worker at your job; instead, they see you as “He Who Killed,” and it changes the way they treat you, which in turn can change the way you feel about yourself.

        Little kids had always seemed to play outdoors in their neighborhood; after the shooting, not so much. The mom and daughter whom Adam had rescued spent a couple of days in the hospital, refused to look at Adam or Shannon after coming home, and soon moved away. Other neighbors started moving away too.

      JohnSmith100 in reply to Colonel Travis. | January 8, 2023 at 3:04 pm

      Well, he could look like he was down, play possum, and then shoot the guy in the v=back while he was leaving, If you have to shoot someone, you want to make damn sure the job is complete. I hope thy are unable to find the guy. We are all better off when these punks are taken out.

        inspectorudy in reply to JohnSmith100. | January 9, 2023 at 1:26 pm

        It was not a real gun so how could he “Play possum” and then shoot the shooter? And after all of his shots, the shooter goes over and shoots him in the head. This guy should not be on the streets and definitely shouldn’t own a gun. Talk about unqualified gun ownership, this is a good example. The right to carry is guaranteed by the Constitution but what you do with it is not.

      ASP covers these a lot. Strangely they give the defender the benefit more than you might think. There was one a Metro PCS where he went full winchester on the bad guy where the last 4 were REALLY questionable and there were no charges.

      alaskabob in reply to Colonel Travis. | January 9, 2023 at 6:27 pm

      Remember the immigrant in NYC who was holding out his wallet for ID and the SWAT team hit him with 50 rounds at point blank range?

    diver64 in reply to gonzotx. | January 8, 2023 at 12:42 pm

    I’m all in on that customer shooting the bandit wannabe but that last one where he stepped back then forward for a final to the back of the head is going to be a problem. Not for me but the legal system might not see it like that.

    henrybowman in reply to gonzotx. | January 8, 2023 at 1:39 pm

    Yeah, everything after shot #4 was highly questionable. #9, the “anchoring shot,” was incontrovertible.

    This is DA Garza’s district? Stay low, old Snuffy, and stay safe. Soros bastards like him are going to be the cause of anchor shots coming back into popularity. The law doesn’t exist to protect us from them, it exists to protect them from us, and folks like Garza who missed that in “studies class” are going to have to re-earn it the hard way.

    Note it took this guy at least three, possibly four rounds to end the threat. So much for “nobody needs more than five rounds in a magazine.” And when there are two+ goblins, idiot…?

      broomhandle in reply to henrybowman. | January 8, 2023 at 3:40 pm

      Is it fair to place the same burden on a private citizen we might have for an trained officer of the law? Is the rule that firing is justified only until experts analyze the scene after the fact and decide when enough was enough, or might a near-victim of the robber be given more leeway since they are not in the business of defending their life and others and cannot be expected to know for sure when the threat is gone? Does the law differentiate?

        Sanddog in reply to broomhandle. | January 8, 2023 at 7:07 pm

        It is fair to place that burden on anyone who goes out armed in public.

        henrybowman in reply to broomhandle. | January 8, 2023 at 9:16 pm

        In fact, the reverse has come to be true. The common citizen is expected to live by the rule that “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” But the law enforcement officer is routinely exonerated using the defense that he was ignorant of a law. I have seen this time and time again.

        Witness the ridiculous “qualified immunity” acquittals of cops doing objectively stupid things such as shooting at a dog in front of a child, and hitting the child… they were found to be “unaware that they were violating the victim’s civil rights” because in an almost identical case two years ago, the child that was hit was lying on the grass, whereas in the case in question, the child was sitting up, so this case was TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

        You think I’m making this up? Corbett v. Vickers (dog-shooting cop hits little boy in the leg); compared to Kansas v. Betts (dog-shooting cop hits little girl in the eye).

        It has gotten to the point that people in the firearms community study the law so assiduously because they realize that out of all parties to future actions, they are the ONLY parties that will ever be held accountable for knowing it. It’s not so much about knowing the law; it’s about knowing who is “you” and who is “them,” and what big club you ain’t in.

        inspectorudy in reply to broomhandle. | January 9, 2023 at 1:30 pm

        If you carry a gun then it is your responsibility to learn when and how to use it. Just like driving a car, you are in control of it and anything you do with it is on you. This shooter is obviously out of control when it comes to responsible ownership and he will be charged. The first few shots could be justified but the last few were just plain depraved.

    The person who shot him’s perceptions of imminant danger are irrelevant if they are not both subjectivly and objectily reasonable

    Therefore, an element of self defense can be disproved, which is fatal to self-defense

    Other Texas statutes may allow for the act however, in response to a forceable felony

    4fun in reply to gonzotx. | January 8, 2023 at 10:10 pm

    If I lived in Texas I’d want to be on the jury. Or Ohio even.

    This one the dead thugs brother called it murder and is trying to get money from GoFundMe (who should shut it down according to their TOS but probably won’t). The comments on the first article I saw on it the other day were not polite to the dead thug or his brother.

Dude took out the trash. I hope he’s talking to a lawyer, because he’ll probably be charged. I wouldn’t charge him.

Wish he didn’t empty the weapon as looks from this nice safe chair it wasn’t needed but then this nice safe chair has no one threatening my life so not sure in the heat of that battle I wouldn’t empty it either.
You definitely want to make sure the threat is neutral, wounded people still have the capability of firing their weapon.

Michael Gilson | January 8, 2023 at 11:02 am

As Instapundit says, police are actually there to protect the criminals from us. If they don’t protect us from criminals, either by choice or orders, expect more of us to respond with escalating force, all the way up to vigilante justice. As an aside, if the armed man had done nothing the robber would have probably found his gun. Then even if the robber started with a fake gun he would have ended up with a real gun..

    Can’t wait for the latest Bronson sequel movie. What’s up with the store employee in Monroe, LA shooting the robber who pulled a gun on him – and the store employee shot and killed the robber in self defense – and now the LA prosecutors have charged the store employee with manslaughter!

    You can’t make this stuff up.

      Dathurtz in reply to walls. | January 8, 2023 at 2:35 pm

      I live in the same Parish and that is definitely weird. Monroe has always been pretty violent in some parts and they have had the race-hustling grifters in charge for a while. Still, the current mayor seems good and has been doing some police reforms.

      The city is playing that one close to the vest. My cop buddy from West Monroe just says “something weird is there. It sounds like classic self defense”.

      I am going to wait and see.

      SeiteiSouther in reply to walls. | January 9, 2023 at 10:31 am

      Saw that on Twitter and explained to people that Monroe is the ass end of the state, despite being located up north.

      The only thing that got him charged is what the bystander, who was shot by him along with the robber, said something the rose to the level of charging him.

      I’m still waiting to hear more information.

Charging him is one thing but finding a jury to convict him is another. The way Houston is today almost everyone has either been robbed or had a friend who has. Most of them would give the guy a medal.

    gonzotx in reply to ttucker99. | January 8, 2023 at 11:22 am

    Houston is bluer than blue amd the police chief, please…

      diver64 in reply to gonzotx. | January 8, 2023 at 12:46 pm

      Why don’t we ask Dan Crenshaw. It’s his district and since he seems ready to jump parties I’m sure he would like to charge the guy for shooting one of protected downtrodden class. Probably demand the customer be brought up on murder charges and force Houston to pay multi million bucks to the robbers family as reparations.

    Sanddog in reply to ttucker99. | January 8, 2023 at 12:31 pm

    I’d rather stay within the limits of the law than depend on a jury to make sure I didn’t go to prison.

      JohnSmith100 in reply to Sanddog. | January 8, 2023 at 3:20 pm

      When you thing someone is pointing a gun at you, and your body is pumping adrenalin, action are instinctive. It is not reasonable to expect someone to split hairs as to how many bullets to use.

        Sanddog in reply to JohnSmith100. | January 8, 2023 at 6:26 pm

        The guy was on the floor and unresponsive after the first few shots. Dumping the mag and going for an execution shot is stupid, not just from a legal perspective but from a defensive perspective as well. You don’t know if he has a partner outside.

    Otto Kringelein in reply to ttucker99. | January 8, 2023 at 1:17 pm

    Doesn’t really matter what a local jury does nor does not do. You can bet that if the outcome of any local trial isn’t to AG Garland’s liking the feds will be charging this man with murder and civil rights violations on the federal level and railroad him right into prison.

      henrybowman in reply to Otto Kringelein. | January 8, 2023 at 1:42 pm

      Murder of an average goblin isn’t a federal crime. And the shooter isn’t a government official, so civil rights deprivation isn’t even on the table.

        Subotai Bahadur in reply to henrybowman. | January 8, 2023 at 7:24 pm

        The current regime is not bound by the law or the Constitution. If they thought it was to their advantage in power politics, you can bet that the AG would charge. And probably most of the Republican caucus in Congress would either stay silent or agree with it.

        Subotai Bahadur

The “intent” of the last round is the critical point. One shoots to end the danger while that shot will be intent to kill. The other shots will make the difference though. If all are likely lethal then shooting a dead man isn’t a crime.

    fscarn in reply to alaskabob. | January 8, 2023 at 11:31 am

    “Would you like an order of fries with the hot lead?”

    I counted 9 shots. I know you can’t second guess a guy in such a situation but it does strike me that once the bad guy was down with the first 4 quick shots, there was no more danger. Meaning shots 5-9 were unnecessary.

    The 9th shot, the coup de grace, is troublesome.

    Yeah, yeah, I know, “empty the clip” and all that because you never know if the danger has really been controlled.

      paracelsus in reply to fscarn. | January 8, 2023 at 12:34 pm

      “…there was no more danger. Meaning shots 5-9 were unnecessary”
      All this tells me is that you’ve never been in a situation like this and have always depended on “the other guy” to save your bacon.
      Please: don’t ever be on a jury that decides my fate in such a situation.

      diver64 in reply to fscarn. | January 8, 2023 at 12:48 pm

      Nope, you never know and you also don’t know how you are going to react in a situation like that. Fire until you run out of ammo because that guy has a gun, your not a doctor or EMT so don’t know if he is dead or playing possum. That customer might just have well as missed the robber 6 times. Seen stranger things when the adrenaline is flowing.

        inspectorudy in reply to diver64. | January 9, 2023 at 1:38 pm

        What BS! The guy was face down on the floor with his fake gun away from his hand. To then go over him and pump more bullets into his back and one in his head is maniacal. It makes me wonder what this maniac would do in a crowded place where the perp was in front of other people or he didn’t have a clear shot. I never defend thugs but this has opened another issue about civilian gun use in public.

      Otto Kringelein in reply to fscarn. | January 8, 2023 at 1:19 pm

      The 9th shot, the coup de grace, is troublesome.

      Shots 1-8 can plausibly be argued as self-defense. The 9th shot is going to put this guy into prison for life. Guranteed.

      Dimsdale in reply to fscarn. | January 8, 2023 at 1:25 pm

      Tell it to the people that had the perp’s gun in their faces….

    ConradCA in reply to alaskabob. | January 8, 2023 at 11:35 am

    The robber could have shot someone while laying on the ground. The hero was just making sure that didn’t happen.

      pst314 in reply to ConradCA. | January 8, 2023 at 11:47 am

      But he could have stood over the robber and shot him again only if he moved dangerously.

        paracelsus in reply to pst314. | January 8, 2023 at 12:37 pm

        It’s very obvious you’ve never seen a “dead” armed perp shoot and kill someone. You might as well have asked, “Well, why didn’t he just shoot the gun out of the perp’s hand?”

          pst314 in reply to paracelsus. | January 8, 2023 at 1:19 pm

          The customer put four shots into the robber’s torso at close range, whereupon the robber collapsed against the wall and simultaneously the gun flew out of his hand and out of view behind a booth but at least a yard away from the robber.
          The customer then, while approaching the robber, put four more shots into him as he lay on the floor. (The robber’s head dropped to the floor after the first shot.) At that point the robber would have posed a danger if he moved in any way which might have indicated he was reaching for another firearm.
          Finally, the customer retrieved the robber’s pistol and then put a final round into the motionless robber, possibly into his head.
          That seems like execution.
          I am, I repeat, glad that the robber is dead. He was vermin. I wish more violent felons died. But legally it does seem like the customer went beyond what the law permits.

          inspectorudy in reply to paracelsus. | January 9, 2023 at 1:39 pm

          The gun WAS out of the perp’s hand.

        broomhandle in reply to pst314. | January 8, 2023 at 3:49 pm

        But can a civilian be expected to do that? If he is bot a police officer how can he be held to the same standard? There are probably volumes of protocol that might apply here in that case, but a civilian that was threatened in this way should not be expected to have the same goals and professionalism of an officer of the law.

          henrybowman in reply to broomhandle. | January 8, 2023 at 9:25 pm

          Let me tell you another story, even more unfair to the original victim of crime.

          A few years back [mid ’90s], in the Boston suburbs, a fellow and his wife were sitting at home peacefully watching TV when a crazed man with a gun kicked right through their front door and loudly announced he was there to kill the wife. (He was someone she knew from work, or the like, and he had some major grudge.)

          The husband wrestled with him, managed to get him to drop the gun, and gave him a few good wallops in the process. The intruder, disarmed and beaten, ran out to the sidewalk, turned around, and screamed that it wasn’t over — he’d be back later, sometime when they were sleeping, to kill both of them. So the homeowner picked up the gun and plugged him.

          Now, Massachusetts gun owners can’t get permits to possess handguns without passing a specific level of training on the legal use of deadly force. But this guy wasn’t a gun owner, and therefore hadn’t taken any sort of a course. He reasoned that the invader’s deadly threat was enough justification to shoot. He found out that it wasn’t. He’s currently [as of late ’90s] doing a medium-sized term for murder 2.

          The bottom line is the ignorance isn’t necessarily bliss. It’s better to be trained, and be responsible for what you’re supposed to know, than not to be trained, not know a damn thing, and be responsible for it anyway.

          If you think this is nit-picking, pray you never have to shoot in self-defense, because the lawyers will eat you alive.

          I’m not arguing what’s fair or what isn’t fair. I’m arguing what will happen to you.

          inspectorudy in reply to broomhandle. | January 9, 2023 at 1:43 pm

          I hate to break it to you but if you carry a gun you will be held to a commonsense standard. A jury may not hold you to a police standard but they will hold you to a common decency standard. Once a person is down and no longer a threat and his weapon is away from him, pumping many more bullets into his unmoving body is not going to go over well with any jury.

      pst314 in reply to ConradCA. | January 8, 2023 at 11:51 am

      I expect that the previous rounds had already killed him or guaranteed he would be finish dying very soon. Good riddance to rubbish.

        paracelsus in reply to pst314. | January 8, 2023 at 1:30 pm

        The phrase “pour encourager les autres”* almost seems apt.
        I’m of the opinion that the clip should be shown to every 10th grade high school civics class around the country (and in all police academies, as well): it might just reduce our burgeoning?/exploding crime wave.

        *”It was coined by the French writer, playwright and poet Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet – 1694-1778) in Candide, ou l’Optimisme (1759) with reference to the execution of Admiral John Byng, aged 52, in 1757.”

      Sanddog in reply to ConradCA. | January 8, 2023 at 12:28 pm

      The firearm was no longer in his hand. When the guy removed it from his reach, he was no longer a deadly threat and that round to the head was retribution, not self defense.

        diver64 in reply to Sanddog. | January 8, 2023 at 12:51 pm

        yeah, that is going to be a problem. This will very much depend on the City and/or County/State Prosecutor and if it goes to a jury them. I wouldn’t charge the guy or take it to a jury. If I was on the jury and saw what I just saw I also wouldn’t vote guilty. But, you never know.

        Barry in reply to Sanddog. | January 8, 2023 at 1:29 pm

        So you know that the robber had no other weapons?

          Sanddog in reply to Barry. | January 8, 2023 at 6:29 pm

          You don’t get to kill someone based on what ifs. Seriously, a bunch of you need to learn the law f you’re going to carry because you can switch from the good guy to the bad guy if you let emotion control your actions.

          Dathurtz in reply to Barry. | January 8, 2023 at 7:09 pm

          Sanddog, they wouldn’t switch from good guy to bad guy. They’d still be good guys all through.

          Sure would be in legal jeopardy, though.

          Barry in reply to Barry. | January 8, 2023 at 8:00 pm

          And if your dead of what value is the law? No reasonable person should convict based upon that video. It is clear. Self defense.

          Every shot fired should be legal. What will happen, well biden is president.

      Colonel Travis in reply to ConradCA. | January 8, 2023 at 12:59 pm

      Your legal right to use deadly force in self defense ends when the threat ends. You do not have the right to kill based only on fear. That customer, if he’s found, will have to explain why he shot so many times with an incapacitated person on the ground, clearly immobile, clearly unarmed because the gun falls out of his hand. I carry every day, that customer would have to explain to me why he shot so many times at the end because it looks bad.

      People with initially valid self-defense cases really do to jail for shooting more when they should have stopped.

        Thanks, Colonel, for that cool, detached and reflective legal analysis. Unfortunately, the defensive shooter didn’t have that luxury. His instinctive reflex and adrenaline were taking over. Maybe next time it will be you in his shoes, and you can show us all how it’s done.

          Colonel Travis in reply to Q. | January 8, 2023 at 1:39 pm

          This is why I train, Q. This is why I study the law. I cannot predict what would happen to me but a responsible gun owner is not an executioner. A responsible concealed carrier thinks before he is ever in this scenario. If the man can give valid reason why he shot that many times, fine. If he cannot, he deservers prison like others who have shot too many times.

          BruceG in reply to Q. | January 8, 2023 at 5:56 pm

          This is also why it is called a “Legal System”, NOT a “Justice System”.

          A RARE case of government “truth in advertising”.

          henrybowman in reply to Q. | January 8, 2023 at 11:55 pm

          As Branco points out in his video, “the adrenaline took over” is never a successful defense to a homicide count.

          inspectorudy in reply to Q. | January 9, 2023 at 1:47 pm

          No, when he got up and walked over to the dead/unmoving perp his “Reflex” actions were long gone. That was a deliberate act that showed he was no longer acting out of reflex reaction to a threat. Putting a ribbon on a turd is still a turd and man does this one stink.

        daniel_ream in reply to Colonel Travis. | January 8, 2023 at 1:50 pm

        While I don’t dispute your legal analysis, I think there ought to be some consideration for “once someone credibly threatens death with a weapon, if they end up dead as a result of the encounter we’re not going to be too fussed on the timing”.

          Colonel Travis in reply to daniel_ream. | January 8, 2023 at 2:23 pm

          If you want to follow this kind of behavior, be my guest. Just know that if you go in front of a jury, you’re going to have to defend every pull of that trigger. If you get 12 people who think like you, congratulations.

          There was a case in Florida not long ago for Michael Dunn, who shot someone multiple times. He is in prison the rest of his life because the jury convicted him on the latter, multiple shots, not the initial, multiple shots.

          henrybowman in reply to daniel_ream. | January 8, 2023 at 2:37 pm

          Well, you don’t need 12. You just need one.

          Me, I’d consider the perp responsible for his own demise… under the Felony Murder principle: if somebody gets killed during the commission of a felony, the felon is responsible, even if he had nothing directly to do with it. Well, somebody got killed.
          “Oh no.”

          henrybowman in reply to daniel_ream. | January 9, 2023 at 12:01 am

          To be perfectly clear, when I say “Me, I’d consider,” I’m speaking specifically in terms of if I were on this guy’s jury. I’d reserve the power to nullify, as it is my right as a free citizen. The entire purpose of involving a jury in the first place is so that citizens can defang unjust or unfair laws. (William Penn and John Peter Zenger inarguably broke “the law,” and their juries are revered specifically for throwing the law back into the state’s teeth. The Fugitive Slave Act was defanged primarily because juries stopped being willing to enforce it.)

        The Laird of Hilltucky in reply to Colonel Travis. | January 8, 2023 at 2:42 pm

        The customer doesn’t have to explain anything! Innocent until ‘proven’ guilty. And, yes, you do have the right to kill based only on fear. Cops do it all the time. “I was in fear for my life.” There have been many times cops emptied their weapons and were never charged. The policewoman who killed a man who was only reaching into the window of his car said, “I thought he was going for a gun,” and was acquitted. Cop killed a kid carrying a soda: “I thought it was a gun!” Cop shot a man with a cellphone: “I thought he had a gun!” When there are multiple cops on scene and one shoots, they all shoot, regardless of perceived threat.
        The customer here maybe saw the perp still moving, or thought he did. Seemingly neutralized people have been known to suddenly start moving again. Or maybe he was just playing dead. Had he started moving again he could have retrieved his gun in a second and started firing. The only sure way to neutralize the threat is a kill shot.

          You really need to learn the law.

          Let’s hope you’re never faced with that situation Sanddog, you’re not likely to react as well and certainly no better.

          Barry, I teach self defense classes. I’m also a CHL instructor. I use examples like this and Jerome Ersland, the pharmacist from Oklahoma as examples of what not to do if you want to stay out of jail. I know the limitations of my rights when it comes to self defense. I make sure my students understand the limits as well. Civilians don’t have qualified immunity to protect them. We have a right to carry a firearm for self defense but we also have the responsibility to make sure our actions remain within the law.

          You are distorting what happened here. There was no mistaken identity or shooting back, this was an example of someone whom most of us hope we never are in the same building with when an incident happens. No one would complain about his shots while he was seated, but when he gets up and sees the gun away from his hand and then shoots him multiple times more, then it becomes a problem of uncontrolled behavior. Fear would have kept him in his seat or moving to the back of the store, not going forward and shooting more.

    Gotta marvel at the logic…. suppose you get the best headshot ever. Cranium on wall paper. Off button smashed into forever sleep.

    But the next shot into an organ donor gets you charged?

    For what? Murdering an already dead person?

    henrybowman in reply to alaskabob. | January 8, 2023 at 11:51 pm

    “then shooting a dead man isn’t a crime.”
    In fact it is, Branca’s video reminds us: “desecration of a corpse.” Felony, two years. However, compared to what this guy could get for murder, it may end up worth pleading to.

“…police looking to question shooter…”

What questions cannot be answered by simply viewing the video? The good guy with a gun even returned all the stolen valuables.

Give that man a medal – or leave him the eff alone.

    diver64 in reply to LB1901. | January 8, 2023 at 12:52 pm

    Why you shot that guy in the head with the last shot? Dude better lawyer up fast and not open his mouth to anyone unless the lawyer is present.

I wonder if the robber’s parents have criminal records. Far from unlikely.

The customer is foolish for not staying at the scene to either talk to police, or, to invoke his 5th Amendment right not to do so. I commend his actions, but, he needs to be better-educated about how to properly behave in the aftermath of a shooting.

    guyjones in reply to guyjones. | January 8, 2023 at 12:43 pm

    I hadn’t watched the video when I wrote my comments, above. I commend the shooter’s action in initially disabling the threat, but, if he fired a coup de grace when the robber had already been neutralized, there could be a legal issue, there, as others have observed.

    TheOldZombie in reply to guyjones. | January 8, 2023 at 8:41 pm

    My personal opinion is he left because he’s either not supposed to have a gun in the first place OR he knew he screwed up bad with that final shot. Maybe even both.

      Sanddog in reply to TheOldZombie. | January 9, 2023 at 5:05 am

      If you see the entire video, you’ll see him examine the robber’s gun, realize it’s not an actual firearm, get angry and throw it against the wall. He might have been afraid of arrest because it wasn’t a “real” gun.

    henrybowman in reply to guyjones. | January 9, 2023 at 12:03 am

    I look at this guy, I see “gang emeritus.” I’m going to assume he has several reasons for not wanting to be associated with his “heroism.”

    Gremlin1974 in reply to guyjones. | January 9, 2023 at 8:26 pm

    Exactly, he has basically blown any claim of Self Defense by leaving the scene.

Okay, having watched the video, I think the guy is in the clear, legally. He fired such a barrage, the perp was dead fairly quickly, and, the final shot wasn’t that far in time from the initial barrage. Fully neutralize the threat, and, all that. I could see the criminal-coddling Dumb-o-crats making a fuss about it, but, no fair-minded citizen.

I don’t think a DA would charge the shooter, but, he still should have stayed at the scene.

    diver64 in reply to guyjones. | January 8, 2023 at 12:58 pm

    There are 6 DA’s in Houston so I think it would depend on which one gets it. There is one DA for Harris County and she is a Progressive Soro’s bought and paid for DA. Guess where that will go if she does it.
    Someone from Texas will have to help out with a crime like this resulting in death as to whether or not the local DA, County DA or State DA will get jurisdiction. If I were Abbott I would immediately announce that no matter what happens an immediate pardon will be issued if that guy is found guilty of anything, this robbery stuff is not going to happen in Texas. Try it and you are taking your life in your hands.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to guyjones. | January 9, 2023 at 8:43 pm

    There were 2 noticeable pauses in the firing pattern;

    4 shots from the seated position. Perp went down. (The video shows the gun fly out of perps hand, but I doubt the shooter saw that due to tunnel vision.)

    Pause to get up while not firing.

    4 more shots while approaching the downed unmoving perp. (Probably, not cool legally, however could, maybe, be explained away though I doubt it)

    Pause as shooter leans over the perp to get discarded gun. (Gonna have a hard time claiming that he was still in fear if he leaned over the perp.)

    1 shot to the head of the down and unmoving perp. (There is no way this is gonna fly. He deliberately shot the downed perp in the head while he had the perps gun in his hand. There is no way a Self Defense Claim survives this video.)

    Also, the prosecutor is going to make the argument that if he had just stayed in his booth then the guy was headed out the door. The prosecutor will also argue that he was preparing to shoot the Perp. (Which from his movements he obviously was preparing his firearm.

    After reading this chat, there are many of you that really need to take Andrew Branca’s class and read his book, because about 75% of you seem to think the law is on your side in these situations.

    So let me remind you that there are 5 pillars of self defense (if you want to know what they are then see my recommendation for Mr. Branca’s book above) failure to meet any of those means you just confessed to Murder because if it’s not self defense then it is Murder/Manslaughter.

    Now for those that like personal opinions here is mine. If you decide to point a gun at someone, especially in a state such as Texas then you should expect to catch a bullet in the ass. No sympathy for the Perp here.

I’m amazed at all the comments of what the citizen “should have done”. This “Monday morning quarterbacking” Is being done while enjoying the morning coffee. It’s far different when you are facing death and having a gun pointing at you. Deciding what action to take and then the risk of being shot while adrenaline is surging isn’t being considered by any here. He acted properly, eliminating a deadly threat and protecting his life and the others present. People that use threats of death to achieve their goals risk their fate. He deserved the outcome.

    oneoclock in reply to tmm. | January 8, 2023 at 1:22 pm

    tmm is exactly right. This ‘line in the sand’ thing with which shot killed the criminal and which successive shots were unnecessary is total BS. How does one figure that out in real time during an episode like this, with full adrenaline running. What does it matter if extra shots were fired? Lethal force is justified if lethal force is threatened.

      henrybowman in reply to oneoclock. | January 8, 2023 at 2:56 pm

      Well, one does. One is expected to. Especially when one is not a cop, who can claim that the goblin “made a furtive movement and I was in fear for my life.” (Actually anyone can properly claim that, but it’s only cops that rarely get forced to vigorously defend that statement.)

      The training reflects this: fire until the threat is neutralized. If he’s on the floor with the gun no longer in his hand, he is considered neutralized, and so the law neutralizes you as well. You can cover with your muzzle, you can watch for movement/another weapon, you can move to a position where the perp would have to make an obvious, gross movement to be a threat to you again. Otherwise you cover and assess.

      Yeah, it all sounds like a bitch. But this is how you will be judged (unless you live in Grady Judd’s neighborhood). It’s designed to be hard. The legal premise is that even the life of the slimiest dirtbag is valuable. (But jurors have been known to disagree with that assumption in particular cases.)

      There is a technique commonly practiced called the “Mozambique”: two to the chest, followed by one to the head. The intent is to be able to be ready if the perp turns out to be wearing armor. In real life, the law requires you to make that assessment before the third shot — the intent of practicing the technique is to “be on target and ready to make the head shot,” not simply to make it automatically.

      inspectorudy in reply to oneoclock. | January 9, 2023 at 2:03 pm

      “How does one figure that out in real time during an episode like this, with full adrenaline running.”
      That’s the crux of this tragedy. But as a carrier you had better learn it. Just because there is a threat and you react, there are limits to your action. If this guy had hit a patron by accident, what would the courts do? If he had shot him and then moved AWAY from the prone perp then fear could be a defense. But when he got up and methodically walked over and shot him multiple times and then one in the head, that is no longer self-defense or fear.

OwenKellogg-Engineer | January 8, 2023 at 12:54 pm

I sure would love to hear Andrew Branca’s observations.

The bandit was armed. He was a “burden”. He was aborted. The customer is a Democrat “hero”. They should have pride and hold a parade (no albinophobia implied). That said, many will be conceived, a few will survive planning.

    diver64 in reply to n.n. | January 8, 2023 at 12:59 pm

    The Dems won’t make a statement until they figure out where the customer stands on the
    Inter Sectional Olympic’s Chart.

      henrybowman in reply to diver64. | January 8, 2023 at 2:59 pm

      If Garza is the DA in this case, he’s between a rock and a hard place. To a Soros DA, any self-defense with gun = bad. And with the anchor shot on video in this one, he’d have no choice but to make an example of our pal Snuffy.

Unfortunately, Texas is not a sanctuary state. Is Houston a Democrat district?

That pickup is pretty distinctive. They’ll know by now who he is and where he lives.

While I have little hope the hero that discharged his weapon in an attempt (successful) to stopped an armed robber will not be charged with a crime, any fair person would say he acted appropriately. All the armchair QB’s that have never fired a weapon, never trained to fire a weapon, and almost all of them never having fired a weapon under the duress of that type situation are for the most part just plain cowards that would never do anything to protect their family, friends, or total strangers in a restaurant.

We need more like this man, not less. People need to be encouraged to take action to stop the criminals, not dissuaded. It would be nice to see intelligent people supporting the hero rather than convicting him of murder. It would be nice to see intelligent people supporting the hero by opposing any criminal action against him.

This will just be more evidence of what I, and others, have said for a very long time –
The cops and judiciary are there for the protection of the criminals, not the protection of the innocent victims.

    henrybowman in reply to Barry. | January 8, 2023 at 3:02 pm

    I don’t think anybody here is expressing regret that the customer killed the perp. We’re expressing informed opinions that the customer left himself open to be charged with MURDERING the perp, which is a different thing entirely. If Branca doesn’t weigh in with the same opinion, I’ll burn my instructor card.

      As I said in the very first sentence, I have no doubt he’ll be charged. That’s not the point. The point is, decent people should support the guy. He did the right thing, something 99%+ of the commenters here could never do. Instead of pontificating / debating about the fine points of the law, we should be supporting the use of deadly force, entirely justified in this case.

        TheOldZombie in reply to Barry. | January 8, 2023 at 8:45 pm

        We can support the use of deadly force until it is no longer justified.

        If you punch someone who attacks you than you have my support (and the support of many others) BUT if you keep curb stomping an unconscious attacker you’re going to lose everyone’s support. Plus end up going to jail for excessive force. Yes non-police can be accused of excessive force as well.

        It’s the same here. No one is upset the bad guy is dead. But we are upset that the good guy may have gone to far in his actions and now could possibly face prison time for it.

        This is the whole point of getting training. Knowing when to act and more importantly knowing when to stop.

    inspectorudy in reply to Barry. | January 9, 2023 at 2:11 pm

    In this nation, the coup de gras is not allowed by anyone or any agency. This guy is not a hero but a maniacal menace to society. Imagine him in a place where you and your family are present and he opens fire out of self-defense (?) and mows down one of your kids. Is that still ok? Any gun owner knows that at four feet and sitting down with a steady hand you cannot miss a target. You don’t even have to aim. And from this guy’s actions, it looks like he has probably killed before. That was not fear he was working on but habit.

If it was my decision to make, he would not face charges, not even for that last shot. Looking at the video, that shot seems to be a reaction. Maybe the bad guy moved? In the heat of the moment, it is reasonable to perceive any movement as a threat.
But the police asking you questions is never good. They are not trying to help you.

The Laird of Hilltucky | January 8, 2023 at 2:25 pm

All of the comments about how the customer should not have emptied his weapon once the perp was down are missing a very important point. We have seen many times when cops did the same thing and were charged with no crime because “I was in fear for my life.” If it works for cops, it should be the same for the rest of us!

    It should, but it isn’t. There’s a whole bunch of people in DC J6 Gulag who shouldn’t be there either, but two years worth of “have been” can’t be argued with.

The Packetman | January 8, 2023 at 3:51 pm

For those waiting for Branca’s take, he’s giving it on Youtube at 4.

I, too, hope they never find this guy.
Even if the local DA’s decline to make a case out of it, either DOJ or the race-chasing lawyer crowd will be on him immediately.

I’ve seen comments on other sites that comment on the calm behavior of the shooter and his fellow diner. Suggests previous experience involving firearms, likely not Military or Police force related and the final shot to the head suggests MS13/Cartel.

    Dathurtz in reply to SHV. | January 8, 2023 at 7:13 pm

    I hate to judge visually, but that old white guy in a really old, beat up truck doesn’t scream cartel/crime to me.

Legal shooting or not … we have one less AH to worry about.

I’ve had multiple trainings for CHLs in different states. The first thing you are taught is “It’s okay to use adrenaline pumping as an excuse to shoot someone in the back, after they are down, and once in the head for good luck” is not the law.

In most states shooting a “bad guy” in the back as he’s leaving is a Go To Jail card. In most states shooting a subdued bad guy is a Go To Jail card, even if you have an adrenaline rush. If he gets back up attacks you and you feel your life is in danger, that’s a different story. In most states shooting a bad guy in the head who is already on the floor, full of lead, not moving, and not presenting a danger to anyone, regardless of your adrenaline levels, is a Go To Jail card (with an abuse of corpse endorsement sticker just waiting to be applied).

The “Yeah, kill “em good!!!” crowd has smelled fresh meat and is having a feast, I see. Now you all go out there and try it yourself, on video, and report back on that “adrenaline made me do it” rule.

    Barry in reply to WestRock. | January 8, 2023 at 8:10 pm

    You have no idea if the dead bastard was on his way out the door, and neither did the shooter. The guy was still a threat. The shooter did the right thing.

    TheOldZombie in reply to WestRock. | January 8, 2023 at 8:32 pm

    Westrock: “In most states shooting a “bad guy” in the back as he’s leaving is a Go To Jail card.”

    If he’s clearly leaving, like out the door and running down the street. Than shooting in the back might not be justified. (it may still be justified depending on the situation)

    But inside that restaurant at that moment? You don’t know he’s leaving. He’s already circled around once before inside robbing people. Whose to say he won’t do it again?

    The initial shooting is 100% justified. The second set of shots where the shooter is walking towards the robber whose lying on the ground are iffy. The last shot which takes place after the shooter picks up the robbers gun is 100% unjustified.

    Shooter better hope the autopsy says the perp was most likely dead when that head shot came in otherwise the shooter will be facing a jury.

    Westrock: “In most states shooting a bad guy in the head who is already on the floor, full of lead, not moving, and not presenting a danger to anyone, regardless of your adrenaline levels, is a Go To Jail card”

    Yep. We wouldn’t accept a cop doing it so why would we accept Joe Blow doing it? Before anyone says the perp may have still been a threat it’s clear the shooter didn’t think that since he took the time to pick up the robber’s gun before taking that shot.

    “The “Yeah, kill “em good!!!” crowd has smelled fresh meat and is having a feast, I see. ”

    This has been making me angry all day. I’ve been all over Twitter arguing about it. I’m personally glad the bad guy booked a trip to the afterlife but the number of people who think it’s acceptable to execute someone whose no longer a threat is just ridiculous.

    We the good guys have to follow the laws of the land. That’s what makes us the good guys. Sometimes that sucks but that’s how a civilization is run and if we the good guys can’t be bothered to follow the rules than what’s the point? Let’s just have anarchy.

      Dathurtz in reply to TheOldZombie. | January 9, 2023 at 9:47 am

      Following laws isn’t what makes one good.

        TheOldZombie in reply to Dathurtz. | January 9, 2023 at 12:32 pm

        It’s part of it. If you’re not going to follow any laws than there’s not real difference between you and the bad guys.

          Dathurtz in reply to TheOldZombie. | January 9, 2023 at 12:59 pm

          How silly. Who said not follow any laws? You said that following laws is what makes people good. That’s crazy. What else do you let an evil power structure define?

          I am being kind of flippant, but with a serious point. It isn’t wide to let weasels define what is right or wrong. It isn’t wise to say “Oh, it’s a good thing you did this but you didn’t follow the rules perfectly.”

          Killing a man in the middle of an armed robbery isn’t gonna turn somebody into a bad guy because he shoots him an extra time.

    henrybowman in reply to WestRock. | January 8, 2023 at 9:39 pm

    Looks like I visually misinterpreted this video. I saw the exit as being to the right, and misinterpreted the exit door as a counter area. But now having watched it again, with the exit area firmly established, I see zero indications whatsoever that this fellow was on his way out the door, even though he was striding in that direction at the time. Note that at the time he was shot he was still sweeping two other customers at that end of the store with his muzzle. I see the first three or four shots as justified, crystal clear.

“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.

“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

This one man and his insane actions have done more to hurt the open-carry law than all of the liberal gun grabbers put together. He went from defense to old fashion murder. If they catch him, he will go to jail. I suspect from his actions that he has probably done this before and knew exactly what he was doing. There was no fear in his actions, only proficiency and deliberation.

    henrybowman in reply to inspectorudy. | January 9, 2023 at 11:54 pm

    I put the odds at at least 3:1 that this fellow will be found to be a “street pro” with convictions that disqualify him from possessing that gun at all. Of course, that will not change the quantity or quality of the subsequent bleating in the least.
    The solution to criminals who are already breaking one or more gun laws is somehow till always more gun laws.

Y’all are missing the real story here.

Customer at the top of the image in the video, in the corner, never even stopped eating.

Just another day in Houston for him.