Image 01 Image 03

Houston Activists Want Taqueria Shooter to be Arrested, Charged

Houston Activists Want Taqueria Shooter to be Arrested, Charged

“That’s overkill. That’s no longer self-defense.”

A group of Houston activists wants the customer who shot and killed a robber at a southwest taqueria to be arrested and face charges.

From KHOU11:

They said the shooting went “beyond self-defense” and also characterized it as “a cold-blooded execution.”

While some are calling him a hero, this group wants the shooter to be criminally indicted.

“We must not allow citizens to become judge, jury and executor,” the group, which consisted of Dr. Candice Matthews (Texas Coalition of Black Democrats/Rainbow/PUSH Coalition/New Black Panther Nation), Quanell X (New Black Panther Nation), family members of the deceased and other civil rights organizations, said in a statement.

Quanell X said the group is not condoning the actions of 30-year-old Eric Eugene Washington and said he was wrong for robbing the store. They said he deserved to be punished and sent to jail — but not killed.

“He went too far,” Quanell X said. “That’s overkill. That’s no longer self-defense.”

They’re calling for the shooter to be charged with something. Quanell X said he’s not sure what that charge should be.

“That man went from being a law-abiding citizen to now committing criminal acts and criminal crimes. We believe … I believe that he should be charged with something because we cannot have a society where our citizens are judge, jury and executioner,” Quanell X said.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

, ,


I blame jerry clower and jeremy piven


Maybe the mother should be charged with the way she raised her son?

“They said he deserved to be punished and sent to jail — but not killed.”
Waving something everyone, including the perp, understood to be a pistol, anyone present had a right, a duty, to use deadly force to stop him.
Nobody in his right mind questions that, but Democrats are never in right mind.

    Milhouse in reply to FrankJNatoli. | January 18, 2023 at 6:06 pm

    Yes, he did have a right and a duty to use deadly force to stop him. He did that. And then, after the guy was stopped, and possibly already dead, and after he’d stopped shooting, after he’d already walked over to the guy and removed his only known weapon, he fired again into his head. That was not justified. Everything before that was.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Milhouse. | January 18, 2023 at 6:37 pm

      I agree, the last shot was a step to far. I don’t have a problem with the other 2 strings. I say let the trial process happen since there is a doubt.


        gonzotx in reply to Paul. | January 18, 2023 at 7:07 pm

        Nope play stupid games expect stupid prizes

        He’s a man of courage

        1073 in reply to Paul. | January 18, 2023 at 8:04 pm

        You said only apparent weapon and probably dead.

        If a trained ER Doc was in the room and watched the last shot, would he still check? Or would he say, “Yep he’s dead, let’s leave I’m still hungry.”

        When the police eventually arrived, I’ll bet they pointed their guns until he was handcuffed and searched for additional weapons. And they nor EMTs were allowed to check for a pulse until that was done.

        Why? Because they were still in fear for their lives and it would be a stupid risk to take.

          Milhouse in reply to 1073. | January 19, 2023 at 12:02 am

          Once the perp was down and disarmed, this person had no right to shoot him. If he was worried the guy might still be able to get up and become a threat again, he could keep watching him, with his gun drawn.

          But a person never has any right to shoot another person who is not currently a threat, merely because he speculates that they might become one. If you could do that then you could shoot anyone in the street because they might attack you.

        The Drill SGT in reply to Paul. | January 18, 2023 at 10:33 pm

        if he was barely alive, maybe he barely twitched toward the gun?


          He (the shooter) was holding the guy’s gun. (Which turned out not to be a gun, but that’s irrelevant.) A twitch would just verify that the guy was alive, and therefore make shooting him deliberate cold-blooded murder.

          The Gentle Grizzly in reply to The Drill SGT. | January 19, 2023 at 12:25 pm

          Milhouse: none of the downticks are mine, but you need to know that twitches and jerks can come from someone who is in fact functionally dead. The brain is shutting down and can be sending “junk signals” to various muscles.

      100% correct. He should have just dropped trow and put out the fire that the bullets started, but understandably he was concerned about leaving too much DNA.

      Char Char Binks in reply to Milhouse. | January 18, 2023 at 9:37 pm

      You are 100% correct, but I still wouldn’t convict him. After Slager, Scarsella, Chauvin, Potter, the McMichaels, Dean, and others, those “people” deserve all the worst. They are a plague that needs eradication

        artichoke in reply to Char Char Binks. | January 19, 2023 at 7:04 am

        After those trials, we have to defend ourselves because the cops will go all Uvalde on us. Did the shooter do everything perfectly? I don’t know, but we don’t have trials for lack-of-perfection.

        If this guy was still alive he probably would try to sue him. Did the crook still have his hand on his weapon? What are the eyewitnesses who were there saying? If the guy lived he would be back out doing what cost him his life 6 months from now. Our justice system from top to bottom is not on the side of the law. This is one less criminal that we will have to feed and house with tax money.

          You know there’s video of this, right? It was even discussed right here on LI a few days ago?

          The Gentle Grizzly in reply to The Beef. | January 19, 2023 at 12:27 pm

          The mistake The Good Guy made was not just disappearing as quick as possible and making sure his firearm is never, EVER found.

          Milhouse in reply to The Beef. | January 19, 2023 at 5:26 pm

          Not only did the crook not have his hand on his weapon, the shooter had his hand on the crook’s “weapon”.

          And yes, had he survived he might perhaps have been released after his recovery, and become a public menace again. So what? That doesn’t justify killing him (if he was still alive when that ninth shot was fired).

          JohnSmith100 in reply to The Beef. | January 22, 2023 at 9:07 am

          A fringe benefit of an acetylene torch turning the barrel into slag. That way a perfectly good gun is not wasted.

      Char Char Binks in reply to Milhouse. | January 18, 2023 at 10:17 pm

      He had no duty to stop the thug, but I’m glad he did, and that he killed him

        Well, one could argue that he had a duty to himself and to his family to come home alive and with his wallet, if he could. Shooting the perp assured that.

      The shooter has a conundrum. He will have to say he thought the perp was alive when he fired the last shot in order for there to be self defense; asserting that may earn him a murder charge. Is he “better off” saying he knew the guy was dead and fired the final shot because he was angry?

        1073 in reply to GEH. | January 19, 2023 at 2:03 pm

        No you honor, I was defiling a corpse. I plead guilty. I’m sincerely sorry. I was frightened out of my mind. How much is the fine?

        Gremlin1974 in reply to GEH. | January 19, 2023 at 7:46 pm

        His best bet at this time is to keep his mouth shut and only speak when his Attorney gives him permission. Then when he does speak he should only parrot exactly what his Attorney has prepared.

          artichoke in reply to Gremlin1974. | January 21, 2023 at 8:31 pm

          And get a non-woke attorney who goes for the throat in court. The throat (figurative) of the other side. If this goes to trial, massive resources and spin, and maybe a judge who wants to convict and put the peasants in their place, will be trying for a conviction.

          The wrong attorney will throw him under the bus to serve the agenda.

        JohnSmith100 in reply to GEH. | January 22, 2023 at 9:27 am

        This gives a good example for improving SYG law, that person who has to defend themselves will be impacted for some time after the incident and should have a grace period of at least several minutes ? Also, what improvements can be made to address rioters? How about those who operate in a group dressed alike to mask their identity, like Antifa. I think that Antifa should fear for their lives when they go out. One or two incidents where some or even a whole group of them end up bagged and tagged would be a learning experience.

    henrybowman in reply to FrankJNatoli. | January 19, 2023 at 10:39 am

    “They said he deserved to be punished and sent to jail — but not killed.”
    But he WAS in jail… and then YOU let him out.
    Then he did something else for which he SHOULD have been in jail… and YOU didn’t put him back in.
    Sorry, but there’s only so many times YOU can screw up.

I would have shot him too! When you go waving a gun or something resembling a gun in the air with intention of committing a crime, your rights have ended! His mom should have raised him better. Now she should see that it cost this perps life., no second chance or third strike, headed for hell. He got his punishment here, justice will be served on the other side.

    Milhouse in reply to The Beef. | January 18, 2023 at 6:04 pm

    Nobody disputes that he was right to shoot him. The question is when he should have stopped shooting. And there’s little doubt that when he did stop, and then walked over and fired into the guy’s head, that was not justified, and if the guy was still alive at the time then that was murder.

      NavyMustang in reply to Milhouse. | January 18, 2023 at 8:24 pm

      I was a beat cop in Honolulu.

      If I had been the shooter, I would have taken the initial four shots and evaluated the situation. He was on the ground and not moving, not acting in a threatening manner in any way. With my pistol pointed at him, I would have observed him and if he tried to move aggressively, I would then have shot him again, not to kill, but to stop the threat. If he did die, so be it, but the goal is always to stop the threat, not to kill. Period.

      So, I would not have taken the next four shots. As far as the last shot goes, I definitely would not have fired. Some have commented that he may have been dead at that point so no murder charge. Our shooter better hope that the autopsy clearly shows that. I think that best he can hope for is that one of the previous 8 shots would be fatal. It’s amazing how many rounds a body can absorb and still survive. There was a motorcycle cop in Honolulu years ago who was shot ten times and who still came out on top.

      Before anyone says that as a cop I would be more apt to keep my cool in such a situation, there are many police who most definitely would not. We are very human too. To me, this guy seems to have kept his cool throughout. His problems come up with the last shot.

      We all know from previous posts from Mr. Branca that prosecutors have discretion, so I won’t make any predictions as to whether this guy is indicted. Going strictly by the law, I think he should be, but who knows.

Compare and contrast:

Chicago Police wanted murder charges to be filed after a felon illegally carrying a gun shot a man repeatedly, killing him. Not only did Juan Ferba, 26, fire at least 14 rounds, striking Kristopher Willett a number of times — including three times in the head — but Ferba also hit a woman on a CTA bus with an errant round. However, Cook County’s Soros-funded State’s Attorney Kim Foxx looked at the case and pronounced it… self-defense.

It’s now a government of men (actually women) — not of laws.

    gonzotx in reply to henrybowman. | January 18, 2023 at 7:08 pm


    The Gentle Grizzly in reply to henrybowman. | January 19, 2023 at 12:40 pm

    Given how things are run in Chicago, and reading some of their crime websites semi-regularly (, etc) I, being a white man, have no desire to go there. Maybe pass through Midway or or the main airport, but, stay on “air-side”, thank you very much.

Morning Sunshine | January 18, 2023 at 5:46 pm

if you don’t want citizens becoming “citizens are judge, jury and executioner” than the government needs to protect the citizens from criminals. When the criminals have more rights than victims, you will get a WHOLE LOT more vigilante, more immediate, justice like the Taqueria fellow.
The only reason normal people are willing to step back and let the courts have a go is because there is a belief in the system to punish the guilty. When that belief goes, so does the civilization as you know it.

    henrybowman in reply to Morning Sunshine. | January 18, 2023 at 5:48 pm

    “If we let something like this go, it’s gonna get worse!”
    No, it’s gonna get BETTER.
    Or, you can do your f*g jobs when you should have — your choice.

    CommoChief in reply to Morning Sunshine. | January 18, 2023 at 6:02 pm

    The social contract is important. When the civil powers ignore or shirk their responsibilities then things get interesting for everyone.

      Char Char Binks in reply to CommoChief. | January 18, 2023 at 10:19 pm

      The social contract is broken, so it no longer applies

        henrybowman in reply to Char Char Binks. | January 19, 2023 at 10:45 am

        I have come to the conclusion that America’s major problem is that it has relinquished civilization, wholesale. Once upon a time, our “subclasses” were making great strides in adopting civilization. They seem to have lost their incentive.

        In 1940, teachers were asked what they regarded as the three major problems in American schools. They identified the three major problems as: littering, noise, and chewing gum. Teachers last year were asked what the three major problems in American schools were, and they defined them as: rape, assault, and suicide.
        –WlLLIAM BENNETT (1993)

Four grandstanding politicians, probably the only four yutzes in Houston with an axe to grind about this incident.
“We are here collectively…”
I have more fingers on one hand, and I’ve taught Shop classes.

    CommoChief in reply to henrybowman. | January 18, 2023 at 6:00 pm

    I thought the Rainbow/Push Coalition had disintegrated. Interesting to me that this org v others is picking up the banner on this.

      amatuerwrangler in reply to CommoChief. | January 18, 2023 at 7:24 pm

      Any port in a storm…

      If it had any chance of being a cause worthy of a riot or two let alone a decent cash settlement, Ben Crump would have been going wall-to-wall. But he’s not.

    Dimsdale in reply to henrybowman. | January 18, 2023 at 6:03 pm

    And if the shooter was black, there would be crickets…..

the left is pro-criminal

AF_Chief_Master_Sgt | January 18, 2023 at 5:58 pm

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Judge, jury, and executioner was acceptable when the moron waltzed into the restaurant waiving a weapon.

He deserved to be unalived.

Good riddance to the trash.

They’re right, in principle, but since when do they care so much about law and order? Why are they so interested? We all know why, and their hands are not clean, so they should be ignored.

Yes, the guy should be arrested and charged. And the police should get on it right after they’ve taken care of all their higher-priority cases, like ticketing all the double-parked cars. OK, I’m exaggerating a little. But this should not be a top-priority case. Arresting more scum like the victim here is a far higher priority, because they are an ongoing threat to the public, while there’s no evidence that this guy is. Tell that to these fake activists.

“Quanell X said the group is not condoning the actions of 30-year-old Eric Eugene Washington and said he was wrong for robbing the store. They said he deserved to be punished and sent to jail…”

Perhaps you could lean on the Houston DA so that in the future men like Mr. Washington indeed go to prison. If he had been in prison for the last couple of crimes he had committed (and he was indeed a chronic, inveterate criminal), he would not have been out robbing people in a taqueria.

But no, the activists really don’t mean it — they don’t want criminals shot, and they don’t want criminals in prison.

    artichoke in reply to stevewhitemd. | January 19, 2023 at 7:10 am

    Right. They want productive people in prison, no joke. The Prison Industrial Complex needs workers, and I’d far rather have the guy who won that confrontation than the guy who started it.

    It’s been documented in statistics I remember seeing. Potentially useful workers get sent to prison more often on similar facts.

      artichoke in reply to artichoke. | January 19, 2023 at 7:11 am

      To be clear, I myself wouldn’t rather have him in prison. He should not be charged.
      But if I were managing PIC production contracts and had to meet quotas, I probably would.

If you don’t have a last name you don’t get to demand anything.

“That man went from being a law-abiding citizen to now committing criminal acts and criminal crimes.”

“Criminal Crimes? Are there non-criminal crimes?

“We believe … I believe” Law does not work on your belief.

This is the one that they chose to speak for them.

Note they have nothing to say about blacks killing blacks at near genocidal rates in major cities.

All I heard in the video was One of the old televangelist telling you how to address your check.

    Sanddog in reply to Gremlin1974. | January 18, 2023 at 7:50 pm

    I was somewhat impressed by the fact they recognized those first 4 shots were completely within the law.

    MajorWood in reply to Gremlin1974. | January 19, 2023 at 12:08 am

    >> Note they have nothing to say about blacks killing blacks at near genocidal rates in major cities. <<

    Take a big city like DC, Balmer, Philly, Chicago, and in any given 10 year stretch since, say, 1960, more blacks were killed by other blacks than blacks being lynched in the entire USA from 1865 till 1950. And yet they see lynching and nooses as the problem.

      artichoke in reply to MajorWood. | January 19, 2023 at 7:14 am

      It’s another of their “privileges” like using the n-word. They can do it, you can’t.
      I’m not overly jealous of this privilege of theirs.

I’d find him guilty of wasting ammo.

As a side note, on your own property you need to consider whether you want to have security cameras or not.

I honestly don’t see the point.

All you have is a video of someone stealing with ZERO chances of ever being brought to justice. I mean a lot of freaking good it did to stop this robbery. The police and prosecutors were NEVER going to do anything about this robbery and it was just another day in life of a thug who needed a long dirt nap.

If you end up in an altercation on camera- all you have is evidence to be used against yourself.

    henrybowman in reply to Andy. | January 19, 2023 at 11:24 pm


    As a side note, on your own property you need to consider whether you want to have security cameras or not.

    I honestly don’t see the point.

    Here’s a point.

    Way more useful when the thug has a uniform.

That name tells you all
You. Need to know

Quanell X

He deserved to obey the law and stay out of trouble. He shortchanged himself.

Perhaps, after having been traumatized by an insane felon threatening his life and the lives of a dozen others, the defender was perhaps a bit emotionally distraught. Imagine that. But now some, sitting on their couches after the fact, suggest that he should be held to a standard of perfect legal rationality in that terrifying moment. I agree with Paula. Under the circumstances, shooting this dead man was at worst a misdemeanor.

    Sanddog in reply to sfharding. | January 18, 2023 at 7:53 pm

    Do you want criminals who misuse firearms held accountable? You’ve got to hold everyone who takes a firearm out in public accountable as well. Trauma from having a firearm pointed at you or an adrenaline dump are not legal defenses to going further than the law allows. The law allows you to stop the threat, not to pause and then execute that threat once they’re disarmed and no longer moving.

    Honestly, some people commenting on this make it a thousand times harder for those of us who are actually battling against the gun grabbers.

      artichoke in reply to Sanddog. | January 19, 2023 at 7:18 am

      No, I don’t have to hold “everyone” accountable. If I’m on a grand jury, I get to use discretion in favor of those maintaining law, order and safety for themselves and the community.

      Discretion gets used often enough against our protectors and in favor of inveterate criminals these days. That shows us how it’s done, so we can use discretion too.

    Milhouse in reply to sfharding. | January 18, 2023 at 7:57 pm

    Paula didn’t say shooting him was a misdemeanor. Not unless he was already dead, and we don’t know that.

    And being traumatized is not an excuse for murder. It can be a mitigating factor at sentencing. Perhaps he should get a suspended sentence, or do only a few months. But it doesn’t change his guilt or innocence.

      artichoke in reply to Milhouse. | January 19, 2023 at 7:18 am

      If he’s already dead, it would not be a misdemeanor. It would not be any crime.

        henrybowman in reply to artichoke. | January 19, 2023 at 10:49 am

        No, we’ve been over this. It’s a short felony to desecrate a corpse in Texas.

          The Beef in reply to henrybowman. | January 19, 2023 at 11:26 am

          Which bullet killed him? #1 , #3, #10 #14? Does it matter? NO. The fact is you have a dead thug that’s a half-pound heavier. By the way did the story mention anything about what pistol the hero was carrying ? Did he reload because even though there are guns with “double stack” magazines, 14 rounds sounds like an eXagarration.

          Again, back to the fact there’s video of this, and a long discussion elsewhere.
          He shot him 9 times.
          The first 4 were absolutely legit.
          The next 4 might be questionable, but really should be legit.
          The 9th came after he picked up the perp’s gun, and was literally standing over him, and he shot him in the head.
          And, yes, to a minor extent, it does matter which shot killed him, because it’s the only way to avoid a murder charge.
          And, 14 rounds is not an exaggeration (though it’s not how many rounds were fired here). Compact pistols have 12 round magazines, with full size pistols carrying 17 round mags without extensions.

        The Gentle Grizzly in reply to artichoke. | January 19, 2023 at 12:53 pm

        The DA could get picky and call the final shot “abuse of a corpse”.

Black people have more to fear from these clowns than all of the white supremacists put together.

I’m for lenience for the shooter because of the perpetrator’s threat, but maybe I’m biased because I’ve been carjacked at gunpoint before.

That’s not the society we live in, though. No one will be surprised when he is charged and convicted, especially not in blue Houston.

    CommoChief in reply to healthguyfsu. | January 18, 2023 at 8:59 pm

    Absent the last 9th round fired into the head of the criminal robber after the shooter had disarmed the guy following putting 4 rounds into him standing and a second volley of 4 rounds prone this case would look very different.

    Everyone has the right to defend themselves from imminent threat. The robber, disarmed and laying prone on his stomach bleeding out from 8 prior wounds may not meet the definition of an imminent threat. That’s a question the a trial jury may end up deciding.

    Do I have any sympathy for this rubber who got shot? Nah. That’s a separate question from whether the 9th round delivered as a Coup de Gras was legally justified. No it was not. the shooter made a bad decision on firing the last round IMO.

Too many monsters and cowards in this world

Certainly no second date for that weasel

Houston man is a hero

Char Char Binks | January 18, 2023 at 10:20 pm

What I want to know is how were the tacos?

“They said he deserved to be punished and sent to jail — but not killed.”

Desert has nothing to do with it. He *needed* to be put out of commission immediately, as only lethal force could accomplish.

So he did need killing, or the absorption lethal force that was very likely to kill him. What he didn’t need was overkilling, as does seem to have been used in this case.

But how serious a complaint is that? The perp was already dead at that point. It’s wrong to say that without overkilling he would not be dead.

Ideally there should probably be some punishment for overkilling where the overkilling seems incontestable, but it shouldn’t be anything major like murder or manslaughter, which unfortunately are all that current law provides for.

    Milhouse in reply to AlecRawls. | January 19, 2023 at 5:34 pm

    If he was already dead, then you’re right. But what if he wasn’t? Even if he was mortally wounded, if he was still alive then the 9th shot was outright murder. You don’t get to kill someone just because he was going to die soon anyway. Robbing someone of those last few hours or minutes is just as big a crime as robbing him of ten or twenty years.

      artichoke in reply to Milhouse. | January 21, 2023 at 8:13 pm

      And you’ll probably never know, which means there’s reasonable doubt with respect to both charges: homicide, and desecrating a corpse. Neither charge is included within the other.

      Since neither is proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must acquit on both, and the GJ should not set them up to make a mistake (perhaps encouraged by a trial judge with an agenda) by indicting. They can see it’s doubtful.

So the thug’s family wants retribution for their dead felon relative? In two words, Hell no.

I will absolutely agree that he went to far and likely straight-up executed the robber. And if I were on the jury (and they’d never let me on it) I wouldn’t vote to convict, because I don’t care about the life of that robber. Not even a little. He was a violent career criminal, nothing more. He contributed nothing to society, nothing to anyone except misery. Eff him and every single thug like him.

    henrybowman in reply to Evil Otto. | January 19, 2023 at 10:54 am

    I have to laugh. These four mooks: “If this is OK now according to the law, then we’ll have to change it!” You have it backwards, Mister X. The law supports you now, and yet the vast majority of citizens responding to this video have been in favor of ignoring it completely. Mount any attempt to modify it at this time, and you won’t like the result.

    Milhouse in reply to Evil Otto. | January 19, 2023 at 5:38 pm

    Whether you care about the robber’s life is irrelevant. If you would let that influence you as a juror then you are unfit to be on a jury, and would be violating your oath. A juror has a duty to convict murderers even if he hates the victim and is happy he’s dead. Or do you think it was OK for white juries in the bad old days to acquit people who killed uppity niggers? Should someone be able to kill an unpopular person and get away with it because none of the jurors care about his life? That’s not the rule of law, that’s the rule of men.

      henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | January 19, 2023 at 11:28 pm

      Every time I hear a speech like that, I ask the speaker if they would have lectured juries for nullifying the Fugitive Slave Act, exonerating Rosa Parks, or hiding Anne Frank.

        Evil Otto in reply to henrybowman. | January 20, 2023 at 5:45 am

        Every time I hear a speech like that I understand why these violent thugs are being let out early (like the now deservedly dead robber), because there are people like that who sit on parole boards… and don’t care about the consequences of their decisions.

      Evil Otto in reply to Milhouse. | January 20, 2023 at 5:42 am

      Milhouse… cram it. Your constant self-righteous “wEll aKtUaLLy!!1!” comments (and that’s ALL YOU DO) are tiresome at the best of times, but your not-so-subtle implication that I’m somehow racist because I don’t care about the lives of these vile thugs just makes me laugh. (At you, in case I’m being unclear.) I didn’t mention race, but of course you do, like the good little NPC you are. When in doubt claim racism, eh? For the record, I don’t care about the lives of ANY violent career criminals, no matter their race.

      That same system that you go on about in your sanctimonious manner let this violent goon out of jail early. And what does he do instead of getting his life together? He waved a gun at people and tried to rob them.

      I said how I feel. I made no claim that I would hide those feelings to get on a jury. I don’t care about their lives, not even a little, and I’d outright say I wouldn’t convict to the court. You can preach all you like, but you can’t make me care about his life. Fuck this thug, and every violent criminal like him. He got what he deserved.

      artichoke in reply to Milhouse. | January 21, 2023 at 8:16 pm

      Isn’t nullification within the rights of jurors? A judge won’t tell them that in the instructions, but just as with the vax, this is where one needs to know one’s rights independently.

“…the group, which consisted of Dr. Candice Matthews (Texas Coalition of Black Democrats/Rainbow/PUSH Coalition/New Black Panther Nation), Quanell X (New Black Panther Nation), family members of the deceased and other civil rights organizations, said in a statement.”

“Civil rights organizations” should be in scare quotes, to emphasize that they are interested in the rights of vicious criminals.

    The Beef in reply to pst314. | January 19, 2023 at 11:37 am

    They want us to $$$ PAY$$$ with big bucks to compensate a mother, father, cousin , aunt, uncle, ten brothers and sisters, and anyone else they forgot for this thugs crime. We are tired of it and organizations like renewed black panther party will find that out.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to The Beef. | January 19, 2023 at 7:57 pm

      They will probably do like in that one case where the city paid out millions for wrongful death and then the shooter was acquitted in court for self defense.

      artichoke in reply to The Beef. | January 21, 2023 at 8:18 pm

      Right. Once they get a conviction on any crime, they run to civil court and just have to see how high the damages will go.

Suburban Farm Guy | January 19, 2023 at 7:42 am

Again. The problem is that Criminals are not punished nor separated from decent society and everyone knows it. “…he deserved to be punished and sent to jail — but not killed.. ” THAT WOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED. And you lying liars know it!

Judge, jury, and executioner? That sort of illogical nonsense is the reason why criminals are allowed right back onto the street to victimize more innocent citizens

    That’s right: These “civil rights” organizations exist to protect criminals from all punishment.

    Exactly. He WAS sent to jail for being involved in a robbery that resulted in a death… and they let him out before he’d served half his sentence. If he’d gone to jail again the story would have been no different. He’d have been out again after a couple years, only to repeat the pattern.

Quanell X? Was that one of the famous X planes flown by the Air Force in the 1950’s?

Hello? Andrew? Please enter the chat!

    henrybowman in reply to JustSayN2O. | January 19, 2023 at 10:59 am

    There’s really no point to that. I think we are all agreed what the law says. What we’re discussing now is how much respect we should have for it anymore, given the moribund dereliction and/or outright corruption of the official justice system.

      I think the legal standard we’re dealing with, as outlined by James Comey, is if you meant to break the law.

      artichoke in reply to henrybowman. | January 21, 2023 at 8:20 pm

      I have a legal problem with it though. We don’t know whether he committed homicide with the final shot or desecrated a corpse. The doubt is real, and an autopsy may not exclude either one with beyond-a-reasonable-doubt certainty.

      If neither charge can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the law says the jury must acquit on either or both charges.

        artichoke in reply to artichoke. | January 21, 2023 at 8:23 pm

        And obviously this is legal cuteness. But it is legal. And I’m tired of giving the other side the benefit of the doubt on all such cases. A guy is convicted of murder for filming a fight over a gun in Brunswick GA with his cell phone. It took real legal acrobatics to convict any of the Arbery defendants on murder, let alone on all 3. Chauvin almost wasn’t charged with Murder 2, but the judge massaged the situation until he could get that charge, and managed the trial similarly.

        I’m tired of giving up all the cute points. I want them all now for us. Damn right I’ll use this legal trick.

We must not allow citizens to become judge, jury and executor
Wait, the dead robber left a will? And they’re letting the guy who shot him manage that will? Well, then, I can see how the family would be ticked.

(And I have to wonder if that was the reporter being dumb – and without an editor – or if that was what was actually said. Either way it’s an indictment of our education system.)

The mob forms, demanding blood. What a surprise. Cheers –

Indeed, I said at the beginning that it would not be long before the race baiters in the bespoke suits showed up to defend this scrote.