Houston shooter Grand Jury formed

So a Soros DA only wants to prosecute people like our restaurant hero.

Unless there was a paper trail.... receipts, video footage, eyewitnesses, he should have never came forward.

are we about to have another Kyle Rittenhouse case? a-hole government prosecutor trying to lock up a person who had reasonable cause to fear for their life.

A retard walks into a restaurant, pulls out a gun-no one knew it was fake-and proceeds to rob customers. shooting was justified in my opinion. good riddance. screw that DA.

quote:

---

are we about to have another Kyle Rittenhouse case?

---

Nope. Rittenhouse was defending himself during all of his shots.

This dude will end up pleading guilty to manslaughter at the advice of his public defender.

I’m not sure if Texas has a comparable pr mirroring statute, but Louisiana law provides that what appears to have been an armed robbery is not an armed robbery if the perp was ultimately not using a real firearm or something else that could be deemed a dangerous weapon.

Synopsis: at least in Louisiana, fake gun = no “armed” robbery.

And I’m sure someone will take offense to this, but I’m not even the slightest “taking the side of” the perp. Only intending to add potentially relevant context and info. Texas may not even have any similar law. But states often do tend to “copy” one another in such ways.

quote:

---

This dude will end up pleading guilty to manslaughter at the advice of his public defender.

---

I can see that happening. the DA will probably pile on a few more charges to rack up the years if this does go to trial.

quote:

---

Jury nullification

---

It's getting common.

It happened in the Michael Sussman trial last year.

Succession is the only answer.

We keep the Constitution and live by it.

Lib shitholes can continue to do shithole things.

quote:

---

The Texas Penal Code is 100% going to have an issue with, at least, the last shot to the dome that occurred while holding the fake gun of the person he had just gotten done defending himself against.

---

Let's see...

quote:

---

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

---

There's no wiggle-room here. The criminal was in the process of committing aggravated robbery and that is covered by 9.31. Anyone who expects someone to shoot to wound in such a scenario is a MMQB'ing idiot. You shoot until the target is dead because in the heat of the moment you don't know:

-IF you hit them
-How well you may have hit them
-What drugs they may be on to temporarily shrug off any possible wounds and come after you again (yes, it happens)

This grand jury is a dog and pony show.