You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Great Cultural Revolution
[4] Houston activists call for arrest of armed taqueria diner who shot, killed robbery suspect
2023-01-17
It had to happen
[FoxNews] Local activists said the patron went beyond self-defense when he shot and killed 30-year-old Eric Eugene, who was robbing customers at gunpoint with a fake weapon.

Community activists in Houston are calling for a restaurant patron who shot and killed a robbery suspect during a holdup to be arrested, saying he went beyond self-defense despite many calling him a hero.

Customers were eating inside a local taqueria when 30-year-old Eric Eugene Washington entered and pointed a pistol at them and demanded cash. As he gathered the cash, an armed patron can be seen on surveillance video getting up from the booth he was sitting in and shooting his pistol at Washington multiple times.

"He was within the law when he fired the first initial shots," said activist Quanell X in a news conference in front of the establishment. "But we believe he went from being a law-abiding citizen to a lawbreaker."

Washington ultimately fell to the ground and died. The unidentified shooter has not been charged and has cooperated with authorities.

The man's attorney released a statement saying: "In Texas, a shooting is justified in self-defense, defense of others, and defense of property."

The armed diner has been hailed a hero by many but local activists said he went beyond self-defense when he fired several more times than needed to neutralize the threat posed by Washington, who was holding a fake gun.

"You do not go and shoot someone over and over when they are no longer a threat," said Candace Matthews of the New Black Panther Nation. "He was actually in the clear for a justified kill by shooting him like he did the first time when he was no longer a threat."

The shooter fired a total of nine shots as Washington was leaving the restaurant. Washington was shot as he was on the restaurant floor after he had been disarmed, Fox Houston reported.

"I'm hoping the grand jury does something because if they don't, the message that will be sent will be the wild wild west," Quanell X said. "He should be charged with something," saying the man left the scene before authorities arrived and fired even after Washington was unarmed.

He noted that he doesn't condone Washington's actions and that he deserved to be punished, but not killed. He also said the shooter dumped a drink on Washington as he was leaving the restaurant and threw a cup at him.

"At the least, it's called abuse of a corpse, that's a misdemeanor crime in Harris County," he said.

Washington's mother, Corine Goodman, said the shooter should have stopped firing as soon as there was no longer a threat.

"If you had to kill him, I can deal with that. I can come to grips with that. He did something wrong, I understand that," she said. "But for him to be shot four times in the back leaving and when he falls down and he shoots him four more times. He abused him."

A grand jury is weighing whether the shooter will face charges.

Washington had a lengthy criminal history. In 2015, he was convicted of a lesser charge of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and sentenced to 15 years in prison in connection to the shooting death of 62-year-old Hamid Waraich a father of three sons who was engaged, KTRK-TV reported.

He was paroled in 2021 and charged with assaulting his girlfriend in December 2022.
Related:
New Black Panther: 2022-10-25 Biden Wingman Merrick Garland Set to Announce Probe of 'Homegrown' 'Election Infrastructure Threats'
New Black Panther: 2022-09-27 'Take your a** home!' Heavily-armed black rights groups march through Austin chanting anti-illegal migrant slogans, demands Biden 'close the border' and calls for 'reparations to be paid NOW'
New Black Panther: 2022-09-07 '25,000 dead registrants': Why legal nonprofit is suing Soros-backed Michigan elections chief
Posted by:Skidmark

#18  Soros DA can’t spring you if you are dead.
Posted by: Super Hose   2023-01-17 21:52  

#17  During the BLM riot season, one of neighbors who is a cop in HPD told me how the brass were afraid the marches in houston would turn violent. So the HPD kept them under control. They were afraid that if they rioted and started burning and looting, it'd be a bloodbath when they got out of downtown and hit residential. And it would have been because SO many people in this area simply won't roll over. You try to destroy their stuff and they WILL KILL YOU. And the laws in this state let you do it. After dark, we are permitted to employ lethal force to prevent virtually any criminal mischief on our property.

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY



Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.




Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.




Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or

(2) the actor reasonably believes that:

(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;

(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or

(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.




Sec. 9.44. USE OF DEVICE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. The justification afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to the use of a device to protect land or tangible, movable property if:

(1) the device is not designed to cause, or known by the actor to create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury; and

(2) use of the device is reasonable under all the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be when he installs the device.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 913, ch. 342, Sec. 6, eff. Sept. 1, 1975. Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Posted by: Silentbrick   2023-01-17 15:58  

#16  Almost 40 years ago the jurors in Baton Rouge sentenced a cold blooded killer to community service and probation… look up Plauche Doucet Baton Rouge airport. Houston jurors, take note.
Posted by: Glenmore    2023-01-17 14:56  

#15  "By all means.....move."
Posted by: swksvolFF   2023-01-17 12:59  

#14  I would not advise violent property destroying BLM riots for this incident.
Posted by: Super Hose   2023-01-17 12:48  

#13  Racist AND stupid, not a way to go thru life.
Posted by: Skidmark   2023-01-17 11:26  

#12  Local loser tries to rob Texans with an airsoft gun, leaving him in a State of Palestine.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2023-01-17 10:07  

#11  Quannellex sounds like one of them prescription medicines.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2023-01-17 10:05  

#10  #5 southern states

You mean, like, the Caucasus?
Posted by: Herman the Herban5192   2023-01-17 09:03  

#9  I was expecting Quanell to sound off. He hasn't been on TV in a while.
Next to be heard from is Sheila Jack-a$$ Lee.
We would normally get Sylvester Turner in here, but he's now the mayor.
Posted by: ed in texas   2023-01-17 09:02  

#8  You don't necessarily get to say how something ends just because you start it.
Posted by: Cesare   2023-01-17 08:53  

#7  ^ golf clap
Posted by: Procopius2k   2023-01-17 08:24  

#6  Maybe it's being picky.

But, when we have video staring us in the face showing the THUG robbing people, he should no longer be called a SUSPECT.

Or, should we also say the person rumored to be dead?
Posted by: NN2N1   2023-01-17 08:07  

#5  You never spent any time in the southern states, have you Herman.
Posted by: Skidmark   2023-01-17 08:02  

#4  You can always count on them to take the side of their own people. They're much like Jewish people in that way. They have loyalty towards their own ethnicity.

It's a weird concept to wrap your head around if you're white.
Posted by: Herman Hapsburg8987   2023-01-17 07:46  

#3  Washington had a lengthy criminal history. In 2015, he was convicted of a lesser charge of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and sentenced to 15 years in prison in connection to the shooting death of 62-year-old Hamid Waraich a father of three sons who was engaged, KTRK-TV reported. He was paroled in 2021 and charged with assaulting his girlfriend in December 2022

The robee/shooter did the job that the criminal justice system wouldn't. He deserves a medal.
Posted by: Shinesh Dark Lord of the Danes3020   2023-01-17 02:22  

#2  That's how you rub someone out.
Posted by: John Martoano   2023-01-17 01:10  

#1  A.K.A New Black Panthers
Posted by: Mad Eye Omeretch7959   2023-01-17 01:00  

00:00