Alleged robber dies after victim shot him -- Downtown El Paso, TX

jhow1nm2 · Nov 12, 2011

EL PASO, Texas —

The El Paso Police Department confirmed an alleged robber has died after the alleged victim shot him this afternoon in Central El Paso. It happened just after 2 p.m, according El Paso Department Spokesman Javier Sambrano.

Authorities told KFOX14 a Hispanic man, supposedly in his twenties, tried to rob a 50-year-old white man near the intersection of Texas Ave. and N. Campbell St.

That's when the 50-year-old allegedly pulled out a weapon and shot the Hispanic man. Read the rest of the story.

http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/news/possible-deadly-shooting-central-el-paso/nFcJy/

One up for the good guys....

RetiredOC · Nov 12, 2011

why is it necessary to report the color of their skin tone? why not their shoe size? height? BMI?

EDIT: "They cannot confirm if he has died from his injuries."

Really? he was just shot... do they think he may have died from a 'broken heart?'

Fallschirjmäger · Nov 12, 2011

Why report sex or general age?
Why report the location it took place?
The report could always read "A person was shot while trying to rob another person near the intersection of one road with another."

The thing about information is that it's more useful than lack of information.
If you knew that 90% of all robberies took place at the intersection of Highwayman Way and Brigand Blvd, you may wish to avoid that area.
If you knew that there had never been a report an a female Inuit robbing anyone in Death Valley area you might not bother to file that away.

But, if you knew that 98% of all assaults were initiated by albino Tongans in Central Park between early evening and midnight and you found yourself in Central Park at 2300hrs and facing a group of albino Tongans...hey, it might come in handy and wouldn't be even the slightest bit prejudicial.

golddigger14s · Nov 13, 2011

Schlitz said:
why is it necessary to report the color of their skin tone? why not their shoe size? height? BMI?

EDIT: "They cannot confirm if he has died from his injuries."

Really? he was just shot... do they think he may have died from a 'broken heart?'

He died from lead poisoning!

jhow1nm2 · Nov 13, 2011

The first line is an update to the article...stating he did die.

They don't denote that it's an update though. They just inserted the update.

hogeaterf6 · Nov 13, 2011

Prob use race and sex for the statistics.

Badger Johnson · Nov 13, 2011

What I don't get/like is that they may freely report the name, address and other contact info on the victim and nothing on the alleged assailant.

I mean I get it, 'innocent until proven' but they are just too darn free reporting the victim's address, so that the perp's family can go visit.

Whisprsnthdark · Nov 15, 2011

First of all he was not Hispanic in anyway. He was native american/ German decent. Second he was by no means a criminal. He may have a few traffic violations but by no means criminal. He was a father of young 7 year old child and adoptive father to a child under a year old. He wasn't some Mexican robber or even just a robber that was looking to jack someone's car. What ever he did was not justifiably deserving of being shot point blank and killed as an unarmed man. I get the whole self defense thing, Oklahoma has similar laws but the weapon is also measured to the treat here. If you are armed and they aren't, you can't justify killing them considering that you knowingly carrying the weapon makes you more the threat to them, or anyone, than they are to you. Pointing the weapon at an unarmed man is more threat to them at that point then they are to you, especially in broad daylight. Drawing the gun gives enough warning for them to desist and if the assailant continues forward than a shot is justifiable, but drawing and shooting someone point blank without warning is just plain murder. A man with conceal and carry that actually carries his weapon is fully aware of what the laws are and what he can get away with. This man just saw what appeared to be just another mexican hopping over messing with his car went over to him and when he gave him lip shot him knowing he could justify it based on these loose laws. It's one thing to draw the weapon out of fear of bodily harm, but the situation changes as soon as the weapon is drawn and the opposing party is unarmed. His father has lost his first born son, his sisters have lost their big brother who always, always looked out for them, stood up for them and protected them. His sons have lost a father who loved them very much and was their little league football coach. People should have the right to protect themselves, but there needs to be much more responsibility and accountability with those freedoms.

DocWalker · Nov 15, 2011

Whisprsnthdark said:
First of all he was not Hispanic in anyway. He was native american/ German decent. Second he was by no means a criminal. He may have a few traffic violations but by no means criminal. He was a father of young 7 year old child and adoptive father to a child under a year old. He wasn't some Mexican robber or even just a robber that was looking to jack someone's car. What ever he did was not justifiably deserving of being shot point blank and killed as an unarmed man. I get the whole self defense thing, Oklahoma has similar laws but the weapon is also measured to the treat here. If you are armed and they aren't, you can't justify killing them considering that you knowingly carrying the weapon makes you more the threat to them, or anyone, than they are to you. Pointing the weapon at an unarmed man is more threat to them at that point then they are to you, especially in broad daylight. Drawing the gun gives enough warning for them to desist and if the assailant continues forward than a shot is justifiable, but drawing and shooting someone point blank without warning is just plain murder. A man with conceal and carry that actually carries his weapon is fully aware of what the laws are and what he can get away with. This man just saw what appeared to be just another mexican hopping over messing with his car went over to him and when he gave him lip shot him knowing he could justify it based on these loose laws. It's one thing to draw the weapon out of fear of bodily harm, but the situation changes as soon as the weapon is drawn and the opposing party is unarmed. His father has lost his first born son, his sisters have lost their big brother who always, always looked out for them, stood up for them and protected them. His sons have lost a father who loved them very much and was their little league football coach. People should have the right to protect themselves, but there needs to be much more responsibility and accountability with those freedoms.

Sounds like you are emotionally close to this case.

That being said if I'm forced to unholster my weapon in defense of my life it will be used until the threat is over. Just because someone doesn't have a weapon doesn't mean they can't kill you. I have seen people beat to death or injured so badly they where never the same. I wasn't there so this is just a option but I can't blame the victim (shooter) for defending themself as the saw fit. The attacker wasn't selling lemonaid but doing something ILLEGAL. It is a shame but if you don't do illegal things and don't attack someone else you won't find yourself in a position to be shot.

Whisprsnthdark · Nov 15, 2011

DocWalker said:
Sounds like you are emotionally close to this case.

That being said if I'm forced to unholster my weapon in defense of my life it will be used until the threat is over. Just because someone doesn't have a weapon doesn't mean they can't kill you. I have seen people beat to death or injured so badly they where never the same. I wasn't there so this is just a option but I can't blame the victim (shooter) for defending themself as the saw fit. The attacker wasn't selling lemonaid but doing something ILLEGAL. It is a shame but if you don't do illegal things and don't attack someone else you won't find yourself in a position to be shot.

I agree with you about the dangers of someone killing without a weapon and the use of their bare hands. Like I stated before drawing the weapon shifts the element of threat. Pointing the gun is considered used even if you do not pull the trigger. Again if they do not desist, pulling the trigger would he the next steps. Even if this happens fast your brain works fast enough to asses the shift in situation. There was no physical altercation in this case it was verbal in which the supposed "victim" drew the gun and fired point blank into the other mans chest. The owner of the vehicle that was allegedly being burglarized was not in the vehicle or near it when the "alleged robber" allegedly approached the vehicle. He went in to confront him. He knowingly carrying a deadly weapon confronted and unarmed asilant. The asilant was wearing a t-shirt that goes just above waistline in length, shorts and flip-flop sandals in broad daylight. The asilant was never in the vehicle and was shot on a public streat during afternoon hours in the day time. Yes everyone has the right to protect your things but is a car or stereo more important than a life regardless of who it is? It's called insurance... We have law enforcement for a reason. I served 8 years in the military and I know everything about selfdefense and using a weapon when my life is endangered, and in a time of war I cannot shoot an unarmed enemy unless he charges at me with intent to kill with or without weapon. We all have the right to bare arms, but you should also have high regards for human life if you are go carry one and point and shoot responsibly, because regardless of the situation and level of endangerment, every one is someoned child, father, friend, or sibling. Too many people deem to justify their excessive force with self defense. That shooting was irresponsible and ended badly regardless of who the victim was, and could of ended worse had he missed and killed a child or someone uninvolved. Not all bullets stop with the penetration of one body some continue to travel. The law protects your actions during night time because you cant see and properly asses the danger, but daytime is different.

A man faces off with another man 100 pounds heavier and stronger. The disadvantage puts his life in danger, then use of a weapon is justified. Two men of equal built face off, one is a black belt of the highest degree in martial arts is defending himself and kills the other man unarmed it's considered murder because along with the knowledge and skill to kill he also has the knowledge to immobilize and subdue his opponent without the need to kill. Add a gun to that scenario and and our high skilled Ninja would have to kill him with a weapon (not by his hands). A robber approaches you at night, your inability to asses weather he is armed because its dark and you cannot see and clear suspicion raises threat and fear in which case you have the right to draw your weapon and use the force necessary to end the threat. Not the same case in daylight. An unarmed man is a threat to another unarmed man. An unarmed man is not a threat to an armed man. If you are sensitive to feeling threatened by any reason and feel justifiable in your own mind you should not carry a weapon. If you are eager to defend yourself, you should not carry a weapon because chances are you will look for any excuse to use force. I had to shoot and kill a 17 year old kid in the head because he appeared to have explosives strapped to his abdomen. I wouldn't of shot him for trying to steal my laptop sitting outside my tent.

acmariner99 · Nov 15, 2011

What you are referring to is "disparity of force." Some would say that means whether one has a weapon or not. But if someone threatens me and is otherwise "unarmed" how do I know the individual doesn't know martial arts. I know I couldn't defend myself adequately against someone like that. When we carry we have an "invisible line" that we set in order to determine when the use of force becomes necessary to save life and limb. Once those criteria are met (intent to do harm + means to do harm), you have to act. Violent encounters are quick and are over in seconds. You don't have time to second guess yourself or you risk ending up victimized. Thankfully my state (Arizona) has what we call a "defensive display" law. If someone threatens you with physical or deadly force, you can respond by stating you are armed or by displaying the weapon by exposing it or placing a hand on it as if you were going to draw it. A common criminal with half a sense of self-preservation will find an easier target (hence one of the arguments in support of Open Carry.) If the indicators I mentioned earlier were present, -- which I understand the means to be somewhat vague at this point according to this story -- then the shooting is justifiable.

If someone threatens me and otherwise doesn't appear to have a weapon I would make every attempt to withdraw, but if the assailant charges me or otherwise presses his attack -- I have to respond.

DocWalker · Nov 15, 2011

Whisprsnthdark said:
1. I agree with you about the dangers of someone killing without a weapon and the use of their bare hands. Like I stated before drawing the weapon shifts the element of threat. Pointing the gun is considered used even if you do not pull the trigger. Again if they do not desist, pulling the trigger would he the next steps. Even if this happens fast your brain works fast enough to asses the shift in situation.

Pointing a gun doesn’t consider it as being used; firing it is all in the perception of the victim having to use it. I personally would only pull my weapon if I HAD to use it, if the danger is that great it needs to come out it will go bang.

2. There was no physical altercation in this case it was verbal in which the supposed "victim" drew the gun and fired point blank into the other mans chest. The owner of the vehicle that was allegedly being burglarized was not in the vehicle or near it when the "alleged robber" allegedly approached the vehicle.

A person doesn’t have to wait to have physical contact to feel threatened. If the victim can articulate he felt he was in danger then he will not be charged or will be aquitted.

3. He went in to confront him. He knowingly carrying a deadly weapon confronted and unarmed asilant. The asilant was wearing a t-shirt that goes just above waistline in length, shorts and flip-flop sandals in broad daylight. The asilant was never in the vehicle and was shot on a public streat during afternoon hours in the day time.

Some states have retreat law’s I’m not sure what the rules are where this happened. I would not try to say if the victim new the assailant was unarmed or not.

4. Yes everyone has the right to protect your things but is a car or stereo more important than a life regardless of who it is? It's called insurance... We have law enforcement for a reason.

We will have to disagree on this one, I’m old school and feel thieves and criminals should expect to die if you mess with someone. Treat people the way you would want to be treated, respect others and their property. Law abiding citizens are getting tired of being victims, I for one will not be a victim again. Insurance is for if the owner of car A hits car B car A’s insurance will fix car B’s.

Liability insurance doesn’t cover theft.

Law enforcement isn’t always around and they have no duty to protect you.

5. I served 8 years in the military and I know everything about self defense and using a weapon when my life is endangered, and in a time of war I cannot shoot an unarmed enemy unless he charges at me with intent to kill with or without weapon.

Congrats on your 8 years, I spent 23 years in the USAF with tours in Iraq 1991, Afghanistan 2004, and again in Iraq 2005. I’m a medical person and never had to draw my pistol as I was always busy treating casualties and I’m glad to hear you never shot an unarmed enemy unless you felt in danger.

6. We all have the right to bare arms, but you should also have high regards for human life if you are go carry one and point and shoot responsibly, because regardless of the situation and level of endangerment, every one is someoned child, father, friend, or sibling.

I agree but also feel criminals that threaten a citizen should be pushing up daisies.

7. Too many people deem to justify their excessive force with self defense. That shooting was irresponsible and ended badly regardless of who the victim was, and could of ended worse had he missed and killed a child or someone uninvolved.

The shooting being irresponsible is your option and saying “what if” or “could have” has no basis of fact for this.

8. Not all bullets stop with the penetration of one body some continue to travel.

This is where proper training for shot placement and bullet choice come into play. I like hollow points as they have stopping power and are less likely to penetrate the body.

9. The law protects your actions during night time because you cant see and properly asses the danger, but daytime is different.

The law applies equally in daytime as it does to night. I would hope the shooter doesn’t shoot blindly into the dark and can identify and aim at his/her target. Shooting into the dark is IRRISPONSIABLE.

10. A man faces off with another man 100 pounds heavier and stronger. The disadvantage puts his life in danger, then use of a weapon is justified. Two men of equal built face off, one is a black belt of the highest degree in martial arts is defending himself and kills the other man unarmed it's considered murder because along with the knowledge and skill to kill he also has the knowledge to immobilize and subdue his opponent without the need to kill. Add a gun to that scenario and and our high skilled Ninja would have to kill him with a weapon (not by his hands).

?? I don’t know where to begin to disagree. People that are defending themselves are not going to ask for a bio on his/her attacker. I know a lot of people that are smaller than me that can kick my butt, we will start with my wife.

11. A robber approaches you at night, your inability to asses weather he is armed because its dark and you cannot see and clear suspicion raises threat and fear in which case you have the right to draw your weapon and use the force necessary to end the threat. Not the same case in daylight. An unarmed man is a threat to another unarmed man. An unarmed man is not a threat to an armed man.

You have never seen a drug addict all stung out. Your whole day/night thing is not based in law. I do agree that you don’t shoot until you identify the target.

12. If you are sensitive to feeling threatened by any reason and feel justifiable in your own mind you should not carry a weapon. If you are eager to defend yourself, you should not carry a weapon because chances are you will look for any excuse to use force.

Someone asked an OC’er why they had a gun…what are you afraid of? The OC’er told him “I’m not afraid of anything now”.

cloudcroft · Nov 16, 2011

The moral of this story and so many others like it is (using "you" as a generic you, not referring to anyone in specific here, just to bully-boys/criminals in general):

1. Don't start something/mess with other people as you never know if they are armed or how they will react. They may react as you think (scared and submissive) or they may be "crazy" and shoot you before you can say "give me your money."

2. If they ARE armed, they may shoot you (without saying a word) just as soon as you try to rob/assault them or as soon as you produce a weapon of ANY kind -- gun, knife, bat, tire-iron, screwdriver, box-cutter, finger-nail file, golf club (the weenie liberals' weapon of choice) -- whatever. Or even if you just SAY you're going to hurt or kill them (verbal/physical intimidation/assault), they'll shoot you as they will take your WORD on that. After all, you want them to BELIEVE you, right?

3. It doesn't matter if you get shot/killed because your intended "victim" over-reacted, or shot you illegally (a "bad shoot" if you will), or if you tried to rob them because you just wanted to feed your family. You're taken at face value at that moment and you'll end up shot anyway. If not, you SHOULD have been shot.

4. When you start something/mess with someone, THEY decide what you get back, how it's going to end, not you or even the law. Nor any of us here in this forum -- WE wern't THERE on the line, the "victim" was -- it's HIS or HER call, not ours. And it doesn't matter what happens to the "victim" who shot you later on AFTER the "tragic event" is over -- charged with this or that if it WAS a "bad shoot" -- because YOU were shot/killed regardless, so your life is over. Besides, once the "victim" becomes the criminal, now HE/SHE has all the rights and can use the so-called Criminal Justice System's revolving-door just like other criminals do. Now HE/SHE will be back out on the street in no time. But you're still dead. So sad.

5. Most criminals have no psychological issues with shooting people for ANY reason, so why should people ruminate about shooting criminals? They shouldn't. As Nike used to say, "Just do it." Speak criminals' language, respond with overwhelming force. And you don't have to SAY anything. They understand that kind of "language" so be conversant in it. Yes, you DO have to get down to their level -- for a moment -- the DIFFERENCE is you can come back up to a higher level, but the criminal can't as they're low-lifes, that's just how they are. Trash. And yes, contrary to ignorant public belief, violence really DOES solve things, and a permanent solution is best for everyone.

So in short, don't start something/mess with other people. You deserve ANYTHING they choose -- rightly or wrongly -- to give back to you. If they want to hold you for police, let you run away (because you saw a gun and now aren't some big bad-ass tough-guy anymore), or shoot you dead on the spot (preferred) it's because that's the risk you're talking trying to bully/intimidate/assault/carjack/rob people.

There are LOTS of psycho-people out there appearing to be average citizens -- so don't mess with them.

You might get lucky, or maybe not, but if YOU choose to commit a criminal act against someone -- even try to bully/intimidate (verbally/physically because you're a big bad muscle-bound tough-guy) -- the "victim" can finish it however he/she wants, whether it's "right" (meaning in the eyes of the law) or not...especially if they couldn't care less about the consequences of shooting you. You know, like you'd do to them.

And some people are like that...so choose your "victims" at your own risk.

Yance · Nov 16, 2011

Sir, given your military training, as I have received similiar instruction, an unarmed combatant in a combat zone is far different than an unarmed assailant who is attempting to rob you in the middle of the sidewalk. Before a weapon is present how is one to know there is no weapon? Many banks have been robbed with a note saying the robber had a gun though he did not. How is a victim supposed to know their attacker is not hiding the weapon only waiting to pull it out if necessary? Would you wait long enough to find out?

cloudcroft · Nov 16, 2011

Bang!

...he shouldn't have presented the note.

"I am a simple soldier and as such I see things simply." -- General Ursus (Beneath the Planet of the Apes - 1970)

Badger Johnson · Nov 16, 2011

Whisprsnthdark said:
First of all he was not Hispanic in anyway... His father has lost his first born son, his sisters have lost their big brother who always, always looked out for them, stood up for them and protected them. His sons have lost a father who loved them very much and was their little league football coach. People should have the right to protect themselves, but there needs to be much more responsibility and accountability with those freedoms.

So you support the freedom of criminals to rob someone, but not the freedom to defend yourself against a potentially violent crime? You should seek treatment, because you might be delusional.

Hope this helps.

ixtow · Nov 17, 2011

DocWalker said:
is a car or stereo more important than a life regardless of who it is?

Any item is more valuable than the life of the person who would steal it from another individual.

Stealing from Wal Mart or the Grocery Store is not the same a stealing from an individual.

I know the law doesn't agree with these statements, but they are nonetheless true.

Badger Johnson · Nov 17, 2011

ixtow said:
Any item is more valuable than the life of the person who would steal it from another individual.

Stealing from Wal Mart or the Grocery Store is not the same a stealing from an individual.

I know the law doesn't agree with these statements, but they are nonetheless true.

If a person steals from you in a passive way (say you leave your wallet on the table for 30 seconds to get a coffee refill), that's one thing. But a confrontational robbery on the street is a violent crime. You don't know if the perp has a weapon, intends to silence witnesses, or what. He's taking away your 'self'. You are diminished by this action. In that case, confrontational, he deserves whatever he gets, including two rounds CoM.

DocWalker · Nov 17, 2011

ixtow said:
Any item is more valuable than the life of the person who would steal it from another individual.

Stealing from Wal Mart or the Grocery Store is not the same a stealing from an individual.

I know the law doesn't agree with these statements, but they are nonetheless true.

I agree totally, that was someone elses quote I was trying to answer. I couldn't figurer out how to get multiple quote boxes. The numbered paragraphs are his quotes with my answers underneath. One day I will figure out how you guys do all those fancy computer tricks.

cloudcroft · Nov 17, 2011

I agree with ixtow 100% also.

That "all life is sacred" nonsense is a naive, ignorant liberal mantra. Purely theoretical and nothing based on reality.

Bad people -- who instantly identify themselves as such when they try to do bad things to others (so no need to figure it out yourself, or "label" anyone: They've just labeled themselves for you) -- their lives aren't worth crap.

Treat them accordingly.

P.S. Hopefully, if there EVER is a "New America" (after a Civil War II or Culture War I, or maybe after some states secede -- if any of that happens) all those stupid laws denying reality and infringing on citizens rights (instead of criminals) will be done away with. It'll be open-season on criminals EVERY time they appear. Citizens shooting criminals will each receive a public-service medal, plaque and a box of ammo in the caliber of their choice.

Yeah, I know, that's not likely to happen, but it should.

Alleged robber dies after victim shot him -- Downtown El Paso, TX

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Active member

Activist Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran