Justified shooting? What say you?

[TheTone]

Would people supporting the shooter feel the victim would have been justified to turn the tables and defend himself with a gun of his own if he had one once the guy came out with the gun?

 

[mlgc20]

Yeah, you can’t do that.

 

[ez_willie]

How crazy do you gatta be to fire a warning shot during an ammo shortage..

 

[MichaelO]

we can all say what we would have done or what we would do on the jury but the only thing that matters here is the law. So here it is

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

The relevant part IMO-man with the gun provoked the person whom the force was used against by introducing a gun to a situation where he was aiding in the violation of a court ordered custody agreement. Top it off with up until said gun was introduced by the man who pulled the trigger this was a verbal altercation.

that IMO is why this does not meet the legal standard of self defense in this state. I would convict.This is a sad situation in which a child will now grow up without his father and several peoples lives will be ruined by the media attention alone. That man could have walked inside and grabbed a cell phone to call 911 to sort out the situation but he decided to introduce a firearm where it wasn’t YET required.

I’ve been in a situation that most likely I could have drawn my weapon and used it but managed to solve the problem with words and hands. A life is a sacred thing that should only be taken as an absolute last resort. I’m all for armed self defense but that is an absolute last resort.

2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is

 

[landman650]

Adding to this: I’m no expert in this area, but I thought the castle doctrine applied to inside your house, clarifying that you had no duty to retreat before using deadly force in self defense within your house. It doesn’t mean you can just shoot anyone in your house, much less outside your house.

I always thought stand you ground was, similarly, that you didn’t have a duty to retreat from an attacker before using force in self defense. But the standard for self defense is still the same: you have to have a reasonable fear of life or serious injury.
I thought the castle doctrine and stand your ground was a response to case law saying even if your life was threatened, you had to try and retreat before using deadly force. To me, that is crazy and stand your ground makes sense.

But if this incident is a castle doctrine or stand your ground case, I suppose I’ve misunderstood and would even rethink my support for those doctrines. As pro-gun as I am, you shouldn’t legally protect folks who inject a gun into a non-life-threatening situation and inflame a heated-but-non-violent custody dispute into a shooting incident.

Castle could be applied to your whole property.

 

[Felix40]

Can you still apply castle doctrine when the homeowner is possibly keeping a father’s kids from him? It’s unclear to me if the kids were actually in the house or somewhere else. If they were in the house I can’t see how the shooting was justified.

 

[D_Dubya]

That’s straight up murder right there.

 

[Alaska_Joe]

I definitely think the guy who shot him is an absolute piece of garbage, but I could see it going the way of the shooter. The father was on the other guy’s property, it’s legal in Texas to brandish a gun, the father initiated the physical confrontation, tried to grab the gun… I’m pretty sure Texas law is pretty liberal in how it applies castle clause and legally the guy had no obligation to retreat. Terrible situation all around. Ego shoot for sure, but the law might see it otherwise

 

[MichaelO]

Can you still apply castle doctrine when the homeowner is possibly keeping a father’s kids from him? It’s unclear to me if the kids were actually in the house or somewhere else. If they were in the house I can’t see how the shooting was justified.

Disclaimer:not a lawyer, just a guy who went to college for law enforcement and learned how to look up relevant laws and case law.

Castle doctrine or more broadly self defense doctrine in all states I’m aware of requires that the person claiming self defense is lawfully present in the situation. That person cannot claim self defense if in commission of a crime.

in Texas willful violation of a custody agreement, temporary or judge ordered included, is a felony

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 25. OFFENSES AGAINST THE FAMILY

From what I’m seeing in Texas it appears that the man who was shot would have potentially been legally allowed to effect a citizens arrest on the man who introduced the firearm since he was in commission of at least one if not several felony counts.

2005 Texas Code of Criminal Procedure CHAPTER 14. ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT

law.justia.com

Would man with the gun be justified if he shot a peace officer? He shot someone in the commission of a felony (assuming he was preventing the deceased from court ordered custody)

 

[grappling_hook]

Disclaimer:not a lawyer, just a guy who went to college for law enforcement and learned how to look up relevant laws and case law.

Castle doctrine or more broadly self defense doctrine in all states I’m aware of requires that the person claiming self defense is lawfully present in the situation. That person cannot claim self defense if in commission of a crime.

in Texas willful violation of a custody agreement, temporary or judge ordered included, is a felony

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 25. OFFENSES AGAINST THE FAMILY

From what I’m seeing in Texas it appears that the man who was shot would have potentially been legally allowed to effect a citizens arrest on the man who introduced the firearm since he was in commission of at least one if not several felony counts.

2005 Texas Code of Criminal Procedure CHAPTER 14. ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT

law.justia.com

Would man with the gun be justified if he shot a peace officer? He shot someone in the commission of a felony (assuming he was preventing the deceased from court ordered custody)

All good, except that you do not give up your right to self defense if you are doing something illegal.

 

[Okhotnik]

Castle could be applied to your whole property.

A felony has to be committed for castle doctrine applied. A Dad upset at his ex because she violated a court order is not a felony. During the entire video the deceased made no threatening actions. He was very upset at his ex because she was keeping his son from him. He never threatened the ex or moved toward her in a threatening manner. The deceased tried to grab the shooter's firearm when he threatened him and shot at him. You can't fire warning shots in Texas. The shooter shot at the deceased form over 10 feet away while the deceased stood still with his arms down at his sides.

 

[Okhotnik]

Would people supporting the shooter feel the victim would have been justified to turn the tables and defend himself with a gun of his own if he had one once the guy came out with the gun?

Absolutely, especially the shooter shot at him. That warning shot at his feet sunk the shooter's case.

 

[Fatcamp]

Absolutely, especially the shooter shot at him. That warning shot at his feet sunk the shooter's case.

Warning shot or AD?

 

[Okhotnik]

Warning shot or AD?

or maybe he was shooting a cottonmouth trying to bite his ankle and actually saved his life before he had to kill him?

 

[Fatcamp]

or maybe he was shooting a cottonmouth trying to bite his ankle and actually saved his life before he had to kill him?

Whether you like it or not that is what the defense will say.

Anyone look into the past of dead guy? History of violent assault?

 

[NoWiser]

Unfortunately the guy who should have been packing for self-defense didn’t have a gun on him. That was, plain and simply, murder. Anyone who disagrees shouldn’t own a gun.

 

[flatlanderhuffandpuff]

These domestic incidents often have way more of a backstory than a 2 minute video.

It's a shame a kid didn't have a single parental figure who had the emotional intelligence to deescalate this situation. It seems in the video to have been 100% avoidable.

I think it was justified because the big guy moved in on the little guy.

It appeared to be a Pistol caliber carbine and not a shotgun.

 

[wind gypsy]

Haven't read all the comments but if this guy were to get off with a castle doctrine defense its a bad look for the castle doctrine.

 

[flatlanderhuffandpuff]

Oh yeah, Just watched the video from the inside of the house. There was no threat at the time he took the shot. Bad shoot.

He is going away for that one.

 

[Broomd]

Oh yeah, Just watched the video from the inside of the house. There was no threat at the time he took the shot. Bad shoot.

He is going away for that one.

Yep, those few seconds and images are damning.
A shot in the leg, arm, anything would have at least kept the guy alive and little man would have had his ego stroked.
Shooting center mass on a non-aggressive man standing 10 feet away was at the least manslaughter and likely murder, imho.
This will likely come to the jury deciding if the unarmed deceased's chest bumping, pushing off porch, etc. constituted a lethal threat to heavily armed little guy.