Justified shooting? What say you?

[Fatcamp]

Used to be. Disobedience of most court orders turns the matter into criminal, orders are not optional. If a judge doesn't want an arrest for disobedience they specify in the order what action will be taken as an alternative, i.e. "failure to comply with this order will be addressed at our next scheduled hearing".

A child who is missing sure as bananas results in a search. It would likely result in a warrantless entry if the reasons can be articulated. I would think most any LEO should be able to articulate, "the guardian who previously had custody time was present, the child was not. The guardian who currently had custody time was present and had not seen the child. The guardian who previously had custody time said they didn't know where the child was. Based on these circumstances, I believed the child was missing." I can't imagine any LEO showing up at a missing child call shrugging their shoulders and leaving.

IDK, man. I think it's a stretch. When I went through my divorce I was very in tune with what goes on and numerous people report not being given access to kids and LEO referring them to the courts.

"Missing child", whose whereabouts are unknown is a different issue. I'm assuming mother is custodial guardian, who may not be inclined to give details to an ex who obviously has some issues with self control.

 

[Squincher]

Yep, there is too much we don't know to say for sure. But we'll find out if we wait.

 

[Actual_Cryptid]

I think the thing people are missing on self defense in Texas is that the shooter just has to FEEL like his life is in jeopardy or threatened. He doesn’t have to show that his life was actually in jeopardy.

I suspect any look at caselaw will tell you that the courts apply a reasonable person standard. Merely saying "I felt like my life was in danger" is not enough in any state. You'll find the words "reasonably believes" in the statute.

So if he has to show up in court, he will have to demonstrate that it was a reasonable belief that the man standing ten feet away, unarmed, was an immediate (another word from the statute) threat to his life or person, and just saying "I felt threatened" doesn't cut it. The length of time of the entire conflict, going inside to bring a gun out and stand there with it, and then the distance between the two at the time of the shooting all contradict any claim of an immediate threat requiring lethal force.

 

[sndmn11]

IDK, man. I think it's a stretch. When I went through my divorce I was very in tune with what goes on and numerous people report not being given access to kids and LEO referring them to the courts.

"Missing child", whose whereabouts are unknown is a different issue. I'm assuming mother is custodial guardian, who may not be inclined to give details to an ex who obviously has some issues with self control.

I sent a PM since we are out in the weeds.

 

[GSPHUNTER]

Hid wife has filed a $50 million wrongful death suit. Now it starts.

 

[orionthehunter1]

Hid wife has filed a $50 million wrongful death suit. Now it starts.

Figured that was coming he might get off criminally but he is f'd civilly

 

[PredatorSlayer]

Fair to argue he was trying to grab the gun to not get shot by a guy trying to murder him?

Did you listen to the audio? Dead guy clearly states he intends to take the gun away and use it on him.

 

[Mtnboy]

Did you listen to the audio? Dead guy clearly states he intends to take the gun away and use it on him.

Yeah....then the dude stepped back 10ft. and shot him....there was no threat of the gun being taken away or bodily harm to the shooter when he pulled the trigger.

Dude deserves to hang and it'd be great if they would do it in a timely manner to save some tax payer money but we all know that ain't gonna happen.

 

[PredatorSlayer]

Yeah....then the dude stepped back 10ft. and shot him....there was no threat of the gun being taken away or bodily harm to the shooter when he pulled the trigger.

Dude deserves to hang and it'd be great if they would do it in a timely manner to save some tax payer money but we all know that ain't gonna happen.

Except for he didnt step back, he was thrown back.

 

[GSPHUNTER]

Has anyone seen a video that shows what the victim was doing just before being shot. In the video I have seen only the shooter is visible.

 

[grappling_hook]

Has anyone seen a video that shows what the victim was doing just before being shot. In the video I have seen only the shooter is visible.

The video from inside the house shows that, at the point he was shot, he was standing still on the wood deck with his arms at his sides (slightly swinging). No forward motion. He also didn't appear to be saying anything (edit- he could be heard clearly prior to that point, but if he was saying anything right before/during the last two shots, it isn't being picked up and his mouth/jaw as visible from the side don't appear to indicate he's speaking).

 

[WCB]

Lawfully in Texas is he justified....IDK. From what I have read on it probably?

IMO the shooter has little man syndrome. Was in no threat of harm from the other guy UNTIL he went inside for a good amount of time and came back out with a firearm. He escalated it WAY beyond what it needed to be. When he went inside he should have called the cops and had the guy trespassed. He obviously had no care for the woman or her child. AND, imo was looking to shoot the guy before it got physical.

At the same time the dad probably shouldn't have tried to fight a guy with a gun.

Also, wtf is it with no one trying to help the guy that got shot and being so calm?

I also think cases like this or the Rittenhouse one are catalysts for self defense laws changing. People will claim "but this is Texas" well Texas is changing and idiots like the shooter can get a lot of minds changed.

 

[Mtnboy]

Except for he didnt step back, he was thrown back.

Maybe you're right, I suppose if someone had almost blown my foot off with a negligent discharge after unnecessarily bringing a gun into an argument they weren't a part of I'd probably push them away from me too.

Little man was 100% in the wrong, if it's not found that way in court it's a travesty.

I also agree with those saying that this was very likely the intended outcome of this altercation long before the deceased even showed up on the property. I'm not a lawyer but I believe they call that pre meditated murder.

Hang 'em.

 

[grappling_hook]

I also agree with those saying that this was very likely the intended outcome of this altercation long before the deceased even showed up on the property. I'm not a lawyer but I believe they call that pre meditated murder.

Phone, text, and messenger app records being subpoenaed could potentially answer that, too. You would think people would only discuss such things verbally and in the same room behind closed doors. Yet I’ve been surprised to see details of big drug deals and assaults planned over Facebook Messenger. Bet little man wouldn’t have been smart enough to have covered those tracks even being married to a judge (if premeditated, after all it’s just speculation on that).

 

[bdg848]

Not even close. There was no reason to believe anyone's life was in danger when the dude introduced a firearm into the situation. You have a civil dispute between CO-PARENTS. He was being loud, yes, but was not making any threats other than threatening civil litigation against them for, presumably, violating the custody agreement. Then when confronted with a weapon for no legal reason, the victim gets in his face but has his hands at his sides when the dude shoots at his foot. After the victim is shot at, he then throws the man away from him (good luck convincing 12 people that being spun and pushed a few feet was a legitimate threat to your life) and then the man shoots him from some distance away with no further apparent aggression from the victim prior to firing at him.

You cannot provoke a physical altercation and then use self defense as an excuse. At no point was it physical until the suspect brought a weapon. And, No, 'trespass' isn't a justification for deadly force in and of itself. There must be a reasonable belief that your life or safety or that of another is in jeopardy.

 

[bdg848]

There may be no legal need to retreat from a threat in that state...child custody issues can be very ugly...hard to just walk away.

'Duty to retreat'...from a deadly threat...even if there is not a duty to retreat, if there is no deadly threat to retreat from or stand your ground against then self defense isn't a defense, it's just murder.

 

[GSPHUNTER]

I just went back and watched video from post #55. video from inside house. Lawyers will take it Fram by Fram and say the shooting was unprovoked. Looks to me chad was on the porch not posing a threat when he was shot. Kyle may well go down on that video alone.

 

[TheTone]

Did you listen to the audio? Dead guy clearly states he intends to take the gun away and use it on him.

After being threatened with a gun that seems a fair thing to say. I don’t see where the dead guy ever presented a threat to life or cause great bodily harm, especially after the shooter introduced a gun into the situation

 

[tdhanses]

There has to be way more history behind this, no way this was the first altercation. It is such a weird video, the guy that gets shot shouldn’t of even come to his ex’s place of work, that’s what i understood the place to be, a business. Also sounds like the guy shot was told numerous times his son wasn’t there.

I’m not going to rush to judgement as there has to be much more to this, doubt little guy just shot the guy because he wouldn’t leave, has to be more history to this or why was the lady even taking video unless she expected viloence of some sort and the guy shot went there to provoke it.

I will say the ex wife backs down and puts her hands up like shes scared of the dad.

Just makes you wonder what the entire story is that even led up to this happening, it was more then just child custody.

 

[bdg848]

Maybe so, but LEO arresting people on the spot and applying for warrants while holding people in custody? Man, I have never heard of that.

What I hear is LEO telling people to talk to the judge.

I'm LE. Not Texas, but it is 100% a civil matter here. We will NOT forcefully remove a child from the parent or guardian unless the child is in danger, even if they are in violation of a custody agreement. We give you a report number, you go to court, and the judge can hold them in contempt. Another reason the shooter was wrong...the standard isn't "leave or else I kill you" over a civil dispute....or at WORST a simple misdemeanor trespass....the standard is reasonable believe you are about to suffer great bodily harm or death.