Justified shooting? What say you?

[amassi]

The thing that i find amazing is that the guy is laying there shot and they are still arguing.

And not a single person out of six checks in him.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[EastMT]

Looks like a $hit show. Bad decisions by all involved. There is no more dangerous situation than a domestic for a responding officer, has to be worse for the opposing dudes. Big egos and a baby momma doesn’t end well.

 

[sndmn11]

I didn't watch with sound. No way would I ever think that shooting was justified.

 

[Crowmangler]

Pure speculation here but just from the weirdness of it all it damn sure looks like it was a set up for the baby mama to rid the world of her ex.
On another note, as a dad I would also be livid if my child was put in a dangerous position or I didn't know where he was so I understand his anger. But definitely NOT the way to handle it.
I feel sorry for the kid who will grow up without a dad (and apparently a bat shit crazy mom)

 

[Rich M]

if a guy with a gun tells you to get off his lawn, what do ya do? LOL!

 

[tdot]

Everybody is guilty of dumb f^ckery. It sounds like the situation has been ugly for a long time. But that wasn't self defense.

Unfortunately if the shooter pleads self defense, that'll be used by the left to futher inflame their anti-everything rhetoric.

I feel bad for the kids. That's horrible.

 

[Squincher]

I have to wonder if the guy who was shot was purposely cropped out of the video when the shot was fired, and if he was, who did it. Without seeing what he was doing when he was shot, I can't say one way or the other. Especially based solely on an article from a NYC newspaper.

 

[orionthehunter1]

I'm not justifying it but according to some research and it being in Texas he will probably get off on the castle doctrine. I feel bad for the kids. This whole things seems suspicious because no one in the video seemed shock that the guy got shot. I also have to question the victims wife who was videoing in the car. She was more concerned about telling the guy she was filming him then her husband bleeding out on the porch.

 

[P Carter]

Overall bizarre scenario. I agree that the kids are real losers here. Assuming this is real, I just don’t see any basis for this being justified. I just don’t see a life-or-death scenario here.

The shooter is having an argument, apparently wants the guy gone (or wants to win the argument, probably a mix of both), goes and gets his gun, and then shoots the guy after shooter has warded off non-shooters attempt to tackle him.

Getting the gun also appears to have been done as a response to the non-shooters response “Or what?” to the shooters’ command the the non-shooter leave. Shooter seems to have desired to up the ante by getting the gun. And that’s exactly what he got. Non-shooter is now even more animated and acting even more macho. But never life threatening.

You can shoot someone if you reasonably fear for your life. You can’t shoot someone just because you think he’s going to chest bump or try to tackle you again. (Or because he doesn’t back down in a argument.)

Im a pro-2A, pro-stand-your-ground guy. But you can’t—and shouldn’t be able to—bring a gun to an argument and then shoot someone down unless you have an honest, reasonable fear that your life is in danger. I don’t see anything close to that here.

 

[Gunnersdad49]

Shooter should have never introduced the gun. Dead guy’s only threat was court action prior to the gun coming out. Sounded like shooter’s lady was not following a court order for visitation. Should have locked the door and called the cops if they were scared. Bad shoot.

 

[P Carter]

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.

 

[Poser]

It’s amazing that there is no reaction by anyone to the shooting. Even the shooter doesn’t seem affected: it’s as if he knocked the guy out with a punch.

 

[Rob5589]

Dude introduced a gun into a verbal argument. No hands on, no verbal threats, the ex's weren't even in one another's space. Of course, according to what was shown in the video.

 

[MTN BUM]

I could see myself in both positions if my kids were involved. Big guy should have left. Little guy should have stayed at the ready, brought the girlfriend inside, and called the cops. Bottom line is I dont think that it is criminal. The big guy had plenty of warnings, was trespassing, and made a hostile move after warning shots. Stupid on both of their parts, now someone is dead. But Little Guy clearly has the right to defend himself, his girlfriend, and his property. When people say leave or I will shoot, generally a good idea to leave. Especially in TX, where they will probably shoot.

 

[Broomd]

From a TX concealed instructor at another forum:

Texas Law allows you to threaten someone with Deadly Force ONLY if the use of Deadly Force would have been Justified According to Texas Penal Code.
The Shooter had no justification for threatening Deadly Force. Not for Trespassing and Not for a Verbal Argument. That’s not Legal Justification.
He became the Aggressor when he went in his house and brought a gun back out to a Verbal Argument. He had no Justification to Threaten Deadly Force. He fuqked up. Period.

 

[MTN BUM]

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.

Why would you re-think support for "castle"? The little guy did not seek out confrontation. Someone brought it to him. He did not handle it well, but he was not the aggressor. He felt threatened, and probably was in real danger by the time the gun is introduced. The purpose of castle in my opinion is to make clear that there is no excuse for aggressively entering someone's property, and if you do you can face deadly force. That is what happened to big guy. He entered the property, was aggressive, and did not leave when told to. He shouldn't have been shot over it, but he also should have understood that he could be shot over it. It is not the fault of the law. It is the fault of the guy who went uninvited to another man's house, physically assaulted his girlfriend and the other man, and refused to leave after being told to, even when a gun (initially not used) was brought into play. If you get shot in that situation (unless its in the back while walking away) you have put yourself into the situation. The burden is not on the homeowner to prove that he was afraid, the burden is on the moron to not trespass and threaten someone after being told to leave.

 

[Squincher]

If we see a version of this video in a few days that shows this one was edited to conceal the "victim" pulling a gun or knife, will that finally be enough for people to stop making judgements based on media accounts? Have we already forgotten what the media tried to do to Kyle Rittenhouse?

 

[sndmn11]

Have we already forgotten what the media tried to do to Kyle Rittenhouse?

Speaking of Rittenhouse, wasn't he found not guilty because folks chased him? In other words, they brought the fight to him and were the aggressors.
The video of this porch incident I watched show a guy leave a situation, go inside a safer place, retrieve a firearm, remove himself from a safe place by exiting through a barrier (door), and menacing a person who was no physical threat with the firearm.
All of that adds up to me seeing the shooter as the aggressor in the situation, and the victim confronting the shooter just like glorious Rittenhouse did. Unlike Rittenhouse, this victim of aggressive action ended up losing. The shooter doesn't have a leg to stand on, and should see a first degree, or whatever premeditated murder is in TX, and it is my personal opinion that responsible gunowners should champion that action.

 

[Warmsy]

In the case of arbery and Rittenhouse and this one, people are brandishing weapons. I think that subconsciously, that escalates the force being presented. Not that it's wrong, but it's like saying"f you, you're a little bit h". Them's fightin' words. Had either one of the 5 had a concealed pistol, I bet none of these incidents would have happened. Bluster and chest bump, yell, whatever, and the shit he ead in the situation will often walk away talking trash. I get the dude on the porch was legal and perhaps felt the need to brandish/use it, but leave it inside the doorway, maybe?

 

[Broomd]

A Bone-Chilling Viral Video of a Shooting Sparks a Debate Over Self-Defense and Offers Some Important Lessons

redstate.com