Justified shooting? What say you?

[GSPHUNTER]

Let it sit w you any way you want. I really dont care about the case and think it is a stupid situation. Oddest thing is that noone seems to care about dead guy.

We werent there and dont have all the info. Cant make an educated assessment or decision until we have the facts. Dont allow your emotions to be in control.

That a fact.

 

[WCB]

This!!
A few things the ....’this is murder’ crowd, fails to recognize.
Little man (aka, the shooter) has a legal right to carry a weapon any time he feels like it. In fact, isn’t it more advantageous to carry a weapon when one can EXPECT danger? ( answer, of course it is).
Secondly, the statement often made regarding the little guy being a ‘chicken’ of the bigger guy. To that I offer this.... DUH!!! Are you the same folks who the idiot lawyer who spoke against Kyle Rittenhouse appealed to when he stupidly stated...’we all have to take a beating once in a while’. (Really??? That’s BS).
Thirdly, when big (dead) man says to ‘little man’... I’m gonna take your gun and use it on you’, that statement immediately puts little man reason for ‘fear of life’ mode. That mode does not necessarily change for a scrawny ‘little man’ just because there’s 5 seconds and ten feet from the two of them. Especially since he was flung those ten feet off the porch.
You need 12 jurors to come to guilty verdict. You only need one juror to hang the jury. Based on the so called facts as I see them so far, no way do I vote guilty.
Obviously we don’t know all the facts yet so I’m open to change my mind but.....
I hope that those defenders of the big (dead) guy don’t make as many foolish and dangerously idiotic decisions in their personal lives as he did. If so, God help you.

Not sure if I fall into the "murder" crowd but I definitely think little man escalated it beyond what it needed to be. And I carry every day all day...no problem with rights to carry. BUT I think what most people are seeing is he was in no danger or if he was he then left danger for a decent amount of time and then upped the danger by going and retrieving a firearm.

Again...dead guy dumb for going at a guy with a gun...little man dumb for leaving "danger" to go get a firearm in this situation.

The Rittenhouse situation IMO was completely different as he had the firearm 100% of the time that night.

 

[Fatcamp]

Pred, I'm hearing you man, but I can't get passed this....with 10-12' between them, a center mass shot is a bridge too far. The optics are horrible. Can't see a jury rolling with this, even in Tejas....
View attachment 351844

You can't see deaded guys hands in that video.

People have different experience with violence. This group has obviously seen a bit.

 

[weaver]

No matter the circumstances leading up to it, the only question that needs answered imo is was the shooter in any immediate danger when he pulled the trigger. He could have warned him to not come a step closer.
Unless the victim had a weapon we can’t see that was murder imho.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LLRJ17]

The The Law of Self Defense is an outstanding book by attorney Andrew F. Branca. The chapter on imminence (IIRC) directly addresses the actions of the shooter going to retrieve a weapon.

Also, I highly recommend that everyone read the article How Close is Too Close? by Dennis Tueller about the 21-foot, 1.5 second rule. Demonstrated foreknowledge to the tenants of this article is said to be invaluable in self defense claims. Download/print it, read it, date stamp it, and make note somewhere that you read it.

 

[sndmn11]

The The Law of Self Defense is an outstanding book by attorney Andrew F. Branca. The chapter on imminence (IIRC) directly addresses the actions of the shooter going to retrieve a weapon.

Also, I highly recommend that everyone read the article How Close is Too Close? by Dennis Tueller about the 21-foot, 1.5 second rule. Demonstrated foreknowledge to the tenants of this article is said to be invaluable in self defense claims. Download/print it, read it, date stamp it, and make note somewhere that you read it.

What does Branca say?

I personally wouldn't buy into the 21' rule in this case. Even the linked article speaks to obtaining cover, not leaving cover as this shooter did.

 

[LLRJ17]

What does Branca say?

As relates to this video, it may be the case that the shooter wouldn't have a viable claim of self defense where he escalated a non-violet confrontation, possibly a mutual combat situation, to a deadly force incident by withdrawing from the event and returning with the weapon.

Note: I am not saying it is the case for this incident, just that it is one factor of many to be considered in any incident.

Branca's book is comprehensive, a worthwhile read, and flows very well.

 

[sndmn11]

As relates to this video, it may be the case that the shooter wouldn't have a viable claim of self defense where he escalated a non-violet confrontation, possibly a mutual combat situation, to a deadly force incident by withdrawing from the event and returning with the weapon.

Note: I am not saying it is the case for this incident, just that it is one factor of many to be considered in any incident.

Branca's book is comprehensive, a worthwhile read, and flows very well.

Kind of what I suspected, thanks.

 

[Pocoloco]

Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it a good call. Shooter told dead guy to leave his property, dead guy refused, shooter gets gun and tells dead guy to leave his property, dead guy attempts to wrestle shooter for gun just before being fatally shot. My guess is that act along with shooter getting gun to enforce trespass command makes this a legal shoot, but everyone involved could have made better decisions that didn’t result in a death.

 

[WCB]

I wonder what kind of life insurance this guy had and who took it out on him and when?

 

[Broomd]

Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it a good call. Shooter told dead guy to leave his property, dead guy refused, shooter gets gun and tells dead guy to leave his property, dead guy attempts to wrestle shooter for gun just before being fatally shot. My guess is that act along with shooter getting gun to enforce trespass command makes this a legal shoot, but everyone involved could have made better decisions that didn’t result in a death.

Nah, I don't buy that. He flung him off the porch in disgust just outta anger for bringing a gun to an verbal argument and for shooting as his feet.
We've all seen footage of real 'struggles for a gun' and this was anything but. Couple of idiots chest bumping.

He never believed that little man would do something so heartless as to cold-bloodily kill him, but he guessed wrong. Little man doesn't expect consequence either, I hope he's wrong.
This was murder imho.

 

[ferch]

Without the background on the situation, the first time I watched the video it seemed clear to me that the shooter was justified. After learning that the guy who got shot was there to pick up his kid, to me that changes the circumstances. The Rittenhouse situation was very clearly self defense, but I wouldn't want to be on this jury - it would be a very difficult decision.

 

[bdg848]

Here is a good break down of the legal, moral, and tactical considerations.

The video is age restricted apparently, but you can still click the "watch on youtube" and it'll take you there.

 

[NoWiser]

The dead guy never went for the gun until he almost got his foot blown off. At that point, I'd probably have gone for the gun, too. Little dude went and got that gun knowing full well that he was open to shooting the other guy. If that's anything other than murder, Texas needs to seriously revamp their gun laws.

 

[grfox92]

Nah, I don't buy that. He flung him off the porch in disgust just outta anger for bringing a gun to an verbal argument and for shooting as his feet.
We've all seen footage of real 'struggles for a gun' and this was anything but. Couple of idiots chest bumping.

He never believed that little man would do something so heartless as to cold-bloodily kill him, but he guessed wrong. Little man doesn't expect consequence either, I hope he's wrong.
This was murder imho.

Spot on.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

 

[Rich M]

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.

So if someone threatens you, you have to run to a safe place?

 

[bsnedeker]

So if someone threatens you, you have to run to a safe place?

Legally, in some states, yes you do! In MN you have a "duty to retreat". One of the many reasons I'm glad I don't live in that state anymore!

If this guy gets got for this it's going to be because of that stupid shot he did at the guys feet. Guy was clearly not a threat prior to that shot. He put a round down at that guys feet during a heated verbal argument and that is when they tussled for the gun. Other dude did make a threat so this isn't cut and dried, but I think that shot is going to be this guys undoing.

To be very clear: Morally, this was a horrible shoot. He killed that man for absolutely no reason. Legally...in TX....I really don't know.

 

[Stubborn_bowhunter]

I suppose if anything this is a solid argument for custody swaps to be done on public property. Then if one side no shows law enforcement can get involved.

 

[sndmn11]

So if someone threatens you, you have to run to a safe place?

No. I believe if self defense is a claim, a majority of the actions taken should support that principal. I don't buy into the concept of someone inserting themself into a situation they just left and calling it self defense.

I also view the shooter's actions as an intentional threat to the victim. He went inside to retrieve a weapon, left safety to use the weapon as leverage/intimidation, and then proceeded to verbally argue. In my eyes, if a threat existed he would have retrieved the weapon and shot to eliminate the threat as soon as he cleared the window frame from inside.

His actions from the video make more sense to me as those of a person intended to intimidate and confront, rather than defend a threat. The former can sometimes be interpreted as antagonistic.

 

[Rich M]

Legally, in some states, yes you do! In MN you have a "duty to retreat". One of the many reasons I'm glad I don't live in that state anymore!

If this guy gets got for this it's going to be because of that stupid shot he did at the guys feet. Guy was clearly not a threat prior to that shot. He put a round down at that guys feet during a heated verbal argument and that is when they tussled for the gun. Other dude did make a threat so this isn't cut and dried, but I think that shot is going to be this guys undoing.

To be very clear: Morally, this was a horrible shoot. He killed that man for absolutely no reason. Legally...in TX....I really don't know.

and @sndmn11

I wasn't trying to justify or insinuate anything - just asking. Hard to convey that in a post at times.

Some folks believe that it is a person's responsibility to retreat - as mentioned, in some states it is required. Other states, it is not required to retreat or use similar force, etc.

For the record - this situation was a stupid. Then knuckle head stands there spouting off to camera. Stupid. I'll let the courts decide. Did I say stupid? Stupid!