stagpanther
New member
Now that the cat is out of the bag--here's another "fear that I'll get shot with my own weapon" self-defense killing.
3-2-1...have at it.
3-2-1...have at it.
If you are sitting in your car taking video of a fellow having a parental rights argument, and the man just took two to the chest and is on the ground face down, you don't stand around having an argument with the shooter telling him you got it on video.
Bingo! my thoughts exactly....given the recent press and some of the circumstances, we might see repercussions regarding the overall 2A debate.
If I understand correctly, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, the argument had already begun when the shooter went into the house and got the gun. That's a problem, because it brings into question whether he really believed he was in danger, and whether the danger was imminent. If he had time to retrieve the gun, he had time to call the police.
The usual legal standard for the use of deadly force in self defense is not solely perceiving oneself to be in imminent jeopardy of death -- it's being in fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury. In this case, the deceased was several inches taller than the shooter, heaver, and acting in a belligerent manner. The deceased had verbally threatened the shooter, and attempted to take the gun away from him.Doc Intrepid said:The individual who shot him will have a challenge explaining how he perceived himself to be in imminent jeopardy of death during an argument with an unarmed man.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
Who among you would not do anything to take custody of your child?
The guy apparently had the legal right to take custody of his son. Who among you would not do anything to take custody of your child? His son was the one who took the video from inside the house.
Why not? Texas is a stand your ground state and the guy had already been yelled at and threatened--and it was his property. The inherent problem with being dead is that you are not given the opportunity to defend what your intent actually was (is).COMING BACK OUT, (armed) is NOT.
Why not? Texas is a stand your ground state and the guy had already been yelled at and threatened--and it was his property.
It was legal, just like with the Rittenhouse case, but I think this is (just like that one) a case of "just because you can doesn't mean you should" as far as introducing a weapon into the situation goes. Was he justified in defending his property? Yes. Could they have both gone inside and waited for the police to show up and ask the guy to leave? Yes. Armchair quarterbacking it I would not have felt right about that shooting, but I was not there and don't know the history between the two, and we only see where the recording starts. Were threats made prior to that? No clue. Based solely on what I saw I think de-escalation was in order, but as far as I know there is no such thing as a duty to de-escalate.
The problem we are going to see from the Rittenhouse verdict is one of simply ignorance (posssibly wilful) on the part of some people who are only understanding "self defense = not guilty" and that is FAR, FAR from actual reality.