another self-defense killing?

Most people, and virtually everyone in the mainstream media misunderstand and misstate the stand your ground laws.

Removing the legal requirement of a "duty to retreat" is NOT the same as granting license to seek a confrontation.

While going back out into your yard (armed) is something you have a legal right to do, resuming confrontation with someone you don't want to be there, since the police haven't shown up (and you didn't even call them) is a very, very stupid idea.

The legal protection against being sued because you didn't retreat is NOT applicable once you become the aggressor.

Stupid, piled on stupid, piled on stupid is going to trump legal protection that applies when you're not doing stupid things.

OF course, all the press will see is a bad law, and bleat to the world endlessly about that. or, so it seems to me...:rolleyes:
 
stagpanther said:
COMING BACK OUT, (armed) is NOT.
Click to expand...
Why not? Texas is a stand your ground state and the guy had already been yelled at and threatened--and it was his property.
Click to expand...
44 AMP didn't say that Carruth's coming back outside with the rifle was illegal, he said it wasn't prudent.

The fact that we are having this discussion proves the validity of that statement.
 
To no one in particular and everyone in general.

To discuss this constructively, it's necessary to be clear how your assertions should be interpreted.

If you are commenting on the advisability or wisdom of a particular action then make it clear that's what you mean.

If you are commenting on the legality of a particular action then make it plain that's what you mean and provide the law that you believe applies.

I see people making comments about advisability or stupidity and others taking those comments as if they were meant to be comments about legality. That's just going to cause confusion.

There are lots of things that are LEGAL that are STUPID. There are also situations where the smart thing to do may be, strictly speaking, illegal. Trying to pretend that the two things are equivalent, or getting involved in a discussion like this one without understanding that fact is unwise.
 
I quit hanging out on gun sites not long after the Zimmerman event. It was because after Z we talked about legal things, and stupid things, but the ethics were brushed aside. Prior to Z ethics were a big part of discussions about the use of deadly force.
 
I'm not saying people shouldn't discuss ethics (or legality or stupidity), only that it needs to be made clear which one is being commented on.

"It was wrong." covers a lot of ground.

Something can be wrong because it's illegal, but could be smart and ethical.
Something could be wrong because it's stupid but still be legal and ethical.
Something could be wrong because it's unethical but still be legal and smart.

If one person is talking about it being wrong because it was stupid while another is focusing on legality, and yet another is focusing on whether or not it was ethical and none of them understand that there are actually three different topics being discussed then nothing productive is happening.
 
I quit hanging out on gun sites not long after the Zimmerman event. It was because after Z we talked about legal things, and stupid things, but the ethics were brushed aside. Prior to Z ethics were a big part of discussions about the use of deadly force.
Click to expand...

I don't know that I've ever had a discussion of use of deadly force that didn't involve legality. The shift you observe may be because a discussion of legality will arise where a matter that captures the public imagination draws a prosecution that appears politically motivated. If you are on your back with your assailant pounding your head into the ground or running from a rioting mob as you try to get to the police, scenarios less muddied than the one in the OP, what the law really is becomes an issue.

sfwusc said:
Both sides made a lot of bad decisions.
Click to expand...

stagpanther said:
So it's a "draw" and warrants no charges on anyone?
Click to expand...

I cannot read sfwusc's observation to reach the conclusion about which you ask. There's a series of german industrial safety videos that illustrate what not to do with a forklift. The incident here looks like one of those videos, illustrating exactly what isn't smart to do when having a post decree domestic dispute.

Several of the dead man's acts were imprudent, but he is beyond charges. I see the shooter's potential defense of self-defense as polluted by his return to the yard (arguably coming to a fight), the warning shot (indicating none of the conditions for self defense), and the chest bumping (an invitation to combat). The on video argument noting that he had told the dead man what to do before shooting just seconds after is an excited utterance indicating his frame of mind without any coaching.

There wasn't a lot of wisdom on display in the video. That doesn't mean that the shooter won't be charged.
 
We had riots in the major metropolitan area just north of me. I could have picked up my weapons, headed up north, got in the middle of the riots, maybe parking in a parking lot of a business being looted, with my Trump flag on my pick up truck, be all belligerent sitting on my tailgate and pray for confrontation. All of this would be completely legal. And yet, I would have initiated the events that followed. As responsible gun owners we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard, we seem to have forgotten that.
 
We had riots in the major metropolitan area just north of me. I could have picked up my weapons, headed up north, got in the middle of the riots, maybe parking in a parking lot of a business being looted, with my Trump flag on my pick up truck, be all belligerent sitting on my tailgate and pray for confrontation. All of this would be completely legal. And yet, I would have initiated the events that followed. As responsible gun owners we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard, we seem to have forgotten that.
Click to expand...
I agree with your sentiment--but this is different, because the event happened on the guy's home property and TX also has a particularly proactive stand your ground stance. I think they won't bring charges--I believe the Lubbock Co. LE has already indicated it's taking a "pass" on charges and handing off to another state or federal LE agency.
 
I am really not trying to belabor a point. I just think our first thought should be did this gun owner do the right thing? In this case I think that answer is a resounding no. Now lest's talk about legal, stupid etc. I will shut up now about it, as long as I can. I just think this is the most important question we should ask our selves, then go from there.
 
mak2 said:
We had riots in the major metropolitan area just north of me. I could have picked up my weapons, headed up north, got in the middle of the riots, maybe parking in a parking lot of a business being looted, with my Trump flag on my pick up truck, be all belligerent sitting on my tailgate and pray for confrontation. All of this would be completely legal. And yet, I would have initiated the events that followed. As responsible gun owners we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard, we seem to have forgotten that.
Click to expand...
That hypothetical relates to Kyle Rittenhouse, not to the Texas custody shooting.

That said, the decision you arrived at in your post is your decision. That doesn't make it the only right, correct, ethical decision. When you get into scenarios involving riots and destruction of large swaths of communities, you get into the area of situational ethics. They teach entire college-level courses on the topic of situational ethics. To look at it from another perspective, is it right, correct, and ethical if you have the means and the opportunity to prevent (or to help prevent) the destruction of large swaths of a community because you don't want to get involved?

Your scenario involved a community to the north of you. Maybe that's not your problem. What if the riots are happening in your own community? Now is it right, correct, and ethical for you to stay at home because you don't want to get involved, when the property and livelihoods of your friends and neighbors is going up in smoke?

I'm sure at this point Kyle Rittenhouse wishes with every atom of his being that he had not decided to go help defend Kenosha that night. But he made a decision -- he went. The ensuing events made that into an unwise decision, but that doesn't make it morally or ethically wrong. And a jury has found that they didn't think it was illegal, so where are we?

John KSa's point was not, I think, to espouse or to criticize anyone's point of view. All he suggested was to make clear what the grounds of your opinion are based on when expressing value judgments.
 
mak2 said:
We had riots in the major metropolitan area just north of me. I could have picked up my weapons, headed up north, got in the middle of the riots, maybe parking in a parking lot of a business being looted, with my Trump flag on my pick up truck, be all belligerent sitting on my tailgate and pray for confrontation.
Click to expand...

Yes, you could. Being in the area of a riot is not the same as coming to a conflict you are having with a specific individual. You are entitled to be in a metro area, even if others are misbehaving. You are within your rights to drive a pick-up, have a Trump flag and sit on your tailgate. That will give no one a right to injure or kill you.

That's how it should be.

mak2 said:
And yet, I would have initiated the events that followed.
Click to expand...

That's not correct. Being able to foresee that an event may arise is distinguishable from initiating an event. You might foresee that you could be mugged getting cash from an ATM, but you don't initiate the mugging if it happens.

mak2 said:
As responsible gun owners we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard, we seem to have forgotten that.
Click to expand...

A standard higher than what? I'd resist a group identity of people who own arms as if they perceive a common interest. Gaige Grosskreutz was a gun owner. There is no "we" in this scenario.

Individuals should avoid being foolish, and act ethically and within the bounds of just laws at all times.

Now lest's talk about legal, stupid etc. I will shut up now about it, as long as I can. I just think this is the most important question we should ask our selves, then go from there.
Click to expand...

I see nothing wrong with discussing the moral, legal and practical aspects of the episode, but let's not suppose that the legal answer proceeds from the moral one.
 
zukiphile said:
Now lest's talk about legal, stupid etc. I will shut up now about it, as long as I can. I just think this is the most important question we should ask our selves, then go from there.
Click to expand...
I see nothing wrong with discussing the moral, legal and practical aspects of the episode, but let's not suppose that the legal answer proceeds from the moral one.
Click to expand...
But "legal" and "stupid" are two very different things. "... this is the most important question" is not a plural statement, it is a single statement. As John and others have commented, an act may be legal but stupid, and an act may be intelligent and logical but illegal.

You are advising us to discuss the most important question, while offering us two mutually exclusive questions to discuss.
 
I do believe for me the first question I would ask myself if I ever found myself in such a situation is if I did the right thing. Then I would worry about the rest, I dont think I was trying to exclude anything. Sorry to interrupt the flow of the thread.
 
Goes inside to get gun? That means it was not needed. Should have called the cops instead.
Click to expand...

I just feel that argument is irrelevant. Was it illegal to go get it is the question . What is needed is subjective in this context. Does he have a right to have the firearm is the question ? After that it’s irrelevant when he gets the firearm unless he goes straight from retrieving to shooting which he did not .
 
The only thing I see in common with this shooting and the Rittenhouse case is that the victim would most likely still be alive if he didn't try to disarm an armed attacker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top