another self-defense killing?

[Aguila Blanca]

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.

But, again ... the "right thing" from a legal perspective (which is more or less objective), or from a moral perspective (which is highly subjective), or from a perspective of "was that smart or dumb?"

 

[zukiphile]

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.

That's fine, but living the rest of your life outside the wall of a prison might depend on whether it looks as if you've done the "right" thing.

Morality is tremendously important, can be precise in the hands of any single person, and informs many aspects of the law as it is written and applied. However, the law can seem a very crude and socially informed instrument.

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 context of each act is relevant. It's not illegal to go inside to get a rifle because you are about to murder a squirrel.

If it's part of a string of events that indicate you killed someone while not being in fear of some imminent harm, then it will be relevant to peoples' conclusions about your motive.

 

[44 AMP]

I'm sorry, but the heads of my pins are not sectioned off into areas where the angels can dance without co-mingling.

legal, moral, ethical, and "stupid" can and should be looked at separately, as general principles, but it is important to remember that in real world situations they are inextricably mixed together and how much of which applies and is the dominant factor can change from moment to moment due to the actions of all actors involved.

 

[JohnKSa]

....but it is important to remember that in real world situations they are inextricably mixed together...

They are mixed in terms of the fact that a situation can have all three at once, but they should not be mixed in terms of deciding one using the other.

And it is absolutely not true that they are "inextricably mixed". It is often very easy to separate them from each other.

One can not claim that something is stupid and therefore it is automatically unethical and/or illegal. The three concepts are not the same.

One can not claim that something is unethical and therefore it is automatically illegal and/or stupid. The three concepts are independent.

One can not claim that something is illegal and therefore it is automatically stupid and/or unethical. Those three concepts don't always align.

It's totally useless to discuss a topic like this productively if that isn't understood.

Shooting a game animal that has been badly injured in a car accident is generally illegal. But it is ethical. And if the animal is creating a dangerous situation, it could be very smart to kill it.

Going outside with a gun to defend your property is generally unwise because of the potential for really negative outcomes, but it is also usually legal and isn't necessarily unethical.

Going through a red light to escape a carjacking is not legal, but it can be a really smart action to take and it isn't unethical.

It's pretty easy to do something that is unethical without breaking the law or being stupid.

Trying to conflate the three concepts as if they automatically follow from each other is counterproductive. It doesn't lead to an improved understanding of the situation; in fact it actually confuses the issue.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

I'm sorry, but the heads of my pins are not sectioned off into areas where the angels can dance without co-mingling.



legal, moral, ethical, and "stupid" can and should be looked at separately, as general principles, but it is important to remember that in real world situations they are inextricably mixed together and how much of which applies and is the dominant factor can change from moment to moment due to the actions of all actors involved.

Well said.

Myself, I think and concentrate more on what is morally right than what is legally right... I'll have to be able to live with any decision I make, period.

I take my decision to be armed very seriously, always have... I'm willing to walk away if that's a possibility, I'd much prefer to walk away than deal with all that comes after a shoot, legal or not.

I'm of the opinion that one should do EVERYTHING possible to avoid killing, even when one may have the legal right to do so, duty to retreat shouldn't be legally required, but it is always a moral requirement when it's an available option... only when I see no other option will the gun come out... but when the gun does come out, it'll come out in a way that will make Jeff Cooper proud.

In the case discussed here, there was NO ethical or sensible reason for him to go get that carbine....NONE.... and no law or anything else will change my mind on that.

Being that it was Texas, he was at his home, and the things the deceased said... I'm pretty sure the shooter will be cleared as far as the law is concerned... but had I done what he did, I know without a doubt I'd regret it terribly for the rest of my days.


Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[Metal god]

If it's part of a string of events that indicate you killed someone while not being in fear of some imminent harm

Respectfully I'm not sure you understand imminent . If the threat was imminent he wouldn't have time to get a weapon to defend him self . Your logic seems to indicate you must be under attack before going to get your firearm ? Remember Carruth is on his own property he can go get what ever he wants . What if he turns and grabs a shovel from 10" away and everything plays out the same after and Carruth hits him over the head instead of shooting ? Then there's the disparity of force to consider . Reed was a much bigger guy and Carruth would likely not do well in a "fair" fight as evidence of being thrown with ease from his porch. Carruth seeing the "intruder" refusing to leave when asked may have thought it might be wise to go retrieve a firearm in case the bigger man decided to escalate the situation when he asked him to leave the next time .

Lets ask this question , was it the brandishing that some feel was an escalation or going and getting the gun ? I ask because I go back to does it matter where he gets the gun from ? What if it was a hand gun and he pulled it from an IWB holster and everything then played out the same ??? Yes he retrieved the firearm but does it matter from where he retrieved it , Does distance matter ?

Myself, I think and concentrate more on what is morally right than what is legally right... I'll have to be able to live with any decision I make, period.

I take my decision to be armed very seriously, always have... I'm willing to walk away if that's a possibility, I'd much prefer to walk away than deal with all that comes after a shoot, legal or not.

I'm of the opinion that one should do EVERYTHING possible to avoid killing, even when one may have the legal right to do so

I agree completely but that's all a philosophical question rather then a legal one it would seem and this is the Law sub-forum not the moral sub-forum or will he be able to sleep at night sub-forum

This reminds me of the Rittenhouse debate and so many clinging to the fact they believe he should have never been there , especially with a gun . None of that matters up until seconds before firing . What matters is what caused him to feel the need to fire . Reed absolutely had an opportunity to leave when Carruth came out of the house with a gun . He instead chose to rush Carruth and commit assault and battery on Carruth .

I don't disagree that Carruth could/should have handled it better and I don't think any of the escalation was necessary but that does not mean what Carruth did was illegal "in Texas"

 

[Ridgerunner665]

Since we've brought up Rittenhouse... his was as good as any shoot could ever be...legally... and I'm darn happy he was acquitted, I truly am... but I do say he went looking for it, which may be legal, but not smart and not right, unless he had loved ones in the area he was "protecting".

Honestly, I think he may have held off longer than I would have before firing though.... he went there for his own reasons, but I think once it started happening he didn't really want to be doing it.

Likely a good kid, just made a really bad decision.

I don't see that in the video this thread is about though... guy shot twice, laying face down on the patio, and no one there checks to see what his condition is... instead they're still arguing and posturing.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[Ridgerunner665]

Respectfully I'm not sure you understand imminent . If the threat was imminent he would have time to get a weapon to defend him self . Your logic seems to indicate you must be under attack before going to get your firearm ? Remember Carruth is on his own property he can go get what ever he wants . What if he turns and grabs a shovel from 10" away and everything plays out the same after and Carruth hits him over the head instead of shooting ? Then there's the disparity of force to consider . Reed was a much bigger guy and Carruth would likely not do well in a "fair" fight as evidence of being thrown with ease from his porch. Carruth seeing the "intruder" refusing to leave when asked may have thought it might be wise to go retrieve a firearm in case the bigger man decided to escalate the situation when he asked him to leave the next time .



Lets ask this question , was it the brandishing that some feel was an escalation or going and getting the gun ? I ask because I go back to does it matter where he gets the gun from ? What if it was a hand gun and he pulled it from an IWB holster and everything then played out the same ??? Yes he retrieved the firearm but does it matter from where he retrieved it , Does distance matter ?







I agree completely but that's all a philosophical question rather then a legal one it would seem and this is the Law sub-forum not the moral sub-forum or will he be able to sleep at night sub-forum

Letter of the law vs spirit of the law....it's a valid discussion... and a VERY old one, likely been discussed (debated) for centuries.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[Aguila Blanca]

If it's part of a string of events that indicate you killed someone while not being in fear of some imminent harm

Respectfully I'm not sure you understand imminent . If the threat was imminent he wouldn't have time to get a weapon to defend him self . Your logic seems to indicate you must be under attack before going to get your firearm ? Remember Carruth is on his own property he can go get what ever he wants .

You brought up the point that "If the threat was imminent he wouldn't have time to get a weapon to defend him self." I respectfully submit (and the attorneys around here can and should correct me if I have this wrong) that the fact Carruth was at home, on his own porch (which is part of the "curtilage" attaching to his home), the usual parameters regarding use of deadly force that generally apply only when you are in fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury are either modified or set aside.

This now gets into a legal theory known as the "castle doctrine," some version of which I think most states have incorporated into their laws. This is what says, even in states that don't otherwise have a "stand your ground" law, that you don't have to retreat if you are defending your own home. Either by written law or by case law precedent, the castle doctrine usually includes not only the interior of the home but also the "curtilage," which Merriam-Webster on-line defines as "a piece of ground (such as a yard or courtyard) within the fence surrounding a house." The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as "The area considered legally part of a house or dwelling by virtue of its enclosure by a fence or habitual use in domestic activities."

So, in this case, all the activity that culminated in the shooting took place in the front yard of the house, which would be within the realm of the "curtilage." Back in post #15 I provided a link to the Texas law on use of deadly force, and I quoted from the law:

(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.

Carruth obviously had a right to be at his own home, and he had asked Read to leave. Read did not leave when asked to, so he was trespassing. Read was also larger than Carruth, by several inches and several pounds == inequity of force. We haven't heard (or at least I haven't heard) what all transpired before Carruth went inside th get the gun, but it seems fair to suppose that Read threatened Carruth, with enough credibility that Carruth believed he needed a gun to protect himself and his house.

So, according to the law, Carruth was not required to retreat before using deadly force. The law doesn't say that, having retreated for the purpose of better arming himself, he couldn't return to his own front porch.

If you start that argument, where do you end it? If your wife wakes you up at 02:30 a.m. and says she's sure she heard someone in the living room, is it wrong for you to pick up your nightstand gun and go see who is in your living room? Fundamentally, how is using a gun to protect your home against an unknown intruder any different from using a gun to protect your home against a known intruder?

 

[zukiphile]

Castle doctrine might be different there. In my state, I think it just means that one hasn't a duty to retreat within the home if met with a sufficiently serious imminent threat. The threat still needs to be present.

The context of each act is relevant. It's not illegal to go inside to get a rifle because you are about to murder a squirrel.

If it's part of a string of events that indicate you killed someone while not being in fear of some imminent harm, then it will be relevant to peoples' conclusions about your motive.

Respectfully I'm not sure you understand imminent . If the threat was imminent he wouldn't have time to get a weapon to defend him self . Your logic seems to indicate you must be under attack before going to get your firearm ?

No. My logic indicates that if your conduct doesn't indicate a perception of an imminent and grave threat, you will undermine a defense that requires an imminent and grave threat.

Remember Carruth is on his own property he can go get what ever he wants . What if he turns and grabs a shovel from 10" away and everything plays out the same after and Carruth hits him over the head instead of shooting ?

I don't believe anyone has suggested that Carruth is not free to travel his own property. If he had to leave the argument in the front yard, go inside, down the basement stairs, find a key for the closet where he keeps his garden tools, unlock it, go upstairs and back outside to resume the argument, that's a context that shows deliberation and planning to win an argument rather than defend against a threat that was imminent.

The context is the difference between the recent Wisconsin and Georgia verdicts even though each may feature a shooter in fear of his weapon being taken and used against him.

Then there's the disparity of force to consider . Reed was a much bigger guy and Carruth would likely not do well in a "fair" fight as evidence of being thrown with ease from his porch. Carruth seeing the "intruder" refusing to leave when asked may have thought it might be wise to go retrieve a firearm in case the bigger man decided to escalate the situation when he asked him to leave the next time .

That could be, but Carruth pollutes that narrative when he fires at Reed's feet. Where he re-enters a dispute as an aggressor, he may forfeit his right to employ deadly force.

I ask because I go back to does it matter where he gets the gun from ? What if it was a hand gun and he pulled it from an IWB holster and everything then played out the same ??? Yes he retrieved the firearm but does it matter from where he retrieved it , Does distance matter ?

Yes. If he hopped into his car, drove downtown, filled out a yellow, bought the gun and some ammunition, loaded it, drove back and re-entered the fight, that would matter.

Now, what don't I know about these people? Almost everything. Maybe the big guy was a known psychopath. Maybe little guy had been badly beaten by him before. Maybe little guy picked up on something, a tell, that big guy was about to get viscously violent. The video shows us what happened, but only that, not the context that might have us seeing it differently.

As noted by several, there are lots of apparently bad decisions on that recording.

I can suggest a view of events that would likely end with Carruth being prosecuted in my state. Little guy (LG) doesn't like the disrespect big guy (BG) shows him by failing to leave. LG doesn't feel threatened but also doesn't want to lose the argument. LG has no way to win it on his own, so he goes inside for his rifle, sure this would secure a win. It doesn't have LG's desired effect. BG initiates a yelling and chest bumping contest, an invitation to mutual combat, and doesn't try to take LG's rifle until LG starts shooting. LG doesn't want to lose, especially in front of BG's ex-wife, so he meets the invitation with chest bumping and yelling, and eventually shooting. BG attempts to disarm LG at which point LG feels he is in way over his head and shoots BG.

BG hadn't done anything more threatening than yell about being rooked out of the court scheduled time with his child when LG presented his rifle as part of a dominance display.

 

[Metal god]

o. My logic indicates that if your conduct doesn't indicate a perception of an imminent and grave threat, you will undermine a defense that requires an imminent and grave threat.

Again you are misunderstanding what is what . There’s no need for eminent great bottle harm or death to simply retrieve a weapon . When you retrieve a weapon you have not used deadly force you have simply acquired a weapon you may use in self-defense later .

You seem to be contributing them both as if they are the same . Acquiring the weapon and using it are not the same thing . Carruth did not acquire the weapon and use it immediately he simply acquired it , full stop . It was only after Reed aggressively moved towards Carruth and literally committed assaulted battery did the escalation of deadly force begin .

 

[44 AMP]

I ask because I go back to does it matter where he gets the gun from ?

In this case, I believe it does matter. He LEFT the confrontation, and went inside his house. He was not pursued. This ENDS the confrontation.

Had he stayed in his house, called the cops and waited inside for them to deal with the situation the outcome would have been different.

He didn't do that. He went back outside and by so doing, created another confrontation, one where he could arguably be considered the agressor, DESPITE being on his own property and within his legal rights.

 

[sfwusc]

Legal wise —- I think it is a good shooting. Castle doctrine, trying to take the firearm, verbal threats and so on. If this happen in a public place, then I would side not a good shooting, but it was his home and on his front porch. If someone breaks into my house and throw me outside, then that shouldn’t remove my right to defend my home. The deceased removed him from the porch and it is my understand a covered porch in Texas is part of the home not just the area around the home. ( porch is same as living room or family room)

If someone comes into your house uninvited, then you should be able to keep shooting them until they leave. Make stupid decisions and you might give others the legal right to make dumb decisions as well.


Smart wise —- I think it a lot of horrible choices. Get your girlfriend inside and wait for the police to remove him from your property. If he trying to come inside then open fire.

 

[Metal god]

Had he stayed in his house, called the cops and waited inside for them to deal with the situation the outcome would have been different.

That goes to my original post where I said something like there are a bunch of technicalities that may be lawful but hard to argue to a jury . I don't think he had any legal obligation to stay in the home . He also only came outside and stopped well away from Reed with gun pointed well away from Reed . At this point I don't think he has done anything illegal or anything that constitutes a "legal" escalation of the confrontation . I think it's well established law that the mere presence of a firearm is not an escalating factor . I believe this is universal or almost universal through out the states and based on reputation I'd bet dollars to donuts Texas doesn't think so

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Again you are misunderstanding what is what . There’s no need for eminent great bottle harm or death to simply retrieve a weapon . When you retrieve a weapon you have not used deadly force you have simply acquired a weapon you may use in self-defense later .

I don't know about Texas but in many states, the display of a firearm in a threatening manner is deemed to be use of deadly force. Whether you ever fire a shot or not.

 

[Metal god]

I don't know about Texas but in many states, the display of a firearm in a threatening manner is deemed to be use of deadly force. Whether you ever fire a shot or not.

You all-ish keep doing this in your post and as written you are correct but that's not what Carruth did . He came out and stopped with the gun pointed up across his body away from Reed . That is simply displaying the firearm not threatening anyone with it and has been my point the whole time . This case is filled with very technical points that although are true and IMO seem to point to a legal self defense . As Adrew Branca pointed out . Good look convincing a jury it was a good shoot .

Obviously the law and jury instructions are going to be key in how this case turns out .

 

[JohnKSa]

I don't know about Texas but in many states, the display of a firearm in a threatening manner is deemed to be use of deadly force. Whether you ever fire a shot or not.

In TX, displaying a firearm is considered the use of force but not deadly force.

"...a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force."

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm

Force must be justified to produce/display a firearm, but the justification doesn't have to rise to the level that would allow deadly force.

Actually pointing the firearm at someone may take things up a notch, but just displaying it is not deadly force.

 

[zukiphile]

No. My logic indicates that if your conduct doesn't indicate a perception of an imminent and grave threat, you will undermine a defense that requires an imminent and grave threat.

Again you are misunderstanding what is what .

I have correctly understood that you do not agree that context is relevant, and that you've read my logic to require one to perceive an imminent threat in order to go retrieve a firearm even though I've explained that my logic is what I stated.

Nothing in your text explains something I've misunderstood about "what is what".

There’s no need for eminent great bottle harm or death to simply retrieve a weapon . When you retrieve a weapon you have not used deadly force you have simply acquired a weapon you may use in self-defense later .

No one asserted otherwise.

Little guy (LG) didn't only retrieve his weapon before delivering the fatal shots.

You seem to be contributing them both as if they are the same . Acquiring the weapon and using it are not the same thing .

Where do you read me asserting otherwise? Please be specific.

Carruth did not acquire the weapon and use it immediately he simply acquired it , full stop .

That's not the video I saw. After re-appearing armed, LG begins the yelling, participates in mutual combat in a way no one fearful of having his weapon taken ever would, shoots at the feet of someone who is not trying to take his weapon, then shoots when BG had tried to take the weapon from him.

A lot happens in that "full stop" and it isn't all good for LG.

It was only after Reed aggressively moved towards Carruth and literally committed assaulted battery did the escalation of deadly force begin .

You aren't in fear of imminent or grave injury if you are acting out dominance displays.

But the shooting isn't the only evidence against LG. His first excited utterance following the shoot isn't "Oh my God, he was going to kill me!! I was in fear of my life".

Instead, he continues the argument, this time with a woman in the car taking video, providing insight into his motive. "I TOLD all you all to leave". There's enough space between not doing what LG instructed and LG perceiving a serious and imminent threat for people to conclude from the video he shot BG for challenging him.

 

[Spats McGee]

In this case, I believe it does matter. He LEFT the confrontation, and went inside his house. He was not pursued. This ENDS the confrontation.

Had he stayed in his house, called the cops and waited inside for them to deal with the situation the outcome would have been different.

He didn't do that. He went back outside and by so doing, created another confrontation, one where he could arguably be considered the agressor, DESPITE being on his own property and within his legal rights.

I think 44 AMP has correctly identified one of the key issues in this case. The shooter may not have been the initial aggressor, but once he left the first confrontation, he ended it. By returning outside with a weapon, it may well be that he (legally) initiated a second confrontation in which he was the initial aggressor. That may bar him from successfully using SD in court.

 

[Metal god]

@ Zukiphile

It's pretty clear we are coming at this from opposite directions . You have the prosecutions theory and I have the defense's theory . I guess we will see who's theory works out when the jury decides , if charges are ever even brought .

I think 44 AMP has correctly identified one of the key issues in this case. The shooter may not have been the initial aggressor, but once he left the first confrontation

Was there a disengagement ? When did Reed ever stop arguing and being unreasonable . Did Reed ever make it known his part was over and he wanted to leave as ask or that he planned to leave ? Carruth's perceived threat never stopped and this was at his home which I believe makes all the difference .

I read in the other self defense thread how every action is taken as a separate action if there is a discernable stop in the other action proceeding ? I know I did not put that in legal wording but ...

Carruth tells Reed to get off his property and Reed turns to him and says something I can't make out ( that may be important ) . In video you see Carruth on porch and Reed off porch yet they look the same height which means Reed is close to 5 inches taller then Carruth and has a what appears to be a large weight advantage as well . I believe these are very important factors in what Carruth felt was needed to protect him self when and if he asks Reed to leave again .

Prosecutor : why did you go get the gun Mr Carruth .

Carruth : Mr Reed was refusing to leave and getting more and more agitated . I had real concerns if I tried to force him off my property he would aggressively refuse and he is to big to fend off if that happens .

Prosecutor : So you went into the house to get your gun so you could come back and kill Mr Reed isn't that correct .

Carruth : No I went to get my firearm incase Mr Reed were to get even more aggressive and attack me or my girlfriend if I continued to ask him to leave , which the video shows is EXACTLY what happened .

Prosecutor : No the video shows you retrieving your gun and killed Mr Reed in cold blood !

Carruth : No the video shows me asking/telling Mr Reed to leave my property for the second or third time at which point Mr Reed does the very thing I feared the most which was aggressively come towards me and assault me , threaten to kill me and try to take my gun to do so .

IDK but them Texas folk may see that different then us left coasters .