another self-defense killing?

Metal god said:
@ 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 .
Click to expand...

No. I am not coming at this from a prosecutors perspective. I am viewing a video of a couple of people behaving poorly and trying to apply the ideas of self defense, forfeit of self-defense rights, mutual combat, and the castle doctrine. When you attribute positions to me that don't follow from what I've written and that I don't take, you shouldn't think it's clear that you've assessed my position.

When we construct scenarios to illustrate the principles of a defense, we make them simple and uncluttered to better illustrate the idea.

The stew of stupidity presented in the video is anything but simple or uncluttered. For instance, BG yells back at LG that LG had better use the gun or BG will take it and use it. Seems like a credible threat, except that BG seems uninterested in touching the gun when the two make contact. That part gets less simple the more you observe it.

Where the scenario is less clearly valid self defense, the putative defendant is more at risk for being charged. That's why I provided a narrative that would have LG charged in my state. If someone can piece together the video evidence to support a charge, that's not an ideal illustration of self defense.

I don't know what a jury there would find. If I were defense counsel, I might not want any divorced fathers who were denied visitation on the jury. On the other hand, an entire jury instruction form book won't overcome if the local sentiment is if you don't want to be shot, don't come to my place and push me around.
 
Last edited:
Noted , you are not coming at this as a prosecutor but are making the likely points the prosecution will make and that was more my point rather then actually trying to say what's in your head . Sorry didn't mean to imply otherwise :o

FWIW I edited my post to address Spats comment .
 
Metal god, there is lots I don't know about this incident and how Texas treats it.

Metal god said:
Was there a disengagement ?
Click to expand...

When Little Guy went back into the house.

If you don't mind me using your device of a hypothetical interrogation:

When were you first afraid that Reed might beat or kill you?
When you went indoors to get your gun?

No.

Was Reed yelling at you at that time?

No. He was objecting to his ex-wife's failure to produce his son on time.

Then why were you afraid?

Because I planned to get him to leave, and I thought the gun would scare him off.

Did he follow you into the house?

No. He stayed outside talking to his ex-wife.

Did he yell at you from outside?

No.

When you came back out did your plan to get him to leave work?

No. It enraged him.

Did he try to kill you then?

No, he yelled back at me and pressed his chest against mine.

Did he try to take your gun?

No.

Was he close enough to take it?

Yes.

Were you afraid he would kill you then?

No, but he wasn't leaving.

What was your response to his failure to leave?

I shot at his feet.

Were you afraid he was about to kill you then?

No. That's why I just shot at his feet.

How did that work for you? Did he leave?

He reached for my gun.

For the first time?

Yes.

Did he get it?

No, I kept it and got several feet away from him.

So you weren't afraid he would kill you when you two were chest to chest, but you were more afraid now that he was farther from you?

Yes.

Was he advancing on you?

No. He was just standing there.

Was he saying anything at that point?

No.

You weren't afraid he would beat you when you were chest to chest, but you were afraid when you were were feet from him and he was just standing?
 
Last edited:
Doesn’t castle doctrine allow deadly forces in the event someone removes or attempt to remove you from your home. The guy just got thrown off his porch (Texas considers your home).

1. Was the shooter in his home?

2. Did the deceased attempt to remove him from his home?


If the porch is part of the home, then the video clearly shows the deceased removing him from his home. He threw him off the porch. The question is does Texas consider the porch the home, which one person in this thread said they did.

The throwing him out of his “home” give the shooter the right to use deadly force.

What am I missing?
 
My understanding of the castle doctrine is that the concept provides that within your own home any confrontation provides that you are automatically granted that you are in fear of great bodily injury or death. You do not have to retreat from the confrontation.

The homeowner retreated inside. Right there should have been the end of the story. At that point if BG tried to come in and gets shot then there is no discussion.

But... he went back out with the gun. And Zukiphile has done very well summarizing the events that followed afterwards.

Was LG intentionally setting up BG so that he could shoot him and claim castle doctrine? It may not have been his intent, but it can certainly be looked at that way.

I'm sure there is history that we know nothing about between those 2. The fact that he took the life of his stepchild's father can't be overlooked in what happened here.
 
I still think LG will walk--because he had no duty to retreat, inside or outside his home, it was his property. Either of the guys could claim attempted kidnapping--but LG has the upper hand since it was on his property--and he asked BG to leave. The first shot could conceivably be called justifiable because LG could claim he saw an imminent and serious threat of a kidnapping, not to mention verbal threats of violence, so that shooting at his feet would establish that it was a "proportional deterrent" to the threat he perceived.
 
Zukiphile : That's some good cross-examination but I don't see him ever saying most of those things . I was going to put all the answers I think he'd say next to yours but it started being more work then I wanted lol , oh well .
 
Metal god said:
....but I don't see him ever saying most of those things .
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I didn't expect Gaige Grosskreutz to admit that KR only shot him after GG lunged at him and pointed a pistol at KR's head.

Video of an event can limit witness creativity.
 
From AB's link

Minimal information was released by law enforcement in the days immediately following the shooting. The identity of the shooter had not been released. It was five days later, on Nov. 10 when the Lubbock County District Attorney’s Office recused itself from the case, on the grounds that an elected official may be called to testify.

The Lubbock Police Department then issued a statement explaining why the name of the shooter had not been released. “While LPD recognizes there is public interest in this case, there are multiple facets of this ongoing investigation that dictate what can and cannot be released to the public, per Texas state law,” the department said in a statement.

Then on November 16, six days later, the police department transferred its case files to the Texas Attorney General for its review.
Click to expand...

Not sure what to make of that

[edit] I assume that since the deceased's children are party to the suit, that means that the shooter's stepchild is now suing his/her stepfather. This really just goes into the wisdom part of that confrontation. There was no need for anyone to die there.
 
Doesn’t castle doctrine allow deadly forces ...
Click to expand...

No, NO, NO!!!

Castle doctrine (often called "stand your ground") does NOT allow deadly force. Whether or not deadly force is justified depends on specific details of the situation and where that situation fits under other laws, not Castle Doctrine.

While the wording varies between states that have such laws, in general what Castle Doctrine does is protect you from being sued because you did not retreat. There are (or were) places where the law, literally required you to retreat (run away if possible) unless you were physically prevented from doing so. What castle doctrine does, is protect you from civil action IF you did not retreat, in any place the law specifies you have a legal right to be.

Some places limit this to your home/property, other places include public areas, you need to know what applies in your location.
 
No, NO, NO!!!
Click to expand...

I think you need to review how KY implements Castle doctrine. If you invade my home, my justification for deadly force is established. I need no further justification to use deadly force on you.

KY imposes some oddities, such as the 'domicile' is defined as the original blueprints of the home... so that if I add a bedroom and shoot you there I am technically outside of the domicile, which I gather is different than how Texas laws view things.

[edit] 'castle doctrine' and 'stand your ground' are 2 very different things. Castle doctrine covers the home. 'Stand your ground' is OUTSIDE the home and says that basically if I have legal basis to be there, I am not required to retreat.

I think you are confusing the 2.
 
Last edited:
44 AMP said:
Doesn’t castle doctrine allow deadly forces ...
Click to expand...
No, NO, NO!!!

Castle doctrine (often called "stand your ground") does NOT allow deadly force. Whether or not deadly force is justified depends on specific details of the situation and where that situation fits under other laws, not Castle Doctrine.

While the wording varies between states that have such laws, in general what Castle Doctrine does is protect you from being sued because you did not retreat. There are (or were) places where the law, literally required you to retreat (run away if possible) unless you were physically prevented from doing so. What castle doctrine does, is protect you from civil action IF you did not retreat, in any place the law specifies you have a legal right to be.

Some places limit this to your home/property, other places include public areas, you need to know what applies in your location.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty certain that you are confusing "Castle Doctrine" with so-called "stand your ground laws," which are relatively recent and far fewer states have adopted them. Most, if not all, states have some version of castle doctrine law in their statutes, and they existed long, long before any "stand your ground" laws. Castle doctrine doesn't apply anywhere other than in your home and surrounding curtilage. "Stand your ground," on the other hand, applies anywhere you have a legal right to be.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/castle_doctrine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-R-0172.htm

From the Connecticut link:

SUMMARY

The Castle Doctrine and “stand-your-ground” laws are affirmative defenses for individuals charged with criminal homicide. The Castle Doctrine is a common law doctrine stating that an individual has no duty to retreat when in his or her home, or “castle,” and may use reasonable force, including deadly force, to defend his or her property, person, or another. Outside of the “castle,” however, an individual has a duty to retreat, if able to do so, before using reasonable force. Stand-your-ground laws, by comparison, remove the common law requirement to retreat outside of one's “castle,” allowing an individual to use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat. Deadly force is reasonable under stand-your-ground laws in certain circumstances, such as imminent great bodily harm or death.

Forty-six states, including Connecticut, have incorporated the Castle Doctrine into law. Connecticut law justifies the use of reasonable physical force, including deadly force, in defense of premises. Connecticut courts have recognized the common law privilege to challenge an unlawful entry into one's home, to the extent that a person's conduct does not rise to the level of a crime. Deadly force is justified in defense of one's property by a person who is privileged to be on the premises and who reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent an attempt by the criminal trespasser to commit any crime of violence.

Twenty states have stand-your-ground laws. Generally, these laws allow an individual to use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first if the individual (1) has a legal right to be at the location and (2) is not engaged in an unlawful activity. Connecticut does not have a stand-your-ground law. Connecticut law specifically requires an individual to retreat, if able to do so, before using reasonable force.
Click to expand...
 
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.
Click to expand...

The other side to that is that despite having gone inside after telling the EX to leave the property, the EX refused to leave and hence was trespassing and a belligerent trespasser at that. He has the right to order the trespasser to leave the property and to use force in doing so.
 
It remains the prosecution's task to disprove that a shooter "felt in imminent danger of seriously bodily injury or death"--that is such a high bar, more or less requires the prosecution becomes a mind-reader; the prosecution has to basically assemble a mountain of quasi-circumstantial evidence that refutes what the shooter alleges he was thinking at the time of a shooting. Between that, the murkiness of laws and a judge's discretion to set the rules and drop charges as he sees fit, I believe these kinds of shootings are only going to increase. That's why I draw the line between the Rittenhouse thing and this one--this was clearly a choice to remain a threat on the guy's property after he was asked to leave, regardless of the "dance" between the shooter and the victim.
 
stagpanther said:
It remains the prosecution's task to disprove that a shooter "felt in imminent danger of seriously bodily injury or death"--that is such a high bar, more or less requires the prosecution becomes a mind-reader; the prosecution has to basically assemble a mountain of quasi-circumstantial evidence that refutes what the shooter alleges he was thinking at the time of a shooting.
Click to expand...
The "imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm" criterion generally applies to self defense other than under the castle doctrine. This shooting will probably fall under the Castle Doctrine, if Texas has that in its laws, since the entire incident transpired on and adjacent to the porch of the shooter's home -- i.e. the curtilage. Unless Texas law applies the "imminent danger" criterion to self-defense within the home, that criterion won't apply.

I'm pretty certain Texas requires all homicides to be presented to a grand jury, so the question will be whether or not the grand jury hands down an indictment.

I have to leave for work so I don't have time to dig into this. This site provides links to Texas laws that probably apply. Rather than speculating, see what the actual laws that apply say on the matter:
https://guides.sll.texas.gov/gun-laws/stand-your-ground

Here's the part I think applies:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(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.
Click to expand...
 
The "imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm" criterion generally applies to self defense other than under the castle doctrine. This shooting will probably fall under the Castle Doctrine,
Click to expand...
I don't agree, almost all shootings usually make a "nod" to the concept of "proportionality" to the perceived threat vs the degree of force used to stop that perceived threat, regardless of where the shooting occurs. But once the threat occurs on someone's home property--that changes things, especially when family is involved. The castle doctrine is not an absolute get out of jail free card, but it usually takes away or reduces the imperative of duty to retreat.
 
This one's messy... extremely bad judgement all round.

Invoking castle doctrine given what is shown in the video will produce
public blowback and likely weaken support -- if not the actual law as
written -- for the doctrine itself.

Bad JuJu.
 
This one's messy... extremely bad judgement all round.

Invoking castle doctrine given what is shown in the video will produce
public blowback and likely weaken support -- if not the actual law as
written -- for the doctrine itself.

Bad JuJu.
Click to expand...
The family of the victim have already launched a mountain of civil suits, my guess is they already know this is probably not going their way in a criminal trial. I don't think it will weaken the castle doctrine, but it certainly will likely put the notion of proportionality of action vs the idea of "perceived threat" under scrutiny. That's a pot of molasses and more people are likely going to die as the boundaries are pushed out IMO.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top