Man Claims Self-Defense in Killeen Shooting

I've watched the video three times now, and I don't see how this could be considered a justified shooting. I didn't see a weapon in the dead guy's hands, but he may have had a knife or something that isn't picked up in the video. It does look like he was taunting the shooter, but surely that isn't grounds for killing someone in Texas.
 
The video is disturbing. I keep watching looking for any reason I can see to pull the trigger, but there is none. The victims hands are "busy" around the wasteband, but I never see a weapon, closed fist, or anything more than an agitated presence. The fact that the shooter is still walking free only adds to the disturbing nature of this footage. There are many, many questions and few answers.
 
SauerGrapes said:
Obviously the unarmed victim had no regard for his safety. People aren't rational or logical. That goes for the shooter too.
Click to expand...


People are not expected to act rationally, or logically when a weapon is pointed at them.

"We can't have it both ways."

If we expect people in these situations to act with all logic and rational than we can not say, "train, train, train, because when somebody points a weapon at you, your fear and adrenaline is going to be engaged, and you will lose your ability to act rationally and logically."

Here is just one article of, "tens, of thousands," that will tell you an emergency situation requires significant training to handle effectively. https://www.gunholstersunlimited.com/blog/why-firearm-training-self-defense-training-is-a-must/

The very second the shooter exited his truck, and picked up a rifle, the dynamics of the situation where such: a man we know who has a rifle, and a victim we know, or assume to be unarmed.

No matter how logical or rational a person is at any given time, in the face of a weapon, and we in the self defense crowd say this all the time, "you revert to your training." Most people, have no training.

Do we know what the victim was saying to man who was pointing a rifle at him? It could have, "you are big piggy, and you should play in the sand box," and it also could have been, "put the gun down man, why do you need a rifle, come on put the gun down."

We don't know the audio. If anything like, "put the gun down," was said, than I have to assume the victim had regard for his own safety. The victim had no training, no idea how to handle the situation.

Frankly, I'm not sure how I would do in a situation like that... Somebody pointing a rifle at me? I'm not sure, I'm hoping I would be fast enough and well trained enough to defend myself.
 
Last edited:
As I'm neither an expert witness nor a jury member, I'll withhold any verdict on this. Though I agree it likely won't end well for the shooter, it certainly ended very badly for the other guy.

This illustrates another "danger" of the prevalence of video cameras everywhere--the viewing public has probably seen this stuff before those involved in the trial have. John Q. Public has probably made up his mind long before the process has really completed. Look at all the police shootings in which a partial video is shown and becomes famous overnight, and everyone (politicians included) have already rendered judgment, and then people are screaming about how "biased" it is that the process hasn't already condemned the cop too. In any of these cases, John Q. Public has a few seconds of video and a lifetime of potential bias to go from, vs loads of forensic evidence and analysis that have to be collected by people who actually know what they're looking at.

Sorry, rant over. This has nothing to do with this video :) Just an observation and pet peeve of mine. If this video were to go public like others have, likely the entire world would rush to some kind of judgment long before a real verdict could be reached. Which goes back to a comment made above about videos recording details that could condemn you but probably never acquit you--if something like this ever happens to YOU, however justified the use of force, it's entirely possible that half the US population will already have pronounced you evil before you ever get to see a judge.
 
Right around the 1:30 minute mark the shooter begins approaching the victim ( rather than continue retreating) which seems to escalate the situation. Bad move!!!
 
I looked at 6 or 7 articles from news agencies and didn't see any that actually say the shootee was unarmed. None said he was armed either. As BR noted, details are sketchy. I see several blog-like posts and Gofundme that says he was unarmed, but those sources are without any sort of credibility and don't come from police sources. That the shooter was arrested and released would indicate that the DA did not see enough evidence for charges to be filed immediately. That is quite interesting in and of itself given the video, but the video is lacking of a lot of visual detail and audio. That it was a fatal shooting will require it to go to the grand jury to see if there is sufficient evidence for charges to be filed.

I don't think I would be surprised either way on this one and it will all depend on what further information is revealed.
 
They didn't say he was unarmed either. As noted, details are sketchy. Not much in the way of the description of the shooter's gun. No description of the ongoing conflict. No mention of how the conflict came to happen in the middle of that street, etc.

The shooter still isn't arrested and there certainly may be a good reason for that.
 
Wow. My thoughts are that the escalation left the shooter flustered and incapable of a good decision. He could have gotten back in his car and left, safely, it appears to me.

Instead, he allowed the standoff to continue, eventually purposefully putting a load of shot into his chest.

He had opportunities to safely de escalate, at least my interpretation of the video gives me that impression. Given exactly what I am seeing, he was morally wrong, and almost certainly legally wrong.

One of the problems with stand your ground laws is that people get a false sense of safety, that they don't have to justify the killing.

It's possible that the guy thought

"Enough of this crap! I've backed away and he keeps coming! I've got a right to kill him now!"
 
Yep, we have another "rage" type incident where someone was killed. If the idiot had not stopped his vehicle this would have been avoided.

It takes two people to play the senseless "rage" game. If one refuses to play the game usually ends.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top