Self Defense or Murder

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

the boyfriend reacted in a harsh manner by going in and getting his rifle. but he was within his rights to do so. and once the ex-husband got uppity and got in the boyfriend's face he made himself the aggressor. and when he grabbed at the rifle he became a threat.


some people in comments on uboobie claim the boyfriend firing a warning shot at the ground somehow revoked his right to self defense. no, on the contrary it enhanced it.


he gave the ex-husband a chance back off and he didn't. he became the aggressor. one of the contentions those idiot prosecutors in the rittenhouse trial made, that fat fucktard idiot with a burr haircut, was that rittenhouse didn't have the right to shoot even while being assaulted, he blabbered some stupid shit about "ya gotta take a beating every once in a while ..". what an idiot. that's when the law clearly says you can use deadly force.


while this shouldn't have escalated to the point it did, it's self defense.

Agree with everything you said. If the husband had remained a few feet away, he could have argued till the cows come home and if the other guy then shot him, that would be murder but when he tried to take that gun ( Trayvon Martin ) and the other guy reasonably believed he was in danger of great bodily harm or death, he shot. This is an opinion, I'm not stating what the law "is".


Here's a helpful hint, in situations like this walk away when somebody pulls a gun. He could have easily ( for a normal person ) backed up a few feet and called the police to handle the situation but the "tough guy" just couldn't abide that I guess.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

He had no real reason to bring out a weapon.



I'm sure the prosecutor in the Rittenhouse case used those exact same words.



What throws a dent in the Self Defense narrative is the gunman retreated he left the area of conflict.



So did Rittenhouse.



Then returns with the weapon.



Which he had a right to possess just like Rittenhouse


No one was in danger, he wasn't, his wife wasn't.


And if threats were made, would that constitute danger?



The ex-husband was just pissed off. He wasn't damaging property, threatening, he didn't brandish any type of weapon.


Just like in Rittenhouse, a weapon is not always the deciding factor and from what I saw, he sure as hell was threatening.


When the ex-husband grabbed the barrel of the gun he never had complete control of the weapon where they had to fight over it.


And if the new guy lost control of that weapon with the other guy ( possibly ) yelling "I'm going to kill you"?


I don't see self defense in this case, then again I am not from Texas so I am not familiar with their Laws in cases like this.

I'm not familiar with the law in Texas either and admittedly, this could go either way. Just giving an opinion, not saying anybody else is "wrong".

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Lucas McCain

I agree that I don't see self defense but Texas is pretty forgiving when it comes to shooting people on your property after you tell them to get off it and are even remotely aggressive when they refuse to do so... and we're talking about West Texas so that chicken shit is not going to be doing any time for killing that man.

Anyway, good and interesting thread for discussion regardless of which side of the fence you are on.

Which is exactly why I come to a site like this. Interesting debate that doesn't require name calling but I guess that's just to much to ask.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

no matter the legalities

it is highly disturbing

I tend to lean to the idea it is some sort of murder

to me, the entire set of facts in Rittenhouse seem quite a bit different than what i see here

And I see them as remarkably similar.


I'd be very surprised if or when this goes to a jury, one or more people will bring up the similarities.


Comes down to what the particular stand your ground law says in Texas and deciding who was the aggressor and whether the one firing "reasonably" believed he was in fear of great bodily harm if he relinquished that weapon. It was brought up by our resident lawyer that a police officer thinking his weapon may be taken from him or her, gets more "latitude" in shooting. What's good enough for a cop is good enough for a citizen IMHO

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by offshoredrilling

you want the next wave of cop killed... riots to be about you ????

mmmmmmm but I'll miss ya Sir

Finally (? ) his idiocy has done him in.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by WTF

oh you're the funnee guy eh...

[Jacuzzme]

Now, seeing the other camera angles, this is a toss up imo. It looks like the dad was still somewhat coming towards him, although the gunman was turned the other way, then he quickly turned and fired without actually knowing what the other guy was doing. There’s definitely a case to be made that he ~thought~ he was still in danger. It’ll be interesting to see what a jury decides, if it gets that far.

[NoirMan]

With this happening on his property, after telling the guy to leave, firing a warning shot and the guy having attempted to disarm him or take his weapon. A DA is gonna be hard pressed to seek an indictment.

[WTF]

Would it change your mind if he'd said prior that he would shoot him if a situation arose?

Would a Judge let that in if it went to trial? In the Rittenhouse case the Judge ruled not to.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

And I see them as remarkably similar.



.

maybe I haven't studied this sad affair as much as some others in here

granted there are some similarities

but with Rittenhouse he was pursued by a man, a pursuit that wasn't instigated by a hot blood event, it was done in a much colder state of mind

Rittenhouse ran and that man followed him and he was cornered or reasonably felt cornered and the man came at him

in this case I didn't see where there was a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm

now I understand there are legalities and the castle doctrine and all of that, to me it just strikes me as different

[WTF]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

now I understand there are legalities and the castle doctrine and all of that, to me it just strikes me as different

Fear is fear.

The question I seem to struggle with is much like the chicken or the egg.

If someone pulls a gun on me, is me trying to disarm them justified?. Does my fear of being killed and trying to disarm them...then justify them killing me?

[NoirMan]

Originally Posted by WTF

Would it change your mind if he'd said prior that he would shoot him if a situation arose?

Would a Judge let that in if it went to trial? In the Rittenhouse case the Judge ruled not to.

Should be admissible. Goes to state of mind. I’m not sure why the judge in Rittenhouse didn’t allow it if he said it prior to the shooting. But that judge made some odd decisions.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by WTF

Fear is fear.

was it reasonable fear? if I recall correctly, the man was not cornered, he was off the porch and in the yard

and in the frames you posted, did it show the big guy coming toward the man with the rifle?

I don't recall that, In fact I'm thinking it didn't show the big man at all when the shots were fired

[WTF]

Originally Posted by NoirMan

Should be admissible. Goes to state of mind. I’m not sure why the judge in Rittenhouse didn’t allow it if he said it prior to the shooting. But that judge made some odd decisions.

There was a legal reason....but Rittenhouse said something to the effect of how he'd shoot shoplifters.

[NoirMan]

Originally Posted by WTF

Fear is fear.

The question I seem to struggle with is much like the chicken or the egg.

If someone pulls a gun on me, is me trying to disarm them justified?. Does my fear of being killed and trying to disarm them...then justify them killing me?

Them brandishing a firearm at you is actually aggravated assault. In normal circumstances that’s a felony and would preclude them from yelling “self defense”. That’s why the Rittenhouse case wasn’t cut and dry. It’s also why I wouldn’t have agreed to self defense for the first killing.

This is why firearms laws are problematic. The person with the firearm escalates the situation just by being armed, particularly when they brandish the weapon. Firearms advocates want a weapon at every disagreement so if it escalates they can shoot to defend themselves. If A person sees a weapon during an argument, knowing he might resort to shooting, Isn’t it reasonable to be in fear of a possible shooting and attack to disarm, that’s the real self defense.

This differs from the present case because it was his home. But had they been on a random street, I’d also go against the armed person resorting to using a weapon, when the other person is unarmed.