Texas law is pretty clear on these issues and dad clearly advanced on the little guy.
Dad also verbalized that he would take the weapon from little guy and fugk him with it. Which would easily be interpreted as a threat of deadly force by most people.
Dad made two overt motions to grab the weapon. He was shot the second time.
Even if arrested and charged, Texas jury isn’t going to convict based on that video.
I don't know Texas law, and I certainly agree that dad clearly advanced on the shooter, threatened to take the weapon away from the shooter, and even attempted to take it. What I am wondering is whether Texas law authorizes a home occupant to point a firearm at a verbally irate person who does not leave his property upon the home occupant's request, because the issue of who is the aggressor could be determined based on that point rather than at the point where dad goes after the shooter. If home occupant was legally justified to point the gun, dad was the aggressor. If not, home occupant may be considered the initial aggressor for pointing the gun (ordinarily considered aggravated assault unless justifiable) and dad may have a right of self-defense which could include taking the gun away. (Dad did not step on the porch until after home occupant swung the rifle past dad.) I also agree that, at least around here, these cases are hard to get a conviction on an intentional homicide charge.
That’s exactly where he fuqked up. You can’t point a gun at someone over verbal argument. Like I mentioned in my above post, he became the Aggressor at that point. And that’s gonna come back and bite him in the ass.
The verbal argument was over the minute the guy told him to leave his property. Watch the video, the gun was not pointed at "Dad" until he was shot.
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/yYDjsxrQ/IMG-0124.jpg)
