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.
You must have better eyes or be watching a different video than I watched.
Let's look at this in the abstract before going to the specific. If anyone posting on this thread was standing in a public place where they had the right to be in the same proximity to the shooter and the shooter in this case did exactly what the shooter did when he walked out holding a rifle and swung it the way the shooter did, could not a person reasonably believe that they were in imminent fear of being killed or suffering serious bodily injury at the hands of a person armed with a deadly weapon?
Turning to specifics, I thought from looking at the video that the shooter moved the gun forward in a manner that it appeared to sweep dad. I could be wrong on that. But, actual sweeping or pointing may not be necessary (see prior paragraph), and my point of view from stepmom's camera anyway doesn't count. It depends on what dad saw and reasonably believed. This is a situation where "dead men tell no tales" benefits the shooter. But, as I noted earlier, we don't even have to discuss this point if Texas law allows you to threaten to use deadly force on an irate person who wont back off the dirt patch in front of your residence after being requested to do so. It appears that many Texans posting on this thread think that it is totally lawful to do so, which, if true, makes this is a lawful shooting.
One of them was going to get a Darwin award anyway, and dad was the winner here.
That’s the thing. You DON’T have this “right” in Texas:
“But, as I noted earlier, we don't even have to discuss this point if Texas law allows you to threaten to use deadly force on an irate person who wont back off the dirt patch in front of your residence after being requested to do so. It appears that many Texans posting on this thread think that it is totally lawful to do so, which, if true, makes this is a lawful shooting.”
Irate (verbally loud), and po’ed because you won’t give him his kid, is not the same as a “imminent threat to life/safety”. Mom and boyfriend shouldn’t have gone outside. Boyfriend was back INSIDE, and thus “safe” (unless Dad made an attempt to enter house). Unless there was a reason to be concerned about the life/safety of MOM (I didn’t see her run, or try to go inside, or Dad make any threats of VIOLENCE to her), then boyfriend had NO legal justification for bringing a gun into it..
Lotsa stupid to go around here, but stupidity is not (always) a legal justification for shooting someone.
Dressed like he was he had to be a Biden voter.......
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/yYDjsxrQ/IMG-0124.jpg)
