With the parity of force concept, I do wonder if you’re supposed to let some guy break your facial bones or whatever before you’re allowed to use a gun.
One of the earliest uses of deadly force by a CHL holder after the concealed carry law came in in Texas (‘95?) was a road rage incident..
A big Polynesian guy in stalled traffic got out of his car and started punching a guy in a pickup through the open driver’s side window. Got himself shot stone dead for his trouble.
IIRC it was judged to be a justified shoot, pickup driver was not charged.
A LOT rides with who the aggressor is.
If the person using deadly force is determined to have provoked the encounter, it's an uphill battle to claim self defense.
Yep. He became the Aggressor when he went inside, got the gun, and brought it back out. You bring out a gun during a verbal argument, you provoked the encounter. He should have stayed inside and minded his own business. It wasn’t his house, or his kids. Little Man Syndrome got the best of him.
Exactly. Nothing about that fight was “physical” or “life threatening”, UNTIL boyfriend LEFT, went INSIDE, got a gun, and brought it OUTSIDE. If the gun was already THERE, I might think differently.
The central question should be: Was the Mom’s life in danger when boyfriend brought the gun out??
If the answer is “no”, then there is no legitimate reason to introduce a deadly weapon.
The pushing/shoving/grabbing didn’t start until AFTER boyfriend brought gun and, this, ESCALATED.
If MOM was worried about being PHYSICALLY assaulted (not VERBALLY assaulted), WHY did she ever go OUTSIDE??
MOM was not physically assaulted before gun. BOYFRIEND was not physically assaulted before gun. DAD did NOT try to follow boyfriend into house.
Once boyfriend left to go in house, the only thing he should of been grabbing was a phone. Unless there are criminal/hospital records saying Dad has physically assaulted Mom in past, this was nothing but a “verbal altercation” and trespassing, and boyfriend escalated it.
