funny how chipmunks slayer forgets to mention that the shrimpy guy shot at the deceased's feet before the escalation. Warning shots are not allowed in Texas. The deceased never threatened violence only said he would take the rifle from him after the shrimp shot at him.
People tend to get upset when they are shot at ( deadly force) and can legally try and defend themselves after deadly force is used.All the deceased tried do is remove the deadly force from the shooter. He never threatened him. In fact no physical threats at all were made by the deceased during the altercation. Deceased Only said he would take the rifle ( threat ) from shrimpy. He was shot from at least 10 feet away standing, not moving toward the shooter with his hands in a non threatening manner at the sides of his body as before the firearm was retrieved when the shrimp shot at him.
Originally Posted by fburgtx
Originally Posted by ElkSlayer91
Originally Posted by fburgtx
Originally Posted by chlinstructor
Originally Posted by rockinbbar
Originally Posted by Birdwatcher
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, 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.
According to you and chlinstructor, a person doesn’t have the right to acquire the means to defend their self and others from a person refusing to leave the property, thus illegally trespassing and becoming hostile towards all of the people on the property as he threatens them.
You two are 100% wrong, and clueless.
The ex, Read, is the one who escalated the situation by not leaving, and threatening the occupants of the property.
Carruth had every legal right to take charge of the situation on the property to protect them both as long as the lady owner of said property allowed him to. The kids and house ownership has no legal bearing on this for the shooter, nothing.
You had a person who was asked to leave the property refuse, and become hostile and threatening to all occupants of the property, and the he committed assault and battery on the shooter.
Post the Texas State legal statute where he broke a law by obtaining a gun to defend himself against a hostile threatening trespasser.
“Hostile threatening trespasser”.
You had a Dad pissed off because his kids weren’t there.
“Yelling and angry” (“Where’s the kids!! I’m going to court!”) is not the same as “hostile threatening” (“I’m gonna kill you!).
The Dad never made any VIOLENT threats (that I’ve heard so far), UNTIL boyfriend LEFT the scene, went INSIDE, and THEN produced a gun OUTSIDE.
