|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,823 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,823 Likes: 1 |
Does double tapping the guy have any bearing on this scenario?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 37,902
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 37,902 |
Some relevant statutes.... https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm#CIf I was gonna try and convict the shooter I'd go with the "did not provoke the encounter" and "the actor reasonably believed that deadly force was necessary" provisions. Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
[b](2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.I still think the guy is gonna walk, but if it goes to trial the legal costs count ruin him.
"...if the gentlemen of Virginia shall send us a dozen of their sons, we would take great care in their education, instruct them in all we know, and make men of them." Canasatego 1744
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24,241 Likes: 4
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24,241 Likes: 4 |
thanks Jimmy Olsen the wife bears some responsibility.He shoot him in the back? Hard to tell if he just spun and fell back facing him. Was the deceased trying to enter his house when shot? Was anyone else in the residence? Dumb to shoot the ground first. Heard no threats from the deceased and he did not strike the shooter or have a weapon. Ex wife not concerned she's just talking on her phone standing next to the ex. Again lucky it's Texas. Most states he would have been arrested.
Last edited by ribka; 11/27/21.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 7,512 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 7,512 Likes: 1 |
I read that this woman (ex) is a Lubbock judge?
The other issue was shooting at the man's feet to start the escalation. Gun should have never been produced.
It was almost as if the gun holder was goading the already-angry dad just wanting his kid.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 15,860
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 15,860 |
“Don't see it that way he was asked to leave and did not. When boyfriend came onto the porch he got more aggressive.
Apparently not as cut and dried as you think, shooter hasn't been arrested or charged”
Nothing about this will be “cut and dried”. The questions will be:
1) Did boyfriend have right to introduce a gun (it wasn’t already in his hands/on his person)and bring it outside, for “trespassing”???
2) Did boyfriend have a legitimate reason to think ex-wife feared for her life or was about to get beaten, out there??
Trespassing is not a justification of legitimate use of deadly force.
Wife didn’t look that scared.
Watch first 5 seconds. Dad arguing with boyfriend. Then, boyfriend goes inside (not prevented by Dad) then COMES BACK OUTSIDE with gun he has retrieved.
Boyfriend was already in his “castle” (indoors), and took it upon himself to go outside to confront Dad about trespassing. Does the DOOR mark the line between “castle defense” and “escalation”??
We’ll see... You're assuming that "castle" means inside the house...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,125
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,125 |
I read that this woman (ex) is a Lubbock judge?
The other issue was shooting at the man's feet to start the escalation. Gun should have never been produced.
It was almost as if the gun holder was goading the already-angry dad just wanting his kid.
Shooters ex is a judge. One reason there aren’t charges yet. The DA recused themself, it just hit the attorney generals office.
~Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla~
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,849 Likes: 3
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,849 Likes: 3 |
Looked to me like the guy who got shot had partial custody of his kid, showed up at the appointed time to pick him up, and his wife would not produce the kid.
If that's true, I don't blame the "trespasser" for getting pissed and not leaving. And I wonder how that would change the culpability of the wife. If she was denying him his visitation, she had to know that would set him off. If all that's true, and it may well be, then his solution was to report it to the courts and arrange to have Sheriff's Deputies with him every time he comes to pick up his kid till his wife starts cooperating with the court orders. Getting in the face of a guy who comes out of his home with a gun and demands you leave isn't the right move. Quite obviously, at this point in time. My father used to warn me about being "dead right" as he called it. Sometimes "making a business decision" is the way to go, to borrow a phrase from Neon Deion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,934
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,934 |
thanks Jimmy Olsen the wife bears some responsibility.He shoot him in the back? Hard to tell if he just spun and fell back facing him. Was the deceased trying to enter his house when shot? Was anyone else in the residence? Dumb to shoot the ground first. Heard no threats from the deceased and he did not strike the shooter or have a weapon. Again lucky it's Texas. Most states he would have been arrested. You didn't notice the deceased grabbed the rifle and tried to take it from the shooter and slung him into the yard. After the aggressive action is when he was shot
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 19,530 Likes: 1
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 19,530 Likes: 1 |
These threads are hilarious
MAGA
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,078 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,078 Likes: 1 |
“Don't see it that way he was asked to leave and did not. When boyfriend came onto the porch he got more aggressive.
Apparently not as cut and dried as you think, shooter hasn't been arrested or charged”
Nothing about this will be “cut and dried”. The questions will be:
1) Did boyfriend have right to introduce a gun (it wasn’t already in his hands/on his person)and bring it outside, for “trespassing”???
2) Did boyfriend have a legitimate reason to think ex-wife feared for her life or was about to get beaten, out there??
Trespassing is not a justification of legitimate use of deadly force.
Wife didn’t look that scared.
Watch first 5 seconds. Dad arguing with boyfriend. Then, boyfriend goes inside (not prevented by Dad) then COMES BACK OUTSIDE with gun he has retrieved.
Boyfriend was already in his “castle” (indoors), and took it upon himself to go outside to confront Dad about trespassing. Does the DOOR mark the line between “castle defense” and “escalation”??
We’ll see... You're assuming that "castle" means inside the house... Well, boyfriend had to go INSIDE, through a door WITH A LOCK, to retrieve his gun, then came back out, through the same door. If a drunk is beating on your door at night, in an easily accessible residential neighborhood, do you open the door, go OUTSIDE, and shoot him?? I’m not trying to make a point, I’m asking??
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,823 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,823 Likes: 1 |
thanks Jimmy Olsen
the wife bears some responsibility.He shoot him in the back? Hard to tell if he just spun and fell back facing him. Was the deceased trying to enter his house when shot? Was anyone else in the residence? Dumb to shoot the ground first. Heard no threats from the deceased and he did not strike the shooter or have a weapon. Ex wife not concerned she's just talking on her phone standing next to the ex.
Again lucky it's Texas. Most states he would have been arrested. The deceased threatened to take the gun and then he grabbed the gun. I'm not sure how much this plays into this tragedy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 23,506
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 23,506 |
These threads are hilarious I won a Jimmy Olsen Award....So, there is that. LOL 🤦♀️ 🦫
Curiosity Killed the Cat & The Prairie Dog
“Molon Labe”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,125
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,125 |
These threads are hilarious I won a Jimmy Olsen Award....So, there is that. LOL 🤦♀️ 🦫 I crack me up..
~Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla~
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 13,161 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 13,161 Likes: 1 |
Obey lawful commands. Video interactions. Hold bad cops accountable. Problem solved.
~Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla~
Member #547
Join date 3/09/2001
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 23,506
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 23,506 |
I’m liking that little Ruger Carbine. Get one sized for the wife. Throw a red dot on it, and let her roam the castle looking for intruders while I sleep.
👍🏼🦫
Curiosity Killed the Cat & The Prairie Dog
“Molon Labe”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,078 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,078 Likes: 1 |
thanks Jimmy Olsen
the wife bears some responsibility.He shoot him in the back? Hard to tell if he just spun and fell back facing him. Was the deceased trying to enter his house when shot? Was anyone else in the residence? Dumb to shoot the ground first. Heard no threats from the deceased and he did not strike the shooter or have a weapon. Ex wife not concerned she's just talking on her phone standing next to the ex.
Again lucky it's Texas. Most states he would have been arrested. The deceased threatened to take the gun and then he grabbed the gun. I'm not sure how much this plays into this tragedy. The question will be “Why was the gun retrieved and brought into the situation?”. If a case can be made that Mom’s life/safety was in danger, then fine... If it was brought out solely to run off a trespasser, well, that’s NOT allowed in Texas deadly force statutes, and could possibly be “escalation”...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,489
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,489 |
A lot of times, self defense is just walking away or going back inside the house.
Sometimes people are clueless about proportional response.
Every day on this side of the ground is a win.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24,241 Likes: 4
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24,241 Likes: 4 |
He did shoot at his feet before this. The shooter just escalated the situation for no reason but going in and retrieving the firearm and then shooting at his feet did escalate. The deceased made no attempt to enter house. The ex not obeying a court visitation order and not having the son there and not telling the ex this escalated the situation too. Yeh the deceased should have left and called local police for violation of order. Again curious if any prior documented DV /violent issues. Shooter and wife had many opportunities to leave. All three phugged up. I think good chance he'll be charged with at least manslaughter. You can tell from the shooter and his girlfriends ( some of the posters on here) nonchalant response to the death that they had no clue what their rights and reponsibilities are as a firearms owner in Texas. thanks Jimmy Olsen the wife bears some responsibility.He shoot him in the back? Hard to tell if he just spun and fell back facing him. Was the deceased trying to enter his house when shot? Was anyone else in the residence? Dumb to shoot the ground first. Heard no threats from the deceased and he did not strike the shooter or have a weapon. Again lucky it's Texas. Most states he would have been arrested. You didn't notice the deceased grabbed the rifle and tried to take it from the shooter and slung him into the yard. After the aggressive action is when he was shot
Last edited by ribka; 11/27/21.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 13,161 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 13,161 Likes: 1 |
How much will it cost to defend against a manslaughter charge?
P
Obey lawful commands. Video interactions. Hold bad cops accountable. Problem solved.
~Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla~
Member #547
Join date 3/09/2001
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,522
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,522 |
OP asked for an opinion. I am no lawyer so IMO the shooter f'd up big time. The father wanted his kid. All parties did stupid actions. I didn't see justification of use of deadly force. Boyfriend escalated the killing, should have just went inside with girlfriend and called police. I imagine him and ex argued a lot, thus being an ex. Either way, sad when a father gets killed when he comes to pick up his kid when the court says he has the right to have the kid.
futuaris nisi irrisus ridebis
|
|
|
|
|
575 members (222ND, 222Sako, 160user, 17CalFan, 10gaugemag, 69 invisible),
2,260
guests, and
1,230
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,064
Posts18,482,530
Members73,959
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
