Following on from Rittenhouse another Self defence tragedy ...

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
4,219
So not a "doesn't give a ****" but a common stress/shock reaction to a high stress/adrenaline event. Hell even the dead guys female friend/videotaper didn't react to a "dead body on a porch" for over 40 seconds, is SHE a monster for not showing emotion to a dead person as well?
My reply was more to do with the fact that he'd brought the gun out unnecessarily in the first place. The complete obliviousness to the consequences if he used it even if he is deemed to have acted lawfully.
 
Soldato
Joined
13 May 2003
Posts
7,946
Jesus Christ that was ******* appalling. That is close to an execution as I have ever seen. Stupid ******* posturing then some argey bargey and then blam.

America is broken, I thought Rittenhouse was an niaive idiot to get himself in trouble the way he did but he wasn't a murderer. That killer sod me, I can't help but feel he wanted to kill the Dad. I wasn't there I've only seen that video but all I can think is what a scumbag. The Dad was an idiot but the killer escalated it and with some pre-meditation.

Heavens be praised I don't have to live in America.
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Dec 2005
Posts
4,520
Absolutely disgusting, such little care for life and the fact they just continue having an argument straight after as if nothing just happened is worrying.


it's so deadpan - guy's lying there on the grond after being shot and they're barely raising their voices, no screaming etc!

the clucking hen sounded the most upset :eek:
 

V F

V F

Soldato
Joined
13 Aug 2003
Posts
20,353
Location
UK
Jesus Christ that was ******* appalling. That is close to an execution as I have ever seen. Stupid ******* posturing then some argey bargey and then blam.

America is broken, I thought Rittenhouse was an niaive idiot to get himself in trouble the way he did but he wasn't a murderer. That killer sod me, I can't help but feel he wanted to kill the Dad. I wasn't there I've only seen that video but all I can think is what a scumbag. The Dad was an idiot but the killer escalated it and with some pre-meditation.

Heavens be praised I don't have to live in America.

The thing is, you always hear the worst sides. You never hear the quiet normal everyday peaceful life when people get along. Imagine what so many Americans must think when they see our whacky ways the UK publicizes. They'll be thinking the same way how so many British people see America. Only seeing the worst sides thinking that's normal life.
 
Soldato
Joined
21 Jan 2010
Posts
12,087
The thing is, you always hear the worst sides. You never hear the quiet normal everyday peaceful life when people get along. Imagine what so many Americans must think when they see our whacky ways the UK publicizes. They'll be thinking the same way how so many British people see America. Only seeing the worst sides thinking that's normal life.
Lol, except guns, education (debt) and healthcare are on par with the absolute pits of the world.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,729
He literally tries to take the gun whilst saying “I’m going to take that gun and kill you”, if the little guy didn’t hang on to the weapon, where you can see him get flung with it, the reverse might have happened.

That's the problem, in reality, he quite possibly didn't mean that and was just posturing because he didn't think the little guy was actually going to use the gun but that he said those things might give the guy a defence. That and it's in Texas and it was on the shooter's property after he'd asked them to leave.

Beyond that though it's quite clearly a highly dubious self-defence claim, the shooter went back inside to go and get the gun, the shooter clearly provoked him... wasn't retreating but actively escalated the situation be brining a gun into a verbal dispute, much clearer provocation there. He had no need at all to escalate it, he could have gone back inside and called the police, didn't need to come out again, the other guy had a good reason to be there (picking up his kids) wasn't some random trespasser etc...

Obvs strong self-defence laws come into play in Texas and we see the charging decision delayed (if charges even come at all).
 
Soldato
Joined
13 May 2003
Posts
7,946
The thing is, you always hear the worst sides. You never hear the quiet normal everyday peaceful life when people get along. Imagine what so many Americans must think when they see our whacky ways the UK publicizes. They'll be thinking the same way how so many British people see America. Only seeing the worst sides thinking that's normal life.

I think this is a fair challenge, but there is more to America that I dislike than guns. I admire a great deal too but on balance I'm glad I'm here and not there.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
6,745
Location
Norfolk.
That and it's in Texas and it was on the shooter's property after he'd asked them to leave.

As he was on the porch when they had a struggle I "think" that covers the Castle Doctrine (plus all the "I'll take it and use it" stuff) which is enough in Texas to cover self-defence.

the shooter went back inside to go and get the gun, the shooter clearly provoked him... wasn't retreating but actively escalated the situation be brining a gun into a verbal dispute, much clearer provocation there.

But in the US he can claim that he felt he needed to escalate due to the size of guy and his increased aggression i.e. when he went into the house (to phone the police, get a gun, who knows his initial reason) the father was still being relatively calm, but just before he came back out the Father was now shouting (increased aggression) at the woman which may have changed the shooters perception of the threat. Either way, if someone is on your property and refusing to leave there's nothing in Texas law (that I know of after a quick search) which prevents you arming yourself if you feel the situation may escalate but in the end it'll be for a jury to decide whether he was right or not.

So effectively the jury won't be asked to decide "did the shooter getting the gun cause the shooting to occur" but rather the defence will be keeping it to solely "was the shooting event, in isolation, self defence i.e. why did the shooter fire his gun" and on that point I think he'll probably win a self defence case.
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Jan 2010
Posts
3,912
...........and yet the smaller guy stood still whilst being chest to chest with someone who was being "aggressive" towards him (shouting "you'd best use it before I take it off you and use it on you", chest bumping him etc) as the "aggressive" man refused to back away as told, then he even fired a warning shot into the ground to try and make the guy move away who didn't but instead the "aggressive" guy tried to grab for his gun.

After all that he finally decided, after the "aggressive" guys failed attempt to grapple for his gun which slung him yards away, that now he felt his life would be in danger and fired.

I am absolutely fully on the "aggressive" man's side regarding his responses whilst trying to collect his kid - however - irrespective of the legal "right/wrong" child custody argument which led to his shooting, common bloody sense tells you when a man comes out of his house with a gun you don't yell "You'd best use that thing or I'll take it off you and use it on you" before rushing up to him, getting chest to chest and then grabbing for the gun after a warning shot was fired and now he's dead. He should have just backed away to the curb (not on the guys property) and called the police telling them an armed man is threatening him, he'd still be alive and hell it'd probably be better for him in family court I'd guess, but instead he's dead and the kids have lost a father because rather than doing the sensible thing he decided life was a movie and he could disarm the bad guy.

The second he saw that gun, as an unarmed man, his "understandable upto that point" anger jumped to 11 and that directly led to his shooting so I'd say the shooter will very probably "get away" with this.
Correct
 
Caporegime
Joined
8 Jan 2004
Posts
30,081
Location
Rutland
So effectively the jury won't be asked to decide "did the shooter getting the gun cause the shooting to occur" but rather the defence will be keeping it to solely "was the shooting event, in isolation, self defence i.e. why did the shooter fire his gun" and on that point I think he'll probably win a self defence case.

This does seem to be the case./
 
Associate
Joined
21 Jan 2010
Posts
1,828
Ugh. It's hard not to see some fault on both sides there.

Once someone has a weapon, it is time to back off. Trying to take a gun off someone is foolish in the extreme. That forces the holder's hand.

I do think the shooter escalated that unnecessarily. He could have just shut the door and called the cops. I think there's a bit of small man syndrome there, especially with the women present.

This just goes to show why I don't think firearm ownership is a good thing, generally. In the UK, that would have ended up in a scruffy fight and not much worse than hurt feelings.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,729
But in the US he can claim that he felt he needed to escalate due to the size of guy and his increased aggression i.e. when he went into the house (to phone the police, get a gun, who knows his initial reason) the father was still being relatively calm, but just before he came back out the Father was now shouting (increased aggression) at the woman which may have changed the shooters perception of the threat. Either way, if someone is on your property and refusing to leave there's nothing in Texas law (that I know of after a quick search) which prevents you arming yourself if you feel the situation may escalate but in the end it'll be for a jury to decide whether he was right or not.

That’s not a general US argument, he’s causing a provocation. As for Texas just because there isn’t anything outlawing it doesn’t mean it can’t be argued he provoked/escalated AFAIK. IIRC there are cases in the US at least where the fact that someone went away from a fight then came back with a gun counted against them.

So effectively the jury won't be asked to decide "did the shooter getting the gun cause the shooting to occur" but rather the defence will be keeping it to solely "was the shooting event, in isolation, self defence i.e. why did the shooter fire his gun" and on that point I think he'll probably win a self defence case.

It’s going to be the verbal threat and the fact they’re on his property that will be the defence I’d assume. I’d disagree re that first part, IF there is a prosecution surely it would be the fact that the shooter went back to get a gun and escalated the situation that would be important. If not then what would the basis for a prosecution be?
 
Associate
Joined
15 Sep 2008
Posts
1,403
Scrolling down that Reddit thread (r/BadChoicesGoodStories) shows just how rotten American society really is. I hope it's insanity doesn't spread here.

As for that shooter, I'm sure he had that gun loaded and ready, just waiting for the right opportunity, planned even. The apathy after taking someone's life and the disregard of the consequences of doing so shows he's a self-righteous murderer.

But this is America, so he'll probably be their next President.
 
Caporegime
Joined
8 Jan 2004
Posts
30,081
Location
Rutland
It’s going to be the verbal threat and the fact they’re on his property that will be the defence I’d assume. I’d disagree re that first part, IF there is a prosecution surely it would be the fact that the shooter went back to get a gun and escalated the situation that would be important. If not then what would the basis for a prosecution be?

He's not even be arrested, there may be no prosecution.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
6,745
Location
Norfolk.
That’s not a general US argument, he’s causing a provocation.

Here's the two "laws" for Texas from the GOV website - https://guides.sll.texas.gov/gun-laws/stand-your-ground - nothing in there says anything about "you're not allowed to escalate if you feel threatened". However, regarding the defence vs prosecution, as the law has many clauses the defence will be pointing to one part (Sec 9.22 item 1 below) whilst the prosecution will pointing to another (Sec 9.31 item 2 below) saying he provoked the Father, amongst other various clauses through-out the laws which support both sides of the argument -

Sec. 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;

(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and

(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

However -

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.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,729
He's not even be arrested, there may be no prosecution.

Yup quite possibly, the questions are if he is prosecuted though.

Here's the two "laws" for Texas from the GOV website - https://guides.sll.texas.gov/gun-laws/stand-your-ground - nothing in there says anything about "you're not allowed to escalate if you feel threatened".

I wouldn't expect it to, that provocation aspect you've highlighted though is more along the lines of I guess what could apply in the case of a prosecution. It was a big part of the case against Rittenhouse too, granted it was another state, that he had provoked (based on some blurry image). Whereas in that case it was hihgly dubious and he wasn't the aggressor, was retreating etc.. in this case the provocation angle seems much stronger - the big stumbling blocks seem to be his property/told him to leave + the verbal threat and physical action.

There was an interview with one of the Rittenhouse lawyers where he mentioned a case of a guy going back to a bar with a gun and not being able to argue self-defence when attacked etc.. but I guess different stare, not his property. I'm pretty sure I've heard of other US cases with someone going away from a fight, getting a gun, then returning t It's those extra factors here re: property etc.. and Texas that could let the shooter get away with it.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 May 2014
Posts
3,328
the big stumbling blocks seem to be his property/told him to leave + the verbal threat and physical action.
The link IanH provided is quite interesting. The application of the law could be different to what is written; the "told him to leave" defense is supported by the castle doctrine law but the wording makes it seem like that law only appliers when protecting property.
That means that the shooter in this instance can only rely on the stand your ground law, which states that (Key items in bold)

(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.

He shoots the warning shot first before the Dad tries to take the gun, which could count as provoking him. (I think warning shots are big no no, is such cases). If this goes to court the shooter is on the back foot.
 
Soldato
Joined
10 May 2012
Posts
8,198
Location
Leeds
The thing is, you always hear the worst sides. You never hear the quiet normal everyday peaceful life when people get along. Imagine what so many Americans must think when they see our whacky ways the UK publicizes. They'll be thinking the same way how so many British people see America. Only seeing the worst sides thinking that's normal life.

Yeah people on here fail to grasp that the vast majority of America is largely peaceful suburbs where people don't see guns on a daily basis and just go to work and live normal lives, it's like people in America thinking the entire UK is a rough part of London ravished with knife crime
 
Top Bottom