1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Following on from Rittenhouse another Self defence tragedy ...

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by ChrispyKarma, 27 Nov 2021.

  1. Mr Joshua

    Mobster

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 4,157

    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.
     
  2. Josh

    Capodecina

    Joined: 23 Oct 2013

    Posts: 10,597

    Location: Surrey

    "Home of the brave", yep real brave.
     
  3. PlacidCasual

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 13 May 2003

    Posts: 7,605

    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.
     
  4. builder22

    Mobster

    Joined: 14 Dec 2005

    Posts: 4,247


    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:
     
  5. V F

    Capodecina

    Joined: 13 Aug 2003

    Posts: 19,687

    Location: UK

    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.
     
  6. dLockers

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 21 Jan 2010

    Posts: 9,017

    Lol, except guns, education (debt) and healthcare are on par with the absolute pits of the world.
     
  7. dowie

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: 29 Jan 2008

    Posts: 54,113

    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).
     
  8. PlacidCasual

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 13 May 2003

    Posts: 7,605

    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.
     
  9. ianh

    Soldato

    Joined: 12 Jul 2007

    Posts: 6,388

    Location: Norfolk.

    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.

    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.
     
  10. azazl187

    Mobster

    Joined: 19 Jan 2010

    Posts: 3,292

    Correct
     
  11. Minstadave

    Caporegime

    Joined: 8 Jan 2004

    Posts: 29,400

    Location: Rutland

    This does seem to be the case./
     
  12. TurtleTwo

    Hitman

    Joined: 4 Jan 2020

    Posts: 888

    'Murica! let it burn.
     
  13. potatolord

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 21 Jan 2010

    Posts: 1,408

    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.
     
  14. dowie

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: 29 Jan 2008

    Posts: 54,113

    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.

    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?
     
  15. Mysterae_

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 15 Sep 2008

    Posts: 1,169

    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.
     
  16. Minstadave

    Caporegime

    Joined: 8 Jan 2004

    Posts: 29,400

    Location: Rutland

    He's not even be arrested, there may be no prosecution.
     
  17. ianh

    Soldato

    Joined: 12 Jul 2007

    Posts: 6,388

    Location: Norfolk.

    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 -

    However -

     
  18. dowie

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: 29 Jan 2008

    Posts: 54,113

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

    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.
     
  19. Chuk_Chuk

    Mobster

    Joined: 12 May 2014

    Posts: 2,857

    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)

    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.
     
  20. Roar87

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 10 May 2012

    Posts: 7,629

    Location: Leeds

    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