Self Defense or Murder?

[Ark]

Sure, but that wasn't the question Tombs was answering. He was asking how do you know he wasn't in fear for his life.



That's not true. Particularly if the "defender" legally became the aggressor at some point and lost the right to self-defense. Self-defense is also not the only reason for a legal shoot, preventing a forcible felony, etc. I think the 'warning shot' muddies the waters a bit but that it's still a legal shooting.

I've not cared enough to dive that deep into Texas law, but warning shots appear to be deadly force there. If the initial warning shot were deemed to be unjustified, that's enough to at least start down the road that shooter became the aggressor at that point. I still think it's more likely than not to be a 'lawful but awful' shooting, but that makes the argument less certain.

The warning shot followed a grab for the gun and an extremely aggressive advance up into his face. All he did was stand still. That's not becoming an aggressor, and neither is holding a gun. Legally this has been done to death, you're not required to let yourself be killed because someone else has an emotional reaction to seeing you posess a gun.

 

[HoughMade]

Nothing that happens prior to the grab for the gun is relevant to whether this is self defense.

That is neither legally, nor factually correct. Context is everything.

What if I am walking down the street and a guy steps out from an alley and points a gun at me. It may be stupid to grab it, but if I try to and he shoots me, who is the aggressor and who is exercising self-defense? Everything depends on the entirety of the situation.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The warning shot followed a grab for the gun and an extremely aggressive advance up into his face. All he did was stand still. That's not becoming an aggressor, and neither is holding a gun. Legally this has been done to death, you're not required to let yourself be killed because someone else has an emotional reaction to seeing you posess a gun.

You seem to be replying to things without considering the context the thing you quote were offered in. Much like self-defense arguments, context matters. You are wrong that nothing prior to that moment matters. We both have opinions on if it will break his self-defense claim and largely agree on that, and I won't rehash that again.

 

[Ark]

HThat is neither legally, nor factually correct. Context is everything.

What if I am walking down the street and a guy steps out from an alley and points a gun at me. It may be stupid to grab it, but if I try to and he shoots me, who is the aggressor and who is exercising self-defense? Everything depends on the entirety of the situation.

He didn't point a gun at anyone.

 

[Ark]

You seem to be replying to things without considering the context the thing you quote were offered in. Much like self-defense arguments, context matters. You are wrong that nothing prior to that moment matters. We both have opinions on if it will break his self-defense claim and largely agree on that, and I won't rehash that again.

What do you have to point to that establishes him as the aggressor and initiator of force except legally posessing a legal firearm on his own property?

All he does is stand there, and the other guy runs up to him, verbally threatens his life, and goes for the gun. This is self defense all day long.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Point of order, he's an attorney who specializes in *teaching* about self-defense. You and I have been lead attorney on self-defense cases as often as he has. He is a consultant, like Massad Ayoob or others. That's not to say his info his bad, but I think people assume he has court time based on how he presents himself.

Your point about decision loop is where Branca's argument doesn't ring true to me based on my experience with prosecutors locally. The standard is "reasonable person" in that situation in the heat of the moment. It is not "person who's viewed the video fifteen times at ultra-slow motion while safely removed from any threat and from a different angle as the person making the decision".

The guy with the gun has several things going for him, which I've already laid out. The warning shot is the most legally problematic thing I see. I can see how an argument could be made that the warning shot turned him into the aggressor meaning he loses his right to self-defense. However I can't see an argument that he had, then lost, the right to self-defense just based on proximity after he was flung by the gun away from the house he's protecting and immediately fires.

But, again, I wouldn't bet on the outcome either way. A lot more self-defense shootings are between idiots and thugs doing idiot and thug things then most realize because they are only used to sanitized media versions or versions selected specifically to present a certain narrative, like the NRA uses.

BBI, good points all... however it is concerning to me that someone with Branca's pedigree could call it that way... that in the second or so that Carruth was flung, a product of him holding tightly to the rifle while Read vigorously attempted to jerk it away, the threat was no longer imminent.

Just my opinion, and IANAL, but I think it'll prove a "legal" self-defense, but not what I would call a "good shoot" or a "win for the good guys". Absent some history of actual or threatened physical violence, retrieving the rifle, while likely legal in TX, was not IMO a good idea. Very similar to was it a "good idea" for Rittenhouse to go guard a business during a riot? (especially for people who dis-avowed him)

 

[Tombs]

BBI, good points all... however it is concerning to me that someone with Branca's pedigree could call it that way... that in the second or so that Carruth was flung, a product of him holding tightly to the rifle while Read vigorously attempted to jerk it away, the threat was no longer imminent.

Just my opinion, and IANAL, but I think it'll prove a "legal" self-defense, but not what I would call a "good shoot" or a "win for the good guys". Absent some history of actual or threatened physical violence, retrieving the rifle, while likely legal in TX, was not IMO a good idea. Very similar to was it a "good idea" for Rittenhouse to go guard a business during a riot? (especially for people who dis-avowed him)

I don't like the comparisons to Rittenhouse for this case.

Rittenhouse was clearly a kid who had a strong sense of civic duties, and I legitimately believe he thought he was going to go out and treat injuries/keep riff raff down around the car lot. You have to take the naivety of age into account here.

In this case we have a custody dispute between an ex wanting to see his kids on a court appointed date, and the new boy friend wanting to make a stink and not surrender the kids. Clearly a situation where tempers are at 11.

 

[HoughMade]

He didn't point a gun at anyone.

So if someone fires at you feet- not a problem for you?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Here's a link to the widow wife's lawsuit:

Read v Carruth

Several interesting things in the filing, but one that struck me is that this was not the location for him to pick up his son. (I had thought that odd since it was a school day and the time was 3:15 pm - end of school - in my case, the kids just rode the bus to my house on those weekends)

This DOES NOT read like he was at the appointed place and time to pick up his son:

Chad Read and his wife, Plaintiff Jennifer Read, went to Chad’s ex-wife’s place of business to locate the whereabouts of Chad’s youngest son. Chad was supposed to have custody of his son that day, and dropped by his ex-wife’s place of work to either find his son, or speak to his ex-wife about his son’s whereabouts.

 

[Tombs]

Here's a link to the widow wife's lawsuit:

Read v Carruth

Several interesting things in the filing, but one that struck me is that this was not the location for him to pick up his son. (I had thought that odd since it was a school day and the time was 3:15 pm - end of school - in my case, the kids just rode the bus to my house on those weekends)

This DOES NOT read like he was at the appointed place and time to pick up his son:

Well I figured it'd be obvious that the house would not be the location to pick the kids up.

No sane person would make that the meeting spot, for reasons exactly like this.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I don't like the comparisons to Rittenhouse for this case.

Rittenhouse was clearly a kid who had a strong sense of civic duties, and I legitimately believe he thought he was going to go out and treat injuries/keep riff raff down around the car lot. You have to take the naivety of age into account here.

In this case we have a custody dispute between an ex wanting to see his kids on a court appointed date, and the new boy friend wanting to make a stink and not surrender the kids. Clearly a situation where tempers are at 11.

Read my second post... this was not the pick-up spot by the widow wife's own lawsuit filing. No idea how the kid was supposed to get to dad's place, I just know in my own case, the kids' rode the bus to my place on Friday after school on my weekends.

Bottom line, he arrived at ex-wife's place of employment, which also happened to be Carruth's property and residence, unannounced and unwelcome. This was not the agreed upon hand-off spot and time that has been portrayed.

 

[Ark]

So if someone fires at you feet- not a problem for you?

He fired after the attacker threatened his life and attempted to grab the gun. You can see him going for it right there on video.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Well I figured it'd be obvious that the house would not be the location to pick the kids up.

No sane person would make that the meeting spot, for reasons exactly like this.

Yeah, the lawsuit also doesn't mention that the mother failed to deliver the child to the appointed place and time, either, so I doubt that was the case.

Went through all of this with my ex, first she didn't have "time" to deliver the kids to my place literally 5 minutes away. Then she didn't want me coming to get them anymore (after saying, you want them, you need to come get them... AND bring them back). I saw through all of this as trying to push my buttons... and didn't take the bait. Just had the kids take the bus to my place or picked them up after school.

Anyhow, this was NOT she failed to deliver him to dad, NOR the son was supposed to be THERE when he got there. No idea what the arrangement was (I suspect the bus... the bus is always neutral) but it's very clear his response was to go to the ex's place of employment and her boyfriend's business and residence to do a "monkey dance" on the front lawn.

So for those saying this was none of Carruth's "business"... it was... literally at his business.

ETA: I still think getting the rifle was a bad idea... I do think pepper spray and concealed was the way to go... and yes, I do think Chad would have been doused.

 

[pitbulld45]

The warning shot followed a grab for the gun and an extremely aggressive advance up into his face. All he did was stand still. That's not becoming an aggressor, and neither is holding a gun. Legally this has been done to death, you're not required to let yourself be killed because someone else has an emotional reaction to seeing you posess a gun.

I have watched the video several times and I don't see a grab for the gun until after the warning shot and it appears that the gun is being raised. His left hand does go up, like he is sweeping the gun away but I don't see him grab for the gun at that point. His hand didn't really touch the gun, and it for sure didn't close around the gun or even close at all at that point.

In the heat of all of that did the shooter think he grabbed the gun, probably.

 

[Ark]

I have watched the video several times and I don't see a grab for the gun until after the warning shot and it appears that the gun is being raised. His left hand does go up, like he is sweeping the gun away but I don't see him grab for the gun at that point. His hand didn't really touch the gun, and it for sure didn't close around the gun or even close at all at that point.

In the heat of all of that did the shooter think he grabbed the gun, probably.

I mean, quibbling over the exact nature of the exact hand motion toward the gun is kind of silly when we're talking about someone who advanced right up into his face and declared his intention to take the gun and kill him with it. At that point I'm already pretty comfortable with taking that guy out, nobody is required to wait until they're dead before they're allowed to address a threat who has clearly stated their intention to become a threat.

 

[Shadow01]

Point of order, he's an attorney who specializes in *teaching* about self-defense. You and I have been lead attorney on self-defense cases as often as he has. He is a consultant, like Massad Ayoob or others. That's not to say his info his bad, but I think people assume he has court time based on how he presents himself.

Your point about decision loop is where Branca's argument doesn't ring true to me based on my experience with prosecutors locally. The standard is "reasonable person" in that situation in the heat of the moment. It is not "person who's viewed the video fifteen times at ultra-slow motion while safely removed from any threat and from a different angle as the person making the decision".

The guy with the gun has several things going for him, which I've already laid out. The warning shot is the most legally problematic thing I see. I can see how an argument could be made that the warning shot turned him into the aggressor meaning he loses his right to self-defense. However I can't see an argument that he had, then lost, the right to self-defense just based on proximity after he was flung by the gun away from the house he's protecting and immediately fires.

But, again, I wouldn't bet on the outcome either way. A lot more self-defense shootings are between idiots and thugs doing idiot and thug things then most realize because they are only used to sanitized media versions or versions selected specifically to present a certain narrative, like the NRA uses.

What is the exact legal distance that self defense no longer applies?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

What is the exact legal distance that self defense no longer applies?

Nonsensical question.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

What do you have to point to that establishes him as the aggressor and initiator of force except legally posessing a legal firearm on his own property?

All he does is stand there, and the other guy runs up to him, verbally threatens his life, and goes for the gun. This is self defense all day long.

Read my earlier posts.

 

[Tombs]

What is the exact legal distance that self defense no longer applies?

In texas, I saw a statute read off in the Rekieta stream that specifically alludes to the range of a given firearm/cartridge, lol.

 

[wcd]

Read my earlier posts.

Guy goes into house with sole internet of becoming armed and adding fuel to the fire. From where I am sitting not too far of a stretch to view the survivor as the aggressor.

Seems like he became his own worst enemy.