Self Defense or Murder?

[BehindBlueI's]

Does the fact that the woman refused to turn over the kid(s) that was ordered by the courts, have any bearing? Is that some variation of kidnapping?

No.

There's no indication the child is in danger. Citizens cannot force their way into someone else's home except in the most dire of situations, and "a felony is being committed" isn't one of them. You can't kick in your neighbor's door for a weed grow or to retrieve your stolen lawn mower.

It's not kidnapping, anyway, it's some variation on interference with child custody. That can be civil or criminal or both, depending on varying state laws and exact situations.

 

[KG1]

I don't really have any sympathy for all involved except for the kid that was used as a pawn in this deadly debacle. Cooler heads all around should've prevailed but they did'nt.

 

[JettaKnight]

Just a guess, but this "community" doesn't seem like one that knows how to resolve problems properly.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Branca thinks....

He's an attorney and one that specializes in self-defense at that... think about what that means... in less than a second to go from "I going to die unless I shoot" to "don't shoot he isn't advancing on me yet again".

Anyone here have that tight of a decision loop? I know I don't.

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.

 

[HoughMade]

It might be ruled self-defense when this is all said and done. But he will be put through hell first (maybe justifiably). However, THIS is what happens when you're and idiot and the ONLY tool in your toolbox is a hammer. This is a dispute that should have been "hands-on" rather than guns out. Lean how to fight for crying out loud. Owning/carrying a gun is not a shortcut to self defense. He "appeared" to be a relatively healthy guy. Likely doesn't have a good excuse to not have trained in some martial art, empty hand combat. The shooter is a douche and makes the rest of the gun owners look bad. For that, I have no sympathy for the sh*t storm he is going to have to endure. With training, you will understand that the best way to survive a fight is to avoid a fight. Even if it's a hit to your ego. STUPID STUPID STUPID!!!!!

I think that he actually believed that producing the gun would deescalate. We see how that worked out.

 

[HoughMade]

and shootings on the front porch...

 

[KittySlayer]

Boyfriend should have dragged the baby mama and himself inside the house and closed the door. If he feared for his life enough to go retrieve(*) a gun then he should have feared for his life enough to remove himself (and loved ones) from the situation.

Trespassing, curtilage, verbal threats and all the legal stuff aside the visual of Chad busting down the door and getting shot is easier to defend to a jury of your peers. Sure it likely may legally qualify as self defense but make it black and white rather than grey.

(*) another reminder why you should always carry on your body even at your home.

 

[Denny347]

I think that he actually believed that producing the gun would deescalate. We see how that worked out.

Yup, stupid people doing stupid people stuff.

 

[ECS686]

Just a guess, but this "community" doesn't seem like one that knows how to resolve problems properly.

Usually the same folks boast “judged by 12 rather than carried by 6” Please stop the BS. That and as well as some statements here just proves they have never had to testify in a Federal (or any) inquiry in an investigation to justify actions afterwards to see if criminal charges were warranted on them.

A lot different explaining afterwards than saying on the internet If that guy did that I’d show him in his/her one dimensional scenario where they are always the victor and hero.

Some of us have in our line of work been through it and it isn’t fun!

 

[MinuteManMike]

Sounds like ex-wife played "Let's you and him fight".

Let's hope the kids know the truth of things and act accordingly.

 

[Twangbanger]

Boyfriend should have dragged the baby mama and himself inside the house and closed the door. If he feared for his life enough to go retrieve(*) a gun then he should have feared for his life enough to remove himself (and loved ones) from the situation.

Trespassing, curtilage, verbal threats and all the legal stuff aside the visual of Chad busting down the door and getting shot is easier to defend to a jury of your peers. Sure it likely may legally qualify as self defense but make it black and white rather than grey.

(*) another reminder why you should always carry on your body even at your home.


View attachment 169726

But this is really just another way of saying "Kyle Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there." Arguments about whether the person was "reasonable" to be where they stood when the shot was fired in the first place, all lead down the same path, and it's the negation of Castle Doctrine. "Little Man Disease" had just as much right to be on that porch as anyone. If we're going to start making arguments that people have a "duty to retreat" on their own front porch, Castle Doctrine is out the window.

The people involved are all idiots. I frankly do not care one whit about any of the people involved, their wives, girlfriends, or even their kids. Every one of them was already doomed by prior human choices. But if some kind of charge gets ginned-up out of this, it's another chance to strike a blow against the rights of everyone.

 

[wcd]

But this is really just another way of saying "Kyle Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there." Arguments about whether the person was "reasonable" to be where they stood when the shot was fired in the first place, all lead down the same path, and it's the negation of Castle Doctrine. "Little Man Disease" had just as much right to be on that porch as anyone. If we're going to start making arguments that people have a "duty to retreat" on their own front porch, Castle Doctrine is out the window.

The people involved are all idiots. I frankly do not care one whit about any of the people involved, their wives, girlfriends, or even their kids. Every one of them was already doomed by prior human choices. But if some kind of charge gets ginned-up out of this, it's another chance to strike a blow against the rights of everyone.

I am amazed by the number of people that make the assertion that “Well He should not have been there” ( Not on INGO but Locals around here) So he must be guilty.

To me that seems like failed logic, and demonstrates their inability to look past their own biases in order reach a reasoned conclusion.

 

[JettaKnight]

I am amazed by the number of people that make the assertion that “Well He should not have been there” ( Not on INGO but Locals around here) So he must be guilty.

To me that seems like failed logic, and demonstrates their inability to look past their own biases in order reach a reasoned conclusion.

You can be innocent (i.e. a legit self-defense shooting), and you shouldn't have been there.



Just because it's justified doesn't make it less stupid.

 

[Gunmetalgray]

Lot of details of the prior circumstances missing, of course, but doesn't change the fact that;
- shooter's life wasn't in imminent danger (only his ego)
- he was able to walk away & left the scene
- he then returned to the scene with a gun
Provocation, not self defense in my book. The other dude was there to pick up his kid, not break into his house to assault & kill them.
Castle Doctrine wasn't written so my neighbor could go back in his house to get a gun and 'legally' shoot me because I showed up on his front porch pissed off to get my rake back that he borrowed & didn't return. But it is Texas...

 

[Denny347]

But this is really just another way of saying "Kyle Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there." Arguments about whether the person was "reasonable" to be where they stood when the shot was fired in the first place, all lead down the same path, and it's the negation of Castle Doctrine. "Little Man Disease" had just as much right to be on that porch as anyone. If we're going to start making arguments that people have a "duty to retreat" on their own front porch, Castle Doctrine is out the window.

The people involved are all idiots. I frankly do not care one whit about any of the people involved, their wives, girlfriends, or even their kids. Every one of them was already doomed by prior human choices. But if some kind of charge gets ginned-up out of this, it's another chance to strike a blow against the rights of everyone.

Kyle SHOULDN'T have been there!!!! Not saying what he did was illegal but DAMN, that was stupid. Problem is, that we are operating in the gray area of self defense. Law has no "duty to retreat" but is the juice worth the squeeze? Many times not. Is what he did worth what he is currently going through? In my job, my use of force is governed by Graham v. Connor and the "Reasonableness Standard". It is a LOW bar. But based on current times, you need to find better ways to use force that get the job done but plays better to public expectations. Just because it meets the criteria doesn't mean I won't have to spend the next 6 years defending it, because it looked awful. The "stand your ground" has as much to do with ego as it does self defense.

 

[Twangbanger]

Kyle SHOULDN'T have been there!!!! Not saying what he did was illegal but DAMN, that was stupid. Problem is, that we are operating in the gray area of self defense. Law has no "duty to retreat" but is the juice worth the squeeze? Many times not. Is what he did worth what he is currently going through? In my job, my use of force is governed by Graham v. Connor and the "Reasonableness Standard". It is a LOW bar. But based on current times, you need to find better ways to use force that get the job done but plays better to public expectations. Just because it meets the criteria doesn't mean I won't have to spend the next 6 years defending it, because it looked awful. The "stand your ground" has as much to do with ego as it does self defense.

I wouldn't want my kid there. But the problem is, the _other_ kids shouldn't have been there, either. And that's what our cities have lost the courage to say. When stuff starts to burn or get vandalized - TEAR-GAS THE GODD*MN PLACE and make _every_body go home!

You guys obviously just need to shoot more white people.

 

[BigRed]

You can be innocent (i.e. a legit self-defense shooting), and you shouldn't have been there.



Just because it's justified doesn't make it less stupid.

Samuel Whittemore could be an example on both points.

What do you say?

 

[Tombs]

It stinks of a bad shoot to me.

The fact he was able to go inside, retrieve a firearm, and come back out, all clearly without fearing for his life... Does not look good.
Now if he went inside, locked the door, and the individual broke in, then we'd have a very different situation.

I would find it next to unbelievable that castle doctrine would make this a legal shoot.

 

[BigRed]

It stinks of a bad shoot to me.

The fact he was able to go inside, retrieve a firearm, and come back out, all clearly without fearing for his life... Does not look good.
Now if he went inside, locked the door, and the individual broke in, then we'd have a very different situation.

I would find it next to unbelievable that castle doctrine would make this a legal shoot.

"all clearly without fearing for his life"

I would be interested in knowing how you know clearly he did not fear for his life.

 

[Tombs]

"all clearly without fearing for his life"

I would be interested in knowing how you know clearly he did not fear for his life.

Because he came back outside when he could have just locked the door and stayed inside with a rifle trained on the door.