Self Defense or Murder?

[churchmouse]

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

Bingo. We have a winner.

 

[KG1]

He went inside to get the gun because the guy would not leave the property.

He got it to try and force compliance. The guy left the property in a body bag.

Not saying it was right or wrong but it’s what happened.

 

[BigRed]

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

I have two questions.

Was there a breach of curtlidge?

How far must one retreat in order to defend?

 

[Tombs]

I have two questions.

Was there a breach of curtlidge?

How far must one retreat in order to defend?

Not saying he had to retreat.

I'm saying that choosing to re-engage is the problem here.

 

[BigRed]

Not saying he had to retreat.

I'm saying that choosing to re-engage is the problem here.

I am simply looking for answers to a couple of questions.

 

[Tombs]

I am simply looking for answers to a couple of questions.

I don't know the answer to those questions and don't know if they're all that relevant to the point I'm making.

 

[BigRed]

I don't know the answer to those questions and don't know if they're all that relevant to the point I'm making.

Does one have any duty to retreat once one's curtilage has been breeched?

 

[Twangbanger]

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

I suspect if it went to a self-defense trial, he is going to say he didn't fear for his life until the guy started struggling for his weapon. Which is logical. What he thought at the time he went in and came back out frankly doesn't matter.

Just like what Kyle Rittenhouse was thinking as he drove "across state lines," doesn't matter. Nothing matters, until the decision to choot'em.

Again, people persist in trying to judge these things according to what opportunity the shooter had to avoid this-or-that. And if the law is followed, it's just irrelevant. Saying he could have stayed in the house, is only quantitatively different from saying Kyle Rittenhouse could have left town the first time Joseph Rosenbaum threatened his life, earlier in the day.

 

[KG1]

If we’re gonna play the “he should’ve” done game it can work both ways. The guy that got shot should’ve left the property.

Same thing goes for the Rittenhouse incident. The guys that got shot should’nt have been attacking him.

 

[Tombs]

Well after watching Rekieta break down texas law, I learned a lot about how radically different texas law is from Indiana.

...Yeah I can't see a way this guy could be prosecuted.

Doesn't change my mind that it looks like a dick measuring contest that ended in a death. I can call it a bad shoot while at the same time admitting it was a lawful shoot.

 

[KG1]

Sure it could’ve and should’ve been resolved without anyone getting killed.

I think the point Twangbang is making is that the relevant part began when there was a struggle over control of the gun which was lawfully possessed by the gun owner on his property and it went from there.

 

[pitbulld45]

The shooter had time to go get the gun and come back out ( clearly not in fear for his life), did not call 911 either.

Chad never got within 6 feet of his ex-wife who was not retreating ( not in fear for her life or safety).

Chad was not attempting to break into the house or deface it in any way.

Chad did attempt to take the gun from Kyle but only after he had shot between his feet and looks as if he is raising it up (which would put Chad in fear for his life)

Chad was trespassing, but you cant shoot someone for trespassing.

Chad was an idiot but cant shoot someone for that either.

This is a case of pride coming before the fall on both sides.

 

[pitbulld45]

The other issue is just because you can doesn't mean you should and doesn't mean you have too.

 

[HoughMade]

The amount of debate on here is just a small glimpse into what a jury room may look like if this were to become a case.

To me, it is not clear cut one way of the other. Personally, I see more anger than fear for life or limb. That's a problem for a defendant. Regardless, if there is prosecution, best case scenario to that you spend 10s of thousands of dollars trying to not go to prison for years (no donated defense funds for this one). Worst case...prison.

I would think that Hobson's choice would be one we would want to avoid.

 

[KLB]

The amount of debate on here is just a small glimpse into what a jury room may look like if this were to become a case.

To me, it is not clear cut one way of the other. Personally, I see more anger than fear for life or limb. That's a problem for a defendant. Regardless, if there is prosecution, best case scenario to that you spend 10s of thousands of dollars trying to not go to prison for years (no donated defense funds for this one). Worst case...prison.

I would think that Hobson's choice would be one we would want to avoid.

Sure, if that person is thinking logically at the time.

 

[Denny347]

Yup, knowing that pulling that trigger will likely lead to years of defending your freedom and keeping a civil suit from taking everything you own. I can tell you that it will not be worth it in the end. Sad but true. It is WAY better to back off, avoid the fight, make it painfully obvious that you are avoiding the fight, and only react when obvious active aggression has forced your reaction. You HAVE to create your audience. You must understand who your target audience is. In this day and age, if you cannot do that, you are on the losing end. Creating your audience is not a new concept in business and even in LE. However, it seems that it's a novelty to personal defense. Is it legal? Maybe. However, it could easily become a pyrrhic victory. More and more of those these days. Dumb people doing legal things in a dumb way. World is full of them.

 

[KLB]

The shooter had time to go get the gun and come back out ( clearly not in fear for his life), did not call 911 either.

Chad never got within 6 feet of his ex-wife who was not retreating ( not in fear for her life or safety).

Chad was not attempting to break into the house or deface it in any way.

Chad did attempt to take the gun from Kyle but only after he had shot between his feet and looks as if he is raising it up (which would put Chad in fear for his life)

Chad was trespassing, but you cant shoot someone for trespassing.

Chad was an idiot but cant shoot someone for that either.

This is a case of pride coming before the fall on both sides.

You are making assumptions about the law in Texas that may not be correct.

 

[Ark]

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

Uh, this doesn't green light other people to attack and kill you and it doesn't make it murder when you refuse to allow them to kill you.

No duty to retreat on your property. No prohibition on carrying on your property. No admission of guilt or responsibility from deciding to carry on your property.

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

 

[pitbulld45]

You are making assumptions about the law in Texas that may not be correct.

agree, I'm basing my opinion off of my understanding of Indiana law.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Uh, this doesn't green light other people to attack and kill you and it doesn't make it murder when you refuse to allow them to kill you.

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.

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

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.