Self Defense?

It wasn’t self defense.
At the very least … manslaughter.

Once the guy went in the house he had one legal choice to make … stay inside and call the police.

But no-o-o, he had to be a big man and escalate what was nothing more than a custody argument!
He just had to put a firearm into the game of life!
Now one man is dead and he himself will be going away.

1 Like

Oh man, no way it’s self-defense from a moral standpoint. But it happened at the armed man’s home, and the other guy grabbed at his gun after coming to his house hostily. Worst confounding factor, this took place in Texas. I would bet money on the self-defense argument working in court.

I fear your right. I will be following this closely, because if the man who shot is found not guilty of any sort of wrongdoing the implications, it seems, could be huge.

It will be interesting to see how the Castle Doctrine are interpreted here.

I agree with you, I didn’t think the argument escalated to the point that the man should have thought his life or his girlfriend/partner/wife, whoever she was, that their lives were in enough danger to warrant bringing a firearm into the situation.

And I don’t know if you guys caught it (I missed it on the first watch), but the guy with the gun fires a round at the others guys feet before the guy grabbed the weapon. Seems to me, that the guy who was shot tried to grab the weapon in self defense, but there are a lot of legal implications here and if the guy get’s off it will be because of liberal (not political liberal) gun laws in TX.

That said, even if he escapes criminal charges, I think he will still be sued civilly and lose.

As far as the “grabbing for the gun” meme … did everyone forget about the trial that just ended with guilty verdicts for the 3 guys who also claimed that the dead guy went for the gun?
(Ahmaud Arbery shooting:Texas)

As I said … the guy must have had access to a phone when he went inside the house … Arguments, even when trespassing are Not executional offenses!

1 Like

Very true, but it’s inconsistent. In the Rittenhouse trial one of the key points of his testimony was that he shot because his attackers were trying to take his gun:

“If I would have let Mr. Rosenbaum take my firearm from me, he would have used it and killed me with it and probably killed more people”

Gene, I think it’s clearly different. If we consider the frame of mind of Rittenhouse and that of the people that were chasing, it’s clear that Rittenhouse, who had just shot and (probably killed, it least in his mind at the time) was now fleeing as people were accusing him of killing someone and to people yelling “Get him”, “he just killed someone” etc…

In what I can find on this story, these people knew one another and the man, while clearly frustrated, was not threating or acting violently. He was, at worst aggressive, but not violent.

So I don’t think there is an appropriate correlation here. It’s also worth noting that he spun free and regained control of his firearm. Now it’s not clear if the man who was shot was coming at him after he spun free, but I would say that’s very unlikely given his resting position on the porch after he’s shot.

I don’t know how many times I have to say it … All of this should have ended with the cops being called.
I’m pretty sure that they could have settled the argument without the need to kill someone!
(Unless the idiot with the gun came running out with his rifle.)

All the other arguments are spurious!

Btw: Did you know that the shooters wife is a Judge?

1 Like

I read that. The Judge that was handling the case asked that the case be moved out of Lubbock TX presumably because all of the Judges in the area know the family.

Someone had to go and mention rittenhouse and now I’m triggered. That dirty little racist scum killing black peoples for who are trying to run away from him. that does it I’m moving to china, where there is no guns and racism.