- Messages
- 2,858
- Reactions
- 4,116
You saw him shoot a round at the victim's foot. I saw him shoot a warning shot into the ground.Except for the fact he shot a round at the victims foot before he attempted to grab the rifle.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You saw him shoot a round at the victim's foot. I saw him shoot a warning shot into the ground.Except for the fact he shot a round at the victims foot before he attempted to grab the rifle.
Tell me how legal warning shots are….You saw him shoot a round at the victim's foot. I saw him shoot a warning shot into the ground.
Yes, this does appear to be the case. But only after:Well......it looks to me like the one gentleman grabbed the carbine with at least his right hand just prior to getting aerated. Many might consider that the shooter then shot in self defense.
Yes. So? I was just bringing up an observation that I had not seen anyone make before.Yes, this does appear to be the case. But only after:
1) Home owner went in to get a gun when no deadly force threat was present
2) He fired a "warning shot" at the guy's feet (very likely committing a crime, even in Texas), at that point he is now a deadly force aggressor
3) Involving himself in a custody dispute (and I don't claim to know the details) where he could be a party to / conspiring to violate a child custody order which is in itself a crime in most places.
This Psakibacks to my post #49
Thanks for your observation.Yes. So? I was just bringing up an observation that I had not seen anyone make before.
Even if none of this took place I still have a problem with the notion of this as self defense simply because the guy grabbed the gun.Yes, this does appear to be the case. But only after:
1) Home owner went in to get a gun when no deadly force threat was present
2) He fired a "warning shot" at the guy's feet (very likely committing a crime, even in Texas), at that point he is now a deadly force aggressor
3) Involving himself in a custody dispute (and I don't claim to know the details) where he could be a party to / conspiring to violate a child custody order which is in itself a crime in most places
I'm gonna steal that... Thanks!Psakibacks
I wonder if New Mexico has a similar law? And does it also use the term "actor"?A "warning shot" done in this nature is a crime per Texas law as well:
Sec. 22.05. DEADLY CONDUCT. (snip)(c) Recklessness and danger are presumed if the actor knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded.
I don't think it is much of a stretch to say that pointing and shooting a gun, inches from someone's body, would fall under this statue.
Wrapping this up for me is that it was a giant FAIL on the avoidance doctrine. The only thing it lacked was both of them whipping it out to see which one was bigger.
After the carbine guy fired a shot near his feet. Nope, carbine guy escalated by firing that shot, became the aggressor, and loses his claim of self defense. However, under TX law, he MAY be able to claim he was defending his domecile, a diff claim not based on self-defense.Well......it looks to me like the one gentleman grabbed the carbine with at least his right hand just prior to getting aerated. Many might consider that the shooter then shot in self defense.
If in Texas, deadly force may be used to defend one's home and property thereupon, AND the shooter worked there, or even lived there in his affair, is it not then legal to fire a warning shot prior to the use of legal deadly force in defense of said?A "warning shot" done in this nature is a crime per Texas law as well:
Sec. 22.05. DEADLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.(b) A person commits an offense if he knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of:(1) one or more individuals; or(2) a habitation, building, or vehicle and is reckless as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied.(c) Recklessness and danger are presumed if the actor knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded.
I don't think it is much of a stretch to say that pointing and shooting a gun, inches from someone's body, would fall under this statue.
Wrapping this up for me is that it was a giant FAIL on the avoidance doctrine. The only thing it lacked was both of them whipping it out to see which one was bigger.
its possible but I dont think so, castle doctrine doesnt absolve someone of immenence, they still need to fear for their life, the doctrine just extends their life to the limits of your walls (castle) with the logic that its reasonable to fear your life if someone is illegally in your home because youve got no where left to retriet from. However this guy went back into the fight with a gun, hard to argue he was in fear going back into a fight. Second, In this case, the dad had legal permission to be there.However, under TX law, he MAY be able to claim he was defending his domecile, a diff claim not based on self-defense
Not sure what TX calls it. But we need to avoid equating it to what we know of "Castle Dovtrine". Go back to my earlier post where a man, in 2015, was found not guilty after shooting supposed burglars, ON HIS NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY (OUTSIDE). It's just diff there.its possible but I dont think so, castle doctrine doesnt absolve someone of immenence, they still need to fear for their life, the doctrine just extends their life to the limits of your walls (castle) with the logic that its reasonable to fear your life if someone is illegally in your home because youve got no where left to retriet from. However this guy went back into the fight with a gun, hard to argue he was in fear going back into a fight. Second, In this case, the dad had legal permission to be there.
I didnt see where he tried to enter, I saw where he moved to defend himself from an armed threat. Agree the castle doctrine isnt clear its different in every state I just know you still have to be in fear of your life to use deadly force inside or out of your home.Not sure what TX calls it. But we need to avoid equating it to what we know of "Castle Dovtrine". Go back to my earlier post where a man, in 2015, was found not guilty after shooting supposed burglars, ON HIS NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY (OUTSIDE). It's just diff there.
Secondly, once Dad was told his kids weren't there, and told to leave, and then moved as if to enter, he was trespassing. That is where the TX right to defend the domecile would come into play... in TX it doesn't have to be inside the walls.
I guess this happened in Texas and once the father was told to leave he was trespassing. Once the boy friend bought the gun I believe he was told to leave a second time and father was then guilty of battery. The father tried to take gun as well.
Kyle was assaulted by a mob of criminals-while they were comiting crimes, threatened with murder, punched, kicked, hit in the head, and having a gun pointed at him. Anyone who watched the videos and still think that his life was not threatened, need to go to their safe space and hug their stuffed feel good bunnies while taking a bath in their own woke tears.Did you watch Kyle answer those questions when he shot unarmed men? The jury decided Kyle rightly feared death from the child molester.
Please do! I'm trying to get Psakiback in the Urban Dictionary.I'm gonna steal that... Thanks!
You are more than welcome. BMCMThanks for your observation.
I never knew you could just fire a warning shot?If in Texas, deadly force may be used to defend one's home and property thereupon, AND the shooter worked there, or even lived there in his affair, is it not then legal to fire a warning shot prior to the use of legal deadly force in defense of said?