Buster Beaver Cerakote
Defensive Arts
HighLine Firearms
J&B Firearm Sales
Southwest Firearms
Simply Triggers
Gun Deals
Advertise on Northwest Firearms
Sporting Systems
Oregon Rifleworks
Low Price Guns
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, 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
 

Bon Sauvage

Messages
2,779
Reactions
3,931
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
Yes. So? I was just bringing up an observation that I had not seen anyone make before.
 
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.
 
Messages
12,270
Reactions
21,844
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
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.

IF the shooter had maintained distance between himself and the victim, (and even retreated) yet the victim continued to advance on him, then grab the gun, this then MIGHT be considered self defense under certain circumstances. However - if the shooter ADVANCES toward the victim in an intimidating manner, makes physical contact with his body or the gun (which could be considered assault as well) , does not back off and in effect 'forces' the victim to grab the gun for whatever reason) then it is my opinion this would in no way be self defense.

AND - one final observation - the guy shot AFTER physical separation between the two had taken place. The shooter had the opportunity to back off - but did not. He raised the rifle and fired. I'd say that in itself negated ANY argument for self defense.
 
Messages
1,272
Reactions
2,493
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.
I wonder if New Mexico has a similar law? And does it also use the term "actor"?
 

bbbass

Messages
14,746
Reactions
32,009
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.
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.
 

bbbass

Messages
14,746
Reactions
32,009
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.
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?
 
Messages
6,954
Reactions
12,374
However, under TX law, he MAY be able to claim he was defending his domecile, a diff claim not based on self-defense
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.
 

bbbass

Messages
14,746
Reactions
32,009
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.
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.
 
Messages
6,954
Reactions
12,374
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 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.
 

Tony617

Messages
3,482
Reactions
4,896
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.

I would have gone inside and called 911. If the father came into to house then all bets are off. Needless violence but once the boy friend to the father leave he should have.
 
Messages
30
Reactions
36
Did you watch Kyle answer those questions when he shot unarmed men? The jury decided Kyle rightly feared death from the child molester.
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.
The biggest mistake people did during last year's riots all over the country was that they did not placed .50 cal BMGs on the roofs to mow down all the parasitic marxist criminals BLM, their stooges , and anyone who destroyed other people's property.
And the child molester....his death was way too easy and quick. He deserved to be tenderized daily for a month with baseball bats, sodomized with red hot irons, castrated, made to drink a mixture of his genitals, some fingers, and one eyeball combined, skinned alive, impaled, partially boiled in hot oil, and then fed to feral pigs.
 
Messages
320
Reactions
540
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?
I never knew you could just fire a warning shot?

Defend his home from who?

Big mouth was smart enough not to try for entry, where he went wrong was assuming wreckless Gun guy would not shoot him.
 
Advertise on Northwest Firearms
Copeland Custom Gunworks
Cerberus Training Group
Southwest Firearms
Sporting Systems
Let Freedom Ring

Upcoming Events

Oregon Arms Collectors January Gun Show
Portland, OR
Wes Knodel Gun Shows
Chehalis, WA
Wes Knodel Gun Shows
Redmond, OR

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Top