Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

The New Coffee Room

  1. TNCR
  2. General Discussion
  3. Not Self-Defense (graphic)

Not Self-Defense (graphic)

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General Discussion
43 Posts 13 Posters 631 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • JollyJ Offline
    JollyJ Offline
    Jolly
    wrote on last edited by
    #2

    Lots of dumb things in that one. Looks like the ex is going to need a new boyfriend.

    “Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”

    Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton

    1 Reply Last reply
    • MikM Offline
      MikM Offline
      Mik
      wrote on last edited by
      #3

      Lots of stupid to go around.

      “I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill

      1 Reply Last reply
      • jon-nycJ Online
        jon-nycJ Online
        jon-nyc
        wrote on last edited by
        #4

        The world needs prison bitches too.

        Only non-witches get due process.

        • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
        1 Reply Last reply
        • jon-nycJ Online
          jon-nycJ Online
          jon-nyc
          wrote on last edited by
          #5

          I think Kyle realizes at the end he’s going to jail for murder.

          Only non-witches get due process.

          • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
          1 Reply Last reply
          • jon-nycJ Online
            jon-nycJ Online
            jon-nyc
            wrote on last edited by
            #6

            Poor kid. First he loses the genetic lottery now this.

            Only non-witches get due process.

            • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
            RichR 1 Reply Last reply
            • jon-nycJ jon-nyc

              Poor kid. First he loses the genetic lottery now this.

              RichR Online
              RichR Online
              Rich
              wrote on last edited by
              #7

              @jon-nyc Yeah, but at least now he only has one bad parent.

              (sorry, sorry)

              George KG 1 Reply Last reply
              • RichR Rich

                @jon-nyc Yeah, but at least now he only has one bad parent.

                (sorry, sorry)

                George KG Offline
                George KG Offline
                George K
                wrote on last edited by
                #8

                @rich said in Not Self-Defense (graphic):

                @jon-nyc Yeah, but at least now he only has one bad parent.

                (sorry, sorry)

                Outstanding!

                "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08

                The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.

                1 Reply Last reply
                • IvorythumperI Offline
                  IvorythumperI Offline
                  Ivorythumper
                  wrote on last edited by Ivorythumper
                  #9

                  Weird how neither the shooter nor the lady in the car who was with the deceased was particularly shocked by the shooting...

                  As of this past week, Carruth hasn't been charged, so maybe it goes down as self defense?

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  • JollyJ Offline
                    JollyJ Offline
                    Jolly
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #10

                    Texas is a stand-your-ground state. Even at that, the guy with the rifle achieved separation. Seems to me that the shootee would have needed to start towards him.

                    “Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”

                    Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton

                    IvorythumperI 1 Reply Last reply
                    • JollyJ Jolly

                      Texas is a stand-your-ground state. Even at that, the guy with the rifle achieved separation. Seems to me that the shootee would have needed to start towards him.

                      IvorythumperI Offline
                      IvorythumperI Offline
                      Ivorythumper
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #11

                      @jolly said in Not Self-Defense (graphic):

                      Texas is a stand-your-ground state. Even at that, the guy with the rifle achieved separation. Seems to me that the shootee would have needed to start towards him.

                      Did the gun guy shoot first at the feet after dead guy threatened to take the gun away and use it? It sounds like it from the audio, which could be construed as warning shots.

                      It looks like dead guy then grabbed the gun and tried to wrest it, but wound up only throwing the guy away creating distance but also assaulting him -- so the other guy acted in self defense...

                      Horrible events, but it would be a tough prosecution.

                      George KG 1 Reply Last reply
                      • IvorythumperI Ivorythumper

                        @jolly said in Not Self-Defense (graphic):

                        Texas is a stand-your-ground state. Even at that, the guy with the rifle achieved separation. Seems to me that the shootee would have needed to start towards him.

                        Did the gun guy shoot first at the feet after dead guy threatened to take the gun away and use it? It sounds like it from the audio, which could be construed as warning shots.

                        It looks like dead guy then grabbed the gun and tried to wrest it, but wound up only throwing the guy away creating distance but also assaulting him -- so the other guy acted in self defense...

                        Horrible events, but it would be a tough prosecution.

                        George KG Offline
                        George KG Offline
                        George K
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #12

                        @ivorythumper said in [Not Self-Defense (graphic)]

                        Did the gun guy shoot first at the feet after dead guy threatened to take the gun away and use it? It sounds like it from the audio, which could be construed as warning shots.

                        Yes, he did. But, he retreated. That's critical.

                        It looks like dead guy then grabbed the gun and tried to wrest it, but wound up only throwing the guy away creating distance but also assaulting him -- so the other guy acted in self defense.

                        One can make the case that "gun guy" was 10 feet away from "dead guy" and "dead guy" posed no immediate threat.

                        Horrible events, but it would be a tough prosecution.

                        From the RWEC:

                        "Carruth’s lawyer is claiming that Read grabbing the gun justifies the shooting, that’s going to be a tough sale because 1) Carruth escalated the situation by discharging the gun before Read grabbed it and 2) Read was a good distance away, no longer in danger of getting the gun when he was shot.

                        "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08

                        The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.

                        IvorythumperI 1 Reply Last reply
                        • 89th8 Offline
                          89th8 Offline
                          89th
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #13

                          The sound of a chicken in the background was a nice touch.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          • George KG George K

                            @ivorythumper said in [Not Self-Defense (graphic)]

                            Did the gun guy shoot first at the feet after dead guy threatened to take the gun away and use it? It sounds like it from the audio, which could be construed as warning shots.

                            Yes, he did. But, he retreated. That's critical.

                            It looks like dead guy then grabbed the gun and tried to wrest it, but wound up only throwing the guy away creating distance but also assaulting him -- so the other guy acted in self defense.

                            One can make the case that "gun guy" was 10 feet away from "dead guy" and "dead guy" posed no immediate threat.

                            Horrible events, but it would be a tough prosecution.

                            From the RWEC:

                            "Carruth’s lawyer is claiming that Read grabbing the gun justifies the shooting, that’s going to be a tough sale because 1) Carruth escalated the situation by discharging the gun before Read grabbed it and 2) Read was a good distance away, no longer in danger of getting the gun when he was shot.

                            IvorythumperI Offline
                            IvorythumperI Offline
                            Ivorythumper
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #14

                            @george-k said in Not Self-Defense (graphic):

                            @ivorythumper said in [Not Self-Defense (graphic)]

                            Did the gun guy shoot first at the feet after dead guy threatened to take the gun away and use it? It sounds like it from the audio, which could be construed as warning shots.

                            Yes, he did. But, he retreated. That's critical.

                            It looks like dead guy then grabbed the gun and tried to wrest it, but wound up only throwing the guy away creating distance but also assaulting him -- so the other guy acted in self defense.

                            One can make the case that "gun guy" was 10 feet away from "dead guy" and "dead guy" posed no immediate threat.

                            Horrible events, but it would be a tough prosecution.

                            From the RWEC:

                            "Carruth’s lawyer is claiming that Read grabbing the gun justifies the shooting, that’s going to be a tough sale because 1) Carruth escalated the situation by discharging the gun before Read grabbed it and 2) Read was a good distance away, no longer in danger of getting the gun when he was shot.

                            I don't see Read retreating -- when Carruth came out with a gun, Read got aggressive. In his face, threatening to take the gun away. When C fires the warning shots, R grabbed C and the gun, and pushed him. 10 or 12 feet is not "a good distance away" nor out of danger.

                            The video from R's wife tracks C, not R, so we don't know what C was doing from that viewpoint.

                            R was stupid and threatening and acting violently. C was stupid too, but R was stupider and is now dead. Tough prosecution. I don't see anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            • 89th8 Offline
                              89th8 Offline
                              89th
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #15

                              Don't discount the (empathetic) angle of a dad trying to pick up his son at his legally appointed time and frustrated when his ex isn't cooperating. Anyone watching the video will be impacted by that, even if it's not relevant to the actual killing.

                              That being said, the fact that C went inside to get a firearm is what triggered any escalating actions thereafter, including the warning shot, and then eventually the fatal shots he took after stepping back and aiming at the unarmed man who was not posing any significant threats. If the only threat was him grabbing a gun shoved in his face, that's not really much.

                              This is pretty clear cut murder, IMO.

                              IvorythumperI JollyJ 2 Replies Last reply
                              • JollyJ Offline
                                JollyJ Offline
                                Jolly
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #16

                                Ten feet with the aggressor standing and ten feet with the aggressor moving, are two different things. Unless you are very good (and I know people that can do it), it's very hard to draw a firearm and get off a shot if an aggressor is within ten feet, period. If the gun is in the average person's hands, with the safety off, a running ten feet makes the outcome maybe 75/25 (SWAG). If the weapon us in hand and the aggressor is standing, if he starts towards you, he's shot. The only question is whether he's dead.

                                “Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”

                                Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                • 89th8 89th

                                  Don't discount the (empathetic) angle of a dad trying to pick up his son at his legally appointed time and frustrated when his ex isn't cooperating. Anyone watching the video will be impacted by that, even if it's not relevant to the actual killing.

                                  That being said, the fact that C went inside to get a firearm is what triggered any escalating actions thereafter, including the warning shot, and then eventually the fatal shots he took after stepping back and aiming at the unarmed man who was not posing any significant threats. If the only threat was him grabbing a gun shoved in his face, that's not really much.

                                  This is pretty clear cut murder, IMO.

                                  IvorythumperI Offline
                                  IvorythumperI Offline
                                  Ivorythumper
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #17

                                  @89th said in Not Self-Defense (graphic):

                                  Don't discount the (empathetic) angle of a dad trying to pick up his son at his legally appointed time and frustrated when his ex isn't cooperating. Anyone watching the video will be impacted by that, even if it's not relevant to the actual killing.

                                  That being said, the fact that C went inside to get a firearm is what triggered any escalating actions thereafter, including the warning shot, and then eventually the fatal shots he took after stepping back and aiming at the unarmed man who was not posing any significant threats. If the only threat was him grabbing a gun shoved in his face, that's not really much.

                                  This is pretty clear cut murder, IMO.

                                  A much larger and angry man comes ranting and threatening on his property - he shoves C as soon as C steps outside, and C goes inside to get a weapon - the argument is that R is already violent and hostile, and C has a right to defend his GF and self and property.

                                  89th8 1 Reply Last reply
                                  • IvorythumperI Ivorythumper

                                    @89th said in Not Self-Defense (graphic):

                                    Don't discount the (empathetic) angle of a dad trying to pick up his son at his legally appointed time and frustrated when his ex isn't cooperating. Anyone watching the video will be impacted by that, even if it's not relevant to the actual killing.

                                    That being said, the fact that C went inside to get a firearm is what triggered any escalating actions thereafter, including the warning shot, and then eventually the fatal shots he took after stepping back and aiming at the unarmed man who was not posing any significant threats. If the only threat was him grabbing a gun shoved in his face, that's not really much.

                                    This is pretty clear cut murder, IMO.

                                    A much larger and angry man comes ranting and threatening on his property - he shoves C as soon as C steps outside, and C goes inside to get a weapon - the argument is that R is already violent and hostile, and C has a right to defend his GF and self and property.

                                    89th8 Offline
                                    89th8 Offline
                                    89th
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #18

                                    @ivorythumper said in Not Self-Defense (graphic):

                                    the argument is that R is already violent and hostile, and C has a right to defend his GF and self and property.

                                    Completely agree, but I don't agree that he needed to step over options 1 through 9 before jumping to option 10 of shooting him to death. I know this isn't a legal argument, but it's really hard from that video to think "Oh yeah, he definitely needed to kill that man" since the man gave no indication up until then that he had any violent intent.

                                    IvorythumperI 1 Reply Last reply
                                    • 89th8 89th

                                      Don't discount the (empathetic) angle of a dad trying to pick up his son at his legally appointed time and frustrated when his ex isn't cooperating. Anyone watching the video will be impacted by that, even if it's not relevant to the actual killing.

                                      That being said, the fact that C went inside to get a firearm is what triggered any escalating actions thereafter, including the warning shot, and then eventually the fatal shots he took after stepping back and aiming at the unarmed man who was not posing any significant threats. If the only threat was him grabbing a gun shoved in his face, that's not really much.

                                      This is pretty clear cut murder, IMO.

                                      JollyJ Offline
                                      JollyJ Offline
                                      Jolly
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #19

                                      @89th said in Not Self-Defense (graphic):

                                      Don't discount the (empathetic) angle of a dad trying to pick up his son at his legally appointed time and frustrated when his ex isn't cooperating. Anyone watching the video will be impacted by that, even if it's not relevant to the actual killing.

                                      That being said, the fact that C went inside to get a firearm is what triggered any escalating actions thereafter, including the warning shot, and then eventually the fatal shots he took after stepping back and aiming at the unarmed man who was not posing any significant threats. If the only threat was him grabbing a gun shoved in his face, that's not really much.

                                      This is pretty clear cut murder, IMO.

                                      Not in Texas.

                                      Now, there may be a conviction on something else, but I don't think it will be murder.

                                      “Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”

                                      Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      • 89th8 Offline
                                        89th8 Offline
                                        89th
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #20

                                        Mayyyyyyyyybe manslaughter, but I still say murder since he intentionally and knowingly took the man's life.

                                        JollyJ 1 Reply Last reply
                                        • 89th8 89th

                                          @ivorythumper said in Not Self-Defense (graphic):

                                          the argument is that R is already violent and hostile, and C has a right to defend his GF and self and property.

                                          Completely agree, but I don't agree that he needed to step over options 1 through 9 before jumping to option 10 of shooting him to death. I know this isn't a legal argument, but it's really hard from that video to think "Oh yeah, he definitely needed to kill that man" since the man gave no indication up until then that he had any violent intent.

                                          IvorythumperI Offline
                                          IvorythumperI Offline
                                          Ivorythumper
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #21

                                          @89th said in Not Self-Defense (graphic):

                                          @ivorythumper said in Not Self-Defense (graphic):

                                          the argument is that R is already violent and hostile, and C has a right to defend his GF and self and property.

                                          Completely agree, but I don't agree that he needed to step over options 1 through 9 before jumping to option 10 of shooting him to death. I know this isn't a legal argument, but it's really hard from that video to think "Oh yeah, he definitely needed to kill that man" since the man gave no indication up until then that he had any violent intent.

                                          He should have gone inside and dialed 911. And then maybe positioned himself with his rifle between R and his GF. But none of these are strictly rational actors.

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups