Not Self-Defense (graphic)
-
I see both sides of it. If the guy hadn’t gone inside to get his rifle, I don’t believe it would have escalated beyond an argument. At the same time, when the ex grabbed the rifle and tried to pull it away all bets were off. At the particular instant the guy fired the ex wasn’t advancing and didn’t pose a threat, but .3 seconds before that? .3 seconds after that? I wouldn’t want to have to have made that decision.
-
I see both sides of it. If the guy hadn’t gone inside to get his rifle, I don’t believe it would have escalated beyond an argument. At the same time, when the ex grabbed the rifle and tried to pull it away all bets were off. At the particular instant the guy fired the ex wasn’t advancing and didn’t pose a threat, but .3 seconds before that? .3 seconds after that? I wouldn’t want to have to have made that decision.
@lufins-dad said in Not Self-Defense (graphic):
.3 seconds
That's one of the points that was made by the lawyer in the long, long video (which, admittedly, I didn't watch all the way through. He alluded to the fact that slowing the video down, frame by frame, is distorting reality. That was one of the criticisms he leveled at the prosecution during the Rittenhouse trial.
-
I'm sure the victim had 100% certainty the gun dude was just bluffing. No way he would kill someone for standing on their porch looking for his own son, right? No way with all the cameras on them, right? Under that premise, the "grab/push gun out of the way" reaction seems somewhat natural. When the killer stepped back and fired 2 shots into the dude's head/chest (or wherever), I still am shocked he did that. No way he gets off scott free from this... Texas or not.
-
@jon-nyc said in Not Self-Defense (graphic):
Imagine how good things would be if no one with an IQ of less than 105 could touch a gun.
Why stop at 105?
I was only joking
-
@jon-nyc said in Not Self-Defense (graphic):
Imagine how good things would be if no one with an IQ of less than 105 could touch a gun.
Why stop at 105?
@doctor-phibes said in Not Self-Defense (graphic):
@jon-nyc said in Not Self-Defense (graphic):
Imagine how good things would be if no one with an IQ of less than 105 could touch a gun.
Why stop at 105?
I’ve long advocated a licensing system for gun ownership that requires not only adequate safe operation knowledge, but also some demonstration of responsible usage, similar to automobile licensing.
-
@doctor-phibes said in Not Self-Defense (graphic):
@jon-nyc said in Not Self-Defense (graphic):
Imagine how good things would be if no one with an IQ of less than 105 could touch a gun.
Why stop at 105?
I’ve long advocated a licensing system for gun ownership that requires not only adequate safe operation knowledge, but also some demonstration of responsible usage, similar to automobile licensing.
@lufins-dad said in Not Self-Defense (graphic):
@doctor-phibes said in Not Self-Defense (graphic):
@jon-nyc said in Not Self-Defense (graphic):
Imagine how good things would be if no one with an IQ of less than 105 could touch a gun.
Why stop at 105?
I’ve long advocated a licensing system for gun ownership that requires not only adequate safe operation knowledge, but also some demonstration of responsible usage, similar to automobile licensing.
How about anybody who gets a even the merest suggestion of a hard-on from looking at guns should be prevented from owning one?
That might cut the death-rate down a bit.
-
I was listening to a BBC radio show today where somebody pointed out that the British equivalent of the NRA was CAMRA (look it up). The scary point being made was that the membership is even angrier, and pretty much shared their dress-sense.
I'm sure it was a very unfair comparison (in case any NRA members are reading). I have a friend who was the regional president of CAMRA in Lancashire, and will say nothing further on the matter.
-
@jon-nyc said in Not Self-Defense (graphic):
Imagine how good things would be if no one with an IQ of less than 105 could touch a gun.
Why stop at 105?
@doctor-phibes said in Not Self-Defense (graphic):
@jon-nyc said in Not Self-Defense (graphic):
Imagine how good things would be if no one with an IQ of less than 105 could touch a gun.
Why stop at 105?
Why stop at gun owners, why not the guys who make up gun rules?
You can't make up gun control rules unless your IQ is above 50.
-
A Texas man who shot dead his girlfriend's ex-husband as the men argued over child custody will not face criminal charges because the shooting was in self-defense, the Texas Attorney General has announced.
William 'Kyle' Carruth, 39, opened fire on Chad Read, 54, after the two squared up to each other and wrestled over a gun in Lubbock on November 5.
A special grand jury found Carruth will not be charged because the argument was on his property and the shooting was in self-defense, Attorney General Ken Paxton said on Thursday.
Carruth, who is the ex-husband of 72nd District Court Judge Ann-Marie Carruth, was never arrested for the shooting, which his lawyer had argued was a 'justifiable homicide'.
You may be wondering, but what about the grand jury declining to return an indictment? Doesn’t that mean that Carruth’s shooting of Read was legally correct?
I’m afraid not.
The outcome of a grand jury proceeding is largely driven by the prosecutor presenting to that grand jury–and the prosecutor is a political actor.
The grand jury does not see all the evidence in a case, it does not hear both sides of the legal narrative. The grand jury is not genuinely an adversarial process. The grand jury hears only the narrative that the prosecution wants to present–the defense has no privilege to present its side of the story to the grand jury.
As you might imagine, if a group of people is told only one side of the story, that one side is likely to sound pretty compelling.
That means that it is generally the case that a grand jury returns an indictment if the prosecution wants an indictment returned, and the grand jury returns a no true bill (no indictment) if the prosecution prefers that there be no indictment.
Period.
So, all the grand jury decision to not indict tells us, really, is that the prosecutor, in this case, preferred that there not be an indictment.
That’s not a decision made on the legal merits. That’s a decision that is the result of political calculus.
-
I'm sure the victim had 100% certainty the gun dude was just bluffing. No way he would kill someone for standing on their porch looking for his own son, right? No way with all the cameras on them, right? Under that premise, the "grab/push gun out of the way" reaction seems somewhat natural. When the killer stepped back and fired 2 shots into the dude's head/chest (or wherever), I still am shocked he did that. No way he gets off scott free from this... Texas or not.
@89th said in Not Self-Defense (graphic):
I'm sure the victim had 100% certainty the gun dude was just bluffing. No way he would kill someone for standing on their porch looking for his own son, right? No way with all the cameras on them, right? Under that premise, the "grab/push gun out of the way" reaction seems somewhat natural. When the killer stepped back and fired 2 shots into the dude's head/chest (or wherever), I still am shocked he did that. No way he gets off scott free from this... Texas or not.
Second time this week I'm gonna call you an idiot.
You NEVER screw around with a man or most definitely not a woman, if they have a loaded gun in their hand. Not unless you are prepared to engage and kill them.
In Louisiana, with Castle Doctrine, that's most likely a righteous shooting. Don't know about Texas, but I'm guessing the guys walks...
-
He might have been certain, but he was wrong. I think if he tried to take the gun away, I'd shoot him too. Otherwise, you might end up killed with your own weapon, something I've spoken on here before. You don't pull out a firearm unless you intend to use it.
-
Sad that the first reaction by anybody was not to help the guy that was shot.
