Not Self-Defense (graphic)
-
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?
-
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!”
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
-
@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.
-
This is a long, long, video (5 hours!), but bottom line is that this lawyer from Minnesooota thinks that Kyle won't be charged, and if he is, will be acquitted.
Link to videoGo to about 30:00 for what he says is relevant law.
-
@89th said in Not Self-Defense (graphic):
Mayyyyyyyyybe manslaughter, but I still say murder since he intentionally and knowingly took the man's life.
Texas. Stand your ground. Castle doctrine, which extends to your yard.
-
Lots of people not caring about their own lives in that video.
I was told here that shooting someone doesn't drop them immediately, like in the movies. But I guess that sometimes it happens like in the movies. Was he hit directly in the heart? What makes someone drop immediately like that, other than a head shot, which this didn't seem to be?
Education is extremely important.
-
@horace said in Not Self-Defense (graphic):
Lots of people not caring about their own lives in that video.
I was told here that shooting someone doesn't drop them immediately, like in the movies. But I guess that sometimes it happens like in the movies. Was he hit directly in the heart? What makes someone drop immediately like that, other than a head shot, which this didn't seem to be?
That's a very good question. Some people will drop. More will drop from a rifle than from a handgun. Many won't drop at all. Some people will die from wounds they should have survived, while others take killing shots and lived(Trace Adkins woman shot him in the heart).
Been a lot of studies, but no definitive answers.
Go figure
