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.
wrote on 29 Nov 2021, 15:36 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 29 Nov 2021, 15:37 last edited by
Mayyyyyyyyybe manslaughter, but I still say murder since he intentionally and knowingly took the man's life.
-
@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.
wrote on 29 Nov 2021, 15:46 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 30 Nov 2021, 14:52 last edited by
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.
-
wrote on 30 Nov 2021, 15:16 last edited byThis post is deleted!
-
wrote on 30 Nov 2021, 15:16 last edited by Improviso
So, let me get this straight.
Trump gets banned from Twitter for mean tweets but this video stays online for 4+ days???
Standards my ass.
-
Mayyyyyyyyybe manslaughter, but I still say murder since he intentionally and knowingly took the man's life.
wrote on 30 Nov 2021, 18:08 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 30 Nov 2021, 18:17 last edited by
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?
-
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?
wrote on 30 Nov 2021, 19:27 last edited by@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
-
wrote on 30 Nov 2021, 19:29 last edited by
Yeah, he went down like a rag doll. I'm guessing one of the bullets ripped through his heart.
Ugh, without knowing any other background, it really is sad the father was there to get his kid, his ex was not cooperating with the custody agreement, and he is killed over it unnecessarily.
-
wrote on 1 Dec 2021, 05:38 last edited by
Heart shot won't always stop you immediately if you're already moving. Brain will.
-
wrote on 1 Dec 2021, 14:18 last edited by
Dr Grande weighs in:
Link to video -
wrote on 1 Dec 2021, 14:28 last edited by
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.
wrote on 1 Dec 2021, 14:31 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 1 Dec 2021, 14:36 last edited by jon-nyc 12 Jan 2021, 14:36
Imagine how good things would be if no one with an IQ of less than 105 could touch a gun.
-
wrote on 1 Dec 2021, 14:44 last edited by
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.
-
wrote on 1 Dec 2021, 15:53 last edited by
@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?
-
@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?
wrote on 1 Dec 2021, 15:57 last edited by@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.
wrote on 1 Dec 2021, 16:11 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 1 Dec 2021, 16:21 last edited by
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.