another self-defense killing?

[stagpanther]

Now that the cat is out of the bag--here's another "fear that I'll get shot with my own weapon" self-defense killing.

3-2-1...have at it.

[Rob228]

Well, he did say he was going to take it and use it against him.

People stop acting rationally when custody of kids is an issue. That situation probably could have been de-escalated but the man with the gun was threatened and the other guy did try to take it.

Most people I know that have custody issues that may turn hostile tend to do all meetings in public places to avoid anything like this. To keep it gun related though; I guess that also shows the effectiveness of a pistol caliber carbine.

[Aguila Blanca]

Two well-known attorneys have already commented on this case, and they don't agree.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA-3LaPRHnI

https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/1...ification/amp/

[Spats McGee]

If I understand correctly, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, the argument had already begun when the shooter went into the house and got the gun. That's a problem, because it brings into question whether he really believed he was in danger, and whether the danger was imminent. If he had time to retrieve the gun, he had time to call the police.

[sfwusc]

Based on the video from house. The deceased might have been moving forward at 0:11 based on the previous facts. Seems like that reopened the window of self defense.

Why did he go get a firearm? Had it been violent in the past? This seems like over the top to me and likely a bad move. He was at his home, so I doubt that becomes an issue. I can walk around me property with a firearm and it should be fine.

The guy should have left the property and using legal means to address the custody issue.

I don’t like the shooting as I think it was over the top but I would have a hard time voting guilty if on the jury.

[zukiphile]

There is so much wrong in that video.

If your ex-wife fails to comply with the court's order on parental rights, the next conversation is with an attorney or judge, not her.

If you have an angry fellow in your yard, you don't have an argument with him about whether he should be in your yard. You call the police.

If the man who pays you child support is a hot head, goading him into a lethal conflict is not an excellent plan.

If you feel that your life or safety are genuinely threatened, you don't retreat into your house to get a gun to even up your chances.

If you feel that your life or safety are genuinely threatened, you don't fire a warning shot into the ground.

If you have a rifle length weapon in your hands, you don't engage in the simian dominance ritual of butting your chest against his. This might be significant in whether this was actually self-defense. The dominance ritual is an invitation to mutual combat; participating in the ritual while holding a gun sends a mixed message.

If you are having a yelling match with your ex-wife at her house and you see an agitated man with a rifle who just shot the ground in front of you, you don't try to get the gun from him.

If you are sitting in your car taking video of a fellow having a parental rights argument, and the man just took two to the chest and is on the ground face down, you don't stand around having an argument with the shooter telling him you got it on video.

If you just shot a man in your front yard and he is face down on the ground, you don't argue with the videographer.

[Mainah]

If you are sitting in your car taking video of a fellow having a parental rights argument, and the man just took two to the chest and is on the ground face down, you don't stand around having an argument with the shooter telling him you got it on video.

And maybe turn off the car stereo too. That woman stupefied me. She didn't speed off after the shooting, despite facing the armed shooter. She didn't try to provide first aid, she actually argued with the shooter instead of calling 911.

[Doc Intrepid]

One fact seems to not be in doubt.

The individual who was shot was not armed.

The individual who shot him will have a challenge explaining how he perceived himself to be in imminent jeopardy of death during an argument with an unarmed man.

Particularly when he shot him while disengaged and moving backwards away from the victim. The video provides that evidence.

[MarkCO]

All I can say is that I have questions along the lines of zukiphile's statements. Working on two self defense shootings (professionally) right now and my fear is that, given the recent press and some of the circumstances, we might see repercussions regarding the overall 2A debate.

We have "laws" and safety devices based on singular occurrences in the US. These kinds of cases worry me more than the "Assault Rifle vs Hunting Rifle" debates.

[ghbucky]

My take on it was that retreating into the house was good. If he actually felt threatened then he could arm himself but STAY INSIDE.

Returning outside while armed was major bad move, IMO. I don't see how he can now say he felt he was threatened because he returned to argue more.

I think a lot of people think that if they wave a gun around it will gain compliance. But this and the Arboury case both prove that introducing a gun into a volatile situation may not go at all how you planned it to go.

[Ridgerunner665]

Bad shoot all the way around... but... he did say he would take it from him and use it on him, and grabbed for it.

I'm guessing that'll go a long ways towards clearing the shooter in court.

I'm gonna quote Sam Elliot from the movie Conager, because it fits.... anybody who kills when he can do otherwise is just plain crazy....and.... be sure when the killing time comes you're standing on the right side of it.

The shoot discussed here.... while maybe technically legal... was neither necessary nor right.

The gun should never have been brought into this, the guy was mad, but appeared reasonable, up until the gun came out.


Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

[stagpanther]

...given the recent press and some of the circumstances, we might see repercussions regarding the overall 2A debate.

Bingo! my thoughts exactly.

[stagpanther]

The guy apparently had the legal right to take custody of his son. Who among you would not do anything to take custody of your child? His son was the one who took the video from inside the house.

[Metal god]

If I understand correctly, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, the argument had already begun when the shooter went into the house and got the gun. That's a problem, because it brings into question whether he really believed he was in danger, and whether the danger was imminent. If he had time to retrieve the gun, he had time to call the police.

I've been following this close-ish . There seems to be a lot of technicalities in Texas law here and do you want to argue those as your reason for killing someone to a jury .

1) Reed was asked to leave and was told the child was not there ( confirmed when Reed states he has the cops on the way to ex's mothers house to look for child ) all this before retrieving the firearm .

2) If the porch is covered and connected to the house and you are lawfully residing in said home . The porch "is" the house/home so in the eyes of the law did he technically go into the home to get the gun or simply retrieve the gun from it's stored location ?

3) Again the porch is the home and Carruth again asked Reed to leave with the firearm pointed in a safe non-threatening direction and Reed refuses .

4) Not only does Reed refuse to leave , Reed charges Carruth and steps up onto the porch ( into Carruth's home ) So we now have Reed aggressively assaulting Carruth then commits battery by the unwanted touching ( chest bump ) while also committing a burglary ( aggressively entering the dwelling ) things start getting real sketchy at this point based on Texas law and precedent in Texas .

5) While standing face to face after #4 has happened Reed states "use it or I'll take it from you and use it on you" . A clear threat which he has means and opportunity to do so .

6) As they are chest bumping face to face ( Carruth shorter then Reed ) Carruth is looking "up" into Reeds eyes . Carruth feels Reed manipulate the firearm with his hand/arm . Remember they are literally chest to chest with Carruth looking up into Reeds eyes away from the gun . Carruth then has reasonable belief Reed is trying to carry out the threat he just made and trying to take the gun and to use on Carruth .

6.5) It's my understand if Carruth shot Reed died right that moment there would be no debate if this was lawful self defense .

7) Carruth swings gun around to avoid Reed from taking it and fires one shot ( attempts to use deadly force ) at the feet of Reed . Some say warning shot but in the eyes of the law you don't get to fire warning shots in the direction of the aggressor ??? So the use of deadly force in self defense started right then ???

8) Reed then grabs Carruth and the gun and a struggle ensues for the gun which results in Carruth being forced from his home ( porch ) some 6 to 10 feet away . Carruth while still moving from the Struggle for the gun 0 feet to the 6 to 10 feet away he raises the firearm and pulls the trigger in the fraction of a second he can get a clear POA on the target .

8.5) It's argued once Carruth was 6 to 10 feet away being thrown there by the struggle for the firearm , the unarmed Reed was no longer a threat to inflict immediate death or great bodily harm to Carruth . This is not an unreasonable argument IMHO . However there are Technicalities in the law the go to specific elements of this case that allow Carruth to uses deadly force in that very situation .

Andrew Branca ( Law of self defense ) summed it up quite well . If you look at the black letter of the law "in Texas" , yes it was a lawful use of deadly force . However it will be very hard to convince a Jury even in Texas that killing an unarmed man from 10 feet away that was not close enough to harm you and was not moving towards you when you pulled the trigger is reasonable .

My Take on the whole thing is one of two things . Ethier Carruth is never charged ( based on the letter of the law ) or if he's charged ( depending on the charges ) he is convicted .

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Doc Intrepid

The individual who shot him will have a challenge explaining how he perceived himself to be in imminent jeopardy of death during an argument with an unarmed man.

The usual legal standard for the use of deadly force in self defense is not solely perceiving oneself to be in imminent jeopardy of death -- it's being in fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury. In this case, the deceased was several inches taller than the shooter, heaver, and acting in a belligerent manner. The deceased had verbally threatened the shooter, and attempted to take the gun away from him.

Texas law appears to favor the shooter, despite his bringing a rifle to a fist fight being (IMHO) a questionable decision:

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-c...sect-9-32.html

From the law:

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

[44 AMP]

Who among you would not do anything to take custody of your child?

If I believed the child in imminent danger of physical harm, then yes, I'd do what ever it took.

Otherwise, no. If it is a matter of violation of court ordered process, then you let the court deal with that. Frustrating though it may be, its the only correct thing to do.

The problem we are going to see from the Rittenhouse verdict is one of simply ignorance (posssibly wilful) on the part of some people who are only understanding "self defense = not guilty" and that is FAR, FAR from actual reality.

No matter the circumstances/reason for the confrontation, retreating to your house and arming yourself may be a very prudent decision.

COMING BACK OUT, (armed) is NOT.

[Metal god]

The guy apparently had the legal right to take custody of his son. Who among you would not do anything to take custody of your child? His son was the one who took the video from inside the house.

This is an emotional argument that has no relevance in law or this case . The child was not there as far as we know to date . Even if the child was , this was a court ordered/allowed/set time . The mother could refuse and the "ONLY" legal remedy for Mr Reed would be to ask the court to force the mom to comply . Unless the child was in emanate harm the parent is never allowed to take the law into there own hands . In fact if Reed had not been killed he likely would not get to see his kid/s unsupervised moving forward based on how he was acting that day .

Sucks yes but it is what it is . I was a single parent ( yes I had custody ) of our son from the age of 6 months old . There were several times I wanted to drag his mother into court to be more reasonable about things but I never did . Why ? Because I NEVER wanted anyone else ( strangers with the force of law behind them ) making decisions that directly impacted my family . I simply chose to suck it up and except she was a dead beat mom . She did come around ( grew up ) by the time he was in junior high school but that was still 10+ years of crap I had to deal with but in the end it was what was best for our son . To this day he never knew who is mom really was .

[stagpanther]

COMING BACK OUT, (armed) is NOT.

Why not? Texas is a stand your ground state and the guy had already been yelled at and threatened--and it was his property. The inherent problem with being dead is that you are not given the opportunity to defend what your intent actually was (is).

[Rob228]

Why not? Texas is a stand your ground state and the guy had already been yelled at and threatened--and it was his property.

It was legal, just like with the Rittenhouse case, but I think this is (just like that one) a case of "just because you can doesn't mean you should" as far as introducing a weapon into the situation goes. Was he justified in defending his property? Yes. Could they have both gone inside and waited for the police to show up and ask the guy to leave? Yes. Armchair quarterbacking it I would not have felt right about that shooting, but I was not there and don't know the history between the two, and we only see where the recording starts. Were threats made prior to that? No clue. Based solely on what I saw I think de-escalation was in order, but as far as I know there is no such thing as a duty to de-escalate.

[Metal god]

It was legal, just like with the Rittenhouse case, but I think this is (just like that one) a case of "just because you can doesn't mean you should" as far as introducing a weapon into the situation goes. Was he justified in defending his property? Yes. Could they have both gone inside and waited for the police to show up and ask the guy to leave? Yes. Armchair quarterbacking it I would not have felt right about that shooting, but I was not there and don't know the history between the two, and we only see where the recording starts. Were threats made prior to that? No clue. Based solely on what I saw I think de-escalation was in order, but as far as I know there is no such thing as a duty to de-escalate.

I think these are pretty good points and REALLY good point about the history between the two or three to include the ex-wife . What if Reed was abusive to his ex or even aggressive towards Carruth on other occasions . This could go to state of mind of both men . Carruth "may" be thinking .... here he goes again , this is going to keep escalating If he ( Reed ) doesn't leave just like it has in the past , I need to get him to leave before this gets out of control - To late !

The problem we are going to see from the Rittenhouse verdict is one of simply ignorance (posssibly wilful) on the part of some people who are only understanding "self defense = not guilty" and that is FAR, FAR from actual reality.

I agree and it sucks that the anti gun groups will use that very theory as a reason why you should have a duty to retreat . I think it's total BULL . Just because people don't understand the law doesn't mean the law should be repealed . Oh How I wish gun control worked that way lol . Both Wisconsin and Georga have recalled the laws that were involved in the Rittenhouse case and the Ahmaud Arbery case and I see zero reason for that . In both cases the laws worked as designed and some how they need to be revoked ???

Rittenhouse was legally able to open carry a long gun and he used that gun to save his life FOUR TIMES lawfully . Why would you take a law away that was not broken and actually did what it was intended to do ??

Ahmaud Arbery was falsely detained and because of that was able to defend him self . All the aggressors were found guilty of violating the citizens arrest law so why repeal it ? There is nothing wrong with the law . If used correctly you can arrest a suspected felon who is fleeing . Used wrongly and you go to jail as all the defendants did .

I don't see a reason to repeal either of the laws/statutes as they worked exactly as they should . Ignorance is not an excuse to violate the law . It was not the citizens arrest law that was bad it's that the Mcmicheals screwed up big time on there interpretation of that law and now have to pay for that .

[44 AMP]

Most people, and virtually everyone in the mainstream media misunderstand and misstate the stand your ground laws.

Removing the legal requirement of a "duty to retreat" is NOT the same as granting license to seek a confrontation.

While going back out into your yard (armed) is something you have a legal right to do, resuming confrontation with someone you don't want to be there, since the police haven't shown up (and you didn't even call them) is a very, very stupid idea.

The legal protection against being sued because you didn't retreat is NOT applicable once you become the aggressor.

Stupid, piled on stupid, piled on stupid is going to trump legal protection that applies when you're not doing stupid things.

OF course, all the press will see is a bad law, and bleat to the world endlessly about that. or, so it seems to me...

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by stagpanther

Why not? Texas is a stand your ground state and the guy had already been yelled at and threatened--and it was his property.

44 AMP didn't say that Carruth's coming back outside with the rifle was illegal, he said it wasn't prudent.

The fact that we are having this discussion proves the validity of that statement.

[sfwusc]

Both sides made a lot of bad decisions.

[Scorch]

Both sides made a lot of bad decisions.

Bingo!

[stagpanther]

Both sides made a lot of bad decisions.

So it's a "draw" and warrants no charges on anyone?