another self-defense killing?

[Metal god]

o. My logic indicates that if your conduct doesn't indicate a perception of an imminent and grave threat, you will undermine a defense that requires an imminent and grave threat.

Again you are misunderstanding what is what . There’s no need for eminent great bottle harm or death to simply retrieve a weapon . When you retrieve a weapon you have not used deadly force you have simply acquired a weapon you may use in self-defense later .

You seem to be contributing them both as if they are the same . Acquiring the weapon and using it are not the same thing . Carruth did not acquire the weapon and use it immediately he simply acquired it , full stop . It was only after Reed aggressively moved towards Carruth and literally committed assaulted battery did the escalation of deadly force begin .

[44 AMP]

I ask because I go back to does it matter where he gets the gun from ?

In this case, I believe it does matter. He LEFT the confrontation, and went inside his house. He was not pursued. This ENDS the confrontation.

Had he stayed in his house, called the cops and waited inside for them to deal with the situation the outcome would have been different.

He didn't do that. He went back outside and by so doing, created another confrontation, one where he could arguably be considered the agressor, DESPITE being on his own property and within his legal rights.

[sfwusc]

Legal wise —- I think it is a good shooting. Castle doctrine, trying to take the firearm, verbal threats and so on. If this happen in a public place, then I would side not a good shooting, but it was his home and on his front porch. If someone breaks into my house and throw me outside, then that shouldn’t remove my right to defend my home. The deceased removed him from the porch and it is my understand a covered porch in Texas is part of the home not just the area around the home. ( porch is same as living room or family room)

If someone comes into your house uninvited, then you should be able to keep shooting them until they leave. Make stupid decisions and you might give others the legal right to make dumb decisions as well.


Smart wise —- I think it a lot of horrible choices. Get your girlfriend inside and wait for the police to remove him from your property. If he trying to come inside then open fire.

[Metal god]

Had he stayed in his house, called the cops and waited inside for them to deal with the situation the outcome would have been different.

That goes to my original post where I said something like there are a bunch of technicalities that may be lawful but hard to argue to a jury . I don't think he had any legal obligation to stay in the home . He also only came outside and stopped well away from Reed with gun pointed well away from Reed . At this point I don't think he has done anything illegal or anything that constitutes a "legal" escalation of the confrontation . I think it's well established law that the mere presence of a firearm is not an escalating factor . I believe this is universal or almost universal through out the states and based on reputation I'd bet dollars to donuts Texas doesn't think so

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Metal god

Again you are misunderstanding what is what . There’s no need for eminent great bottle harm or death to simply retrieve a weapon . When you retrieve a weapon you have not used deadly force you have simply acquired a weapon you may use in self-defense later .

I don't know about Texas but in many states, the display of a firearm in a threatening manner is deemed to be use of deadly force. Whether you ever fire a shot or not.

[Metal god]

I don't know about Texas but in many states, the display of a firearm in a threatening manner is deemed to be use of deadly force. Whether you ever fire a shot or not.

You all-ish keep doing this in your post and as written you are correct but that's not what Carruth did . He came out and stopped with the gun pointed up across his body away from Reed . That is simply displaying the firearm not threatening anyone with it and has been my point the whole time . This case is filled with very technical points that although are true and IMO seem to point to a legal self defense . As Adrew Branca pointed out . Good look convincing a jury it was a good shoot .

Obviously the law and jury instructions are going to be key in how this case turns out .

[JohnKSa]

I don't know about Texas but in many states, the display of a firearm in a threatening manner is deemed to be use of deadly force. Whether you ever fire a shot or not.

In TX, displaying a firearm is considered the use of force but not deadly force.

"...a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force."

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm

Force must be justified to produce/display a firearm, but the justification doesn't have to rise to the level that would allow deadly force.

Actually pointing the firearm at someone may take things up a notch, but just displaying it is not deadly force.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Metal god

Again you are misunderstanding what is what .

I have correctly understood that you do not agree that context is relevant, and that you've read my logic to require one to perceive an imminent threat in order to go retrieve a firearm even though I've explained that my logic is what I stated.

Nothing in your text explains something I've misunderstood about "what is what".

Originally Posted by Metal god

There’s no need for eminent great bottle harm or death to simply retrieve a weapon . When you retrieve a weapon you have not used deadly force you have simply acquired a weapon you may use in self-defense later .

No one asserted otherwise.

Little guy (LG) didn't only retrieve his weapon before delivering the fatal shots.

Originally Posted by Metal god

You seem to be contributing them both as if they are the same . Acquiring the weapon and using it are not the same thing .

Where do you read me asserting otherwise? Please be specific.

Originally Posted by Metal god

Carruth did not acquire the weapon and use it immediately he simply acquired it , full stop .

That's not the video I saw. After re-appearing armed, LG begins the yelling, participates in mutual combat in a way no one fearful of having his weapon taken ever would, shoots at the feet of someone who is not trying to take his weapon, then shoots when BG had tried to take the weapon from him.

A lot happens in that "full stop" and it isn't all good for LG.

Originally Posted by Metal god

It was only after Reed aggressively moved towards Carruth and literally committed assaulted battery did the escalation of deadly force begin .

You aren't in fear of imminent or grave injury if you are acting out dominance displays.

But the shooting isn't the only evidence against LG. His first excited utterance following the shoot isn't "Oh my God, he was going to kill me!! I was in fear of my life".

Instead, he continues the argument, this time with a woman in the car taking video, providing insight into his motive. "I TOLD all you all to leave". There's enough space between not doing what LG instructed and LG perceiving a serious and imminent threat for people to conclude from the video he shot BG for challenging him.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

In this case, I believe it does matter. He LEFT the confrontation, and went inside his house. He was not pursued. This ENDS the confrontation.

Had he stayed in his house, called the cops and waited inside for them to deal with the situation the outcome would have been different.

He didn't do that. He went back outside and by so doing, created another confrontation, one where he could arguably be considered the agressor, DESPITE being on his own property and within his legal rights.

I think 44 AMP has correctly identified one of the key issues in this case. The shooter may not have been the initial aggressor, but once he left the first confrontation, he ended it. By returning outside with a weapon, it may well be that he (legally) initiated a second confrontation in which he was the initial aggressor. That may bar him from successfully using SD in court.

[Metal god]

@ Zukiphile

It's pretty clear we are coming at this from opposite directions . You have the prosecutions theory and I have the defense's theory . I guess we will see who's theory works out when the jury decides , if charges are ever even brought .

I think 44 AMP has correctly identified one of the key issues in this case. The shooter may not have been the initial aggressor, but once he left the first confrontation

Was there a disengagement ? When did Reed ever stop arguing and being unreasonable . Did Reed ever make it known his part was over and he wanted to leave as ask or that he planned to leave ? Carruth's perceived threat never stopped and this was at his home which I believe makes all the difference .

I read in the other self defense thread how every action is taken as a separate action if there is a discernable stop in the other action proceeding ? I know I did not put that in legal wording but ...

Carruth tells Reed to get off his property and Reed turns to him and says something I can't make out ( that may be important ) . In video you see Carruth on porch and Reed off porch yet they look the same height which means Reed is close to 5 inches taller then Carruth and has a what appears to be a large weight advantage as well . I believe these are very important factors in what Carruth felt was needed to protect him self when and if he asks Reed to leave again .

Prosecutor : why did you go get the gun Mr Carruth .

Carruth : Mr Reed was refusing to leave and getting more and more agitated . I had real concerns if I tried to force him off my property he would aggressively refuse and he is to big to fend off if that happens .

Prosecutor : So you went into the house to get your gun so you could come back and kill Mr Reed isn't that correct .

Carruth : No I went to get my firearm incase Mr Reed were to get even more aggressive and attack me or my girlfriend if I continued to ask him to leave , which the video shows is EXACTLY what happened .

Prosecutor : No the video shows you retrieving your gun and killed Mr Reed in cold blood !

Carruth : No the video shows me asking/telling Mr Reed to leave my property for the second or third time at which point Mr Reed does the very thing I feared the most which was aggressively come towards me and assault me , threaten to kill me and try to take my gun to do so .

IDK but them Texas folk may see that different then us left coasters .

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Metal god

@ Zukiphile

It's pretty clear we are coming at this from opposite directions . You have the prosecutions theory and I have the defense's theory .

No. I am not coming at this from a prosecutors perspective. I am viewing a video of a couple of people behaving poorly and trying to apply the ideas of self defense, forfeit of self-defense rights, mutual combat, and the castle doctrine. When you attribute positions to me that don't follow from what I've written and that I don't take, you shouldn't think it's clear that you've assessed my position.

When we construct scenarios to illustrate the principles of a defense, we make them simple and uncluttered to better illustrate the idea.

The stew of stupidity presented in the video is anything but simple or uncluttered. For instance, BG yells back at LG that LG had better use the gun or BG will take it and use it. Seems like a credible threat, except that BG seems uninterested in touching the gun when the two make contact. That part gets less simple the more you observe it.

Where the scenario is less clearly valid self defense, the putative defendant is more at risk for being charged. That's why I provided a narrative that would have LG charged in my state. If someone can piece together the video evidence to support a charge, that's not an ideal illustration of self defense.

I don't know what a jury there would find. If I were defense counsel, I might not want any divorced fathers who were denied visitation on the jury. On the other hand, an entire jury instruction form book won't overcome if the local sentiment is if you don't want to be shot, don't come to my place and push me around.

[Metal god]

Noted , you are not coming at this as a prosecutor but are making the likely points the prosecution will make and that was more my point rather then actually trying to say what's in your head . Sorry didn't mean to imply otherwise

FWIW I edited my post to address Spats comment .

[zukiphile]

Metal god, there is lots I don't know about this incident and how Texas treats it.

Originally Posted by Metal god

Was there a disengagement ?

When Little Guy went back into the house.

If you don't mind me using your device of a hypothetical interrogation:

When were you first afraid that Reed might beat or kill you?
When you went indoors to get your gun?

No.

Was Reed yelling at you at that time?

No. He was objecting to his ex-wife's failure to produce his son on time.

Then why were you afraid?

Because I planned to get him to leave, and I thought the gun would scare him off.

Did he follow you into the house?

No. He stayed outside talking to his ex-wife.

Did he yell at you from outside?

No.

When you came back out did your plan to get him to leave work?

No. It enraged him.

Did he try to kill you then?

No, he yelled back at me and pressed his chest against mine.

Did he try to take your gun?

No.

Was he close enough to take it?

Yes.

Were you afraid he would kill you then?

No, but he wasn't leaving.

What was your response to his failure to leave?

I shot at his feet.

Were you afraid he was about to kill you then?

No. That's why I just shot at his feet.

How did that work for you? Did he leave?

He reached for my gun.

For the first time?

Yes.

Did he get it?

No, I kept it and got several feet away from him.

So you weren't afraid he would kill you when you two were chest to chest, but you were more afraid now that he was farther from you?

Yes.

Was he advancing on you?

No. He was just standing there.

Was he saying anything at that point?

No.

You weren't afraid he would beat you when you were chest to chest, but you were afraid when you were were feet from him and he was just standing?

[sfwusc]

Doesn’t castle doctrine allow deadly forces in the event someone removes or attempt to remove you from your home. The guy just got thrown off his porch (Texas considers your home).

1. Was the shooter in his home?

2. Did the deceased attempt to remove him from his home?


If the porch is part of the home, then the video clearly shows the deceased removing him from his home. He threw him off the porch. The question is does Texas consider the porch the home, which one person in this thread said they did.

The throwing him out of his “home” give the shooter the right to use deadly force.

What am I missing?

[ghbucky]

My understanding of the castle doctrine is that the concept provides that within your own home any confrontation provides that you are automatically granted that you are in fear of great bodily injury or death. You do not have to retreat from the confrontation.

The homeowner retreated inside. Right there should have been the end of the story. At that point if BG tried to come in and gets shot then there is no discussion.

But... he went back out with the gun. And Zukiphile has done very well summarizing the events that followed afterwards.

Was LG intentionally setting up BG so that he could shoot him and claim castle doctrine? It may not have been his intent, but it can certainly be looked at that way.

I'm sure there is history that we know nothing about between those 2. The fact that he took the life of his stepchild's father can't be overlooked in what happened here.

[stagpanther]

I still think LG will walk--because he had no duty to retreat, inside or outside his home, it was his property. Either of the guys could claim attempted kidnapping--but LG has the upper hand since it was on his property--and he asked BG to leave. The first shot could conceivably be called justifiable because LG could claim he saw an imminent and serious threat of a kidnapping, not to mention verbal threats of violence, so that shooting at his feet would establish that it was a "proportional deterrent" to the threat he perceived.

[Metal god]

Zukiphile : That's some good cross-examination but I don't see him ever saying most of those things . I was going to put all the answers I think he'd say next to yours but it started being more work then I wanted lol , oh well .

[raimius]

Any updates on if charges were brought?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Metal god

....but I don't see him ever saying most of those things .

Fair enough. I didn't expect Gaige Grosskreutz to admit that KR only shot him after GG lunged at him and pointed a pistol at KR's head.

Video of an event can limit witness creativity.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by raimius

Any updates on if charges were brought?

Ask, and ye shall receive: https://www.kcbd.com/2021/12/06/chad...ss-negligence/

[ghbucky]

From AB's link

Minimal information was released by law enforcement in the days immediately following the shooting. The identity of the shooter had not been released. It was five days later, on Nov. 10 when the Lubbock County District Attorney’s Office recused itself from the case, on the grounds that an elected official may be called to testify.

The Lubbock Police Department then issued a statement explaining why the name of the shooter had not been released. “While LPD recognizes there is public interest in this case, there are multiple facets of this ongoing investigation that dictate what can and cannot be released to the public, per Texas state law,” the department said in a statement.

Then on November 16, six days later, the police department transferred its case files to the Texas Attorney General for its review.

Not sure what to make of that

[edit] I assume that since the deceased's children are party to the suit, that means that the shooter's stepchild is now suing his/her stepfather. This really just goes into the wisdom part of that confrontation. There was no need for anyone to die there.

[44 AMP]

Doesn’t castle doctrine allow deadly forces ...

No, NO, NO!!!

Castle doctrine (often called "stand your ground") does NOT allow deadly force. Whether or not deadly force is justified depends on specific details of the situation and where that situation fits under other laws, not Castle Doctrine.

While the wording varies between states that have such laws, in general what Castle Doctrine does is protect you from being sued because you did not retreat. There are (or were) places where the law, literally required you to retreat (run away if possible) unless you were physically prevented from doing so. What castle doctrine does, is protect you from civil action IF you did not retreat, in any place the law specifies you have a legal right to be.

Some places limit this to your home/property, other places include public areas, you need to know what applies in your location.

[ghbucky]

No, NO, NO!!!

I think you need to review how KY implements Castle doctrine. If you invade my home, my justification for deadly force is established. I need no further justification to use deadly force on you.

KY imposes some oddities, such as the 'domicile' is defined as the original blueprints of the home... so that if I add a bedroom and shoot you there I am technically outside of the domicile, which I gather is different than how Texas laws view things.

[edit] 'castle doctrine' and 'stand your ground' are 2 very different things. Castle doctrine covers the home. 'Stand your ground' is OUTSIDE the home and says that basically if I have legal basis to be there, I am not required to retreat.

I think you are confusing the 2.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

No, NO, NO!!!

Castle doctrine (often called "stand your ground") does NOT allow deadly force. Whether or not deadly force is justified depends on specific details of the situation and where that situation fits under other laws, not Castle Doctrine.

While the wording varies between states that have such laws, in general what Castle Doctrine does is protect you from being sued because you did not retreat. There are (or were) places where the law, literally required you to retreat (run away if possible) unless you were physically prevented from doing so. What castle doctrine does, is protect you from civil action IF you did not retreat, in any place the law specifies you have a legal right to be.

Some places limit this to your home/property, other places include public areas, you need to know what applies in your location.

I'm pretty certain that you are confusing "Castle Doctrine" with so-called "stand your ground laws," which are relatively recent and far fewer states have adopted them. Most, if not all, states have some version of castle doctrine law in their statutes, and they existed long, long before any "stand your ground" laws. Castle doctrine doesn't apply anywhere other than in your home and surrounding curtilage. "Stand your ground," on the other hand, applies anywhere you have a legal right to be.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/castle_doctrine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-R-0172.htm

From the Connecticut link:

SUMMARY

The Castle Doctrine and “stand-your-ground” laws are affirmative defenses for individuals charged with criminal homicide. The Castle Doctrine is a common law doctrine stating that an individual has no duty to retreat when in his or her home, or “castle,” and may use reasonable force, including deadly force, to defend his or her property, person, or another. Outside of the “castle,” however, an individual has a duty to retreat, if able to do so, before using reasonable force. Stand-your-ground laws, by comparison, remove the common law requirement to retreat outside of one's “castle,” allowing an individual to use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat. Deadly force is reasonable under stand-your-ground laws in certain circumstances, such as imminent great bodily harm or death.

Forty-six states, including Connecticut, have incorporated the Castle Doctrine into law. Connecticut law justifies the use of reasonable physical force, including deadly force, in defense of premises. Connecticut courts have recognized the common law privilege to challenge an unlawful entry into one's home, to the extent that a person's conduct does not rise to the level of a crime. Deadly force is justified in defense of one's property by a person who is privileged to be on the premises and who reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent an attempt by the criminal trespasser to commit any crime of violence.

Twenty states have stand-your-ground laws. Generally, these laws allow an individual to use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first if the individual (1) has a legal right to be at the location and (2) is not engaged in an unlawful activity. Connecticut does not have a stand-your-ground law. Connecticut law specifically requires an individual to retreat, if able to do so, before using reasonable force.

[Double Naught Spy]

I think 44 AMP has correctly identified one of the key issues in this case. The shooter may not have been the initial aggressor, but once he left the first confrontation, he ended it. By returning outside with a weapon, it may well be that he (legally) initiated a second confrontation in which he was the initial aggressor. That may bar him from successfully using SD in court.

The other side to that is that despite having gone inside after telling the EX to leave the property, the EX refused to leave and hence was trespassing and a belligerent trespasser at that. He has the right to order the trespasser to leave the property and to use force in doing so.