Custody argument results in Texas man being shot to death, lawyer claims it was self-defense

Let me try to logically analyze this. I would say that the likelihood of him being a threat is a little bit too low to justify self defense.
Yes, I will totally concede that man probably would have made another dash at him trying to take the gun again. But we don't know that for certain.
The man with the gun could have waited to find out for sure.
We are talking about first the probability of him deciding to try to take the gun again, and then second the probability of him being threat if he was able to take the gun. Both of those combined together are just a little too low to justify shooting him.

I totally understand your argument, and I think it is an interesting one. But I am pretty sure a jury would not buy it.
He was some distance away from the man with the gun and not moving towards him at that exact moment in time.
Maybe if the victim had been some dangerous criminal, the other man could have gotten away with it. But that was not the case.

It's also ironic because I think you argued with me in another situation that we cannot judge a person in a criminal case by their past behavior in a different situation, to predict what their behavior in a future situation would then be. Yet that is exactly what you seem to be doing here.

 

so what that doesn't mean the threat was stopped he was still there and he's still could put his hands right back on it.

it's not that he was able to do it it's that he did do it.

so the man should have waited until his gun was taken away from it and he was possibly killed so he shouldn't have been able to defend himself?

If you have to let someone disarm you in order to use lethal force and you don't have a right to life.

I don't think that you are. I think this debate is about what constitutes an imminent threat. A person that has tried to disarm you by force and that is not incapacitated or subdued in any way is still a threat to you. Because they can do it again. The moment you try to take a gun away from somebody it's over.

I disagree this man's stopped a threat to his life and the life of the people he loved. The necessary component for it to be self-defense.

If the other guy had gotten the shotgun my wife from him could the other guy have killed him with it? If yes why does he have to wait until the other guy has the upper hand? As far as I saw from the video that you didn't just give up and surrender and he just blew his brains out right there that's what it would have to be in order for it to be murder.

shooting a person that tries to take your gun away from you is not the extreme it's the bare minimum.

yeah those are the stakes when you bring out the guns that's why I wouldn't have bought one out in this case.

that's possible of course it's also possible that he's completely exonerated this is Texas after all.

if I was him I wouldn't take a plea deal all he would have to do is convince the jury that between that time he separated from the guy and he shot him he was afraid he would go back after the gun and all he would have to do to prove that is explain that the other fellow wasn't submitting. There's no indication that he did the man brought out a shotgun and fired a warning shut off and the dude still brazenly tried to yank it out of his hand.

 

He didn't have a right to "stop the threat" at that time.

Just because someone acts in a threatening way before does not mean you can shoot them later when they are not acting in that same threatening way.

 

I would disagree. A person with such little regard for you that he tries to take a gun from you could very easily get it away from you and then shoot you with it.

If you want to say that he probably wouldn't have done that that speculative and that's a chance you can take but he didn't and his actions are the ones that are being talked about not what you would do.

he didn't have to know for certain. And you will never know these sorts of things for certain you don't ever get to have that certainty.

Could he take the gun away and could he shoot you with it? Did he try to take it? If you are willing to throw your life away on whether or not you're certain that's your business but you can't expect other people to do that.

are you kidding he already knew for sure he tried to take it once already how much more sure do you have to be then it already happened.

so you would let someone take your gun away and shoot you with it because you can't be sure until they've already shot you?

So you don't believe in self-defense at all because they have to physically take your firearm and shoot you with it first before you can defend yourself.

I'd still take the chances with the jury.

yeah but it seems like you're on the side that he has to let the guy take it away from him and shoot him with it before he can defend himself.

His only avenue for self-defense is after he's been disarmed.

That's not at all reasonable.

if he managed to get the gun away from him he was a potentially deadly threat. I would say he was dangerous he tried to do it once already no reason he wouldn't try again.

No there's no irony here and trying to take a gun away from him within the same incident is not what he did 2 years ago not involving any of these people.

You can only go by what is known at the time the guy had a gun in his hand the other guy tried to take it he knew that because he was standing right there holding the gun so it was known to him. It had just happened and it was part of the same event involving the same person.

You were talking about something that was completely unrelated involving completely different people.

 

then you don't believe in self-defense.

If you can't stop the threat you must let that threat kill you.

from what I could tell it was all one event there is no later I don't know what this later part you're talking about. If you're talking about a moment later like what we saw in the video the threat was still there.

If you try to take a gun away from somebody and you fail you don't get another bite at the Apple they don't have to sit there and let you kill them.

 

He could have and should have waited. If the man tried making a run towards him again, then he would have had a much better self defense claim.
I don't see why he absolutely needed to shoot when he did. Waiting just a little bit would not create more risk to him.
And he could have at least maybe fired a non-lethal warning shot to let him know that he was serious (like grazing his leg or something).


Anyway, I think they probably would have had a much better outcome if they had taken their custody dispute to a Christian counselor.

 

Just because someone verbally threatens you and has tried making a run at your gun before, still does not mean you can terminate them.
At that point it is still a matter for police. It is not considered an immediate enough threat to kill them.

Doing what this man did, he might as well have gone out and assassinated a man that he was afraid might later try to kill him.

 

I will be curious how many conservatives you can get to agree with you. If you can even got one, I will be surprised.

(We both know you will definitely not get any members here on the Left to agree with you)

 

why? So that he would be killed?

I don't understand why a person has to give someone else a second chance to kill them before they defend themselves?

Do you not know what self-defense means

Stop the threat.

wait for what until he's dead? Until he's disarmed?

I don't understand this you keep talking about waiting. Wait for what?

so give the guy more chance to kill him?

I don't know where you get your ideas from you don't shoot to maim you shoot to stop.

I don't think this guy gave her the opportunity maybe she's just supposed to wait until she's dead.

 

It wasn't a verbal threat he physically tried to disarm the man.

If you can't defend yourself against someone who's trying to disarm you then you can never defend yourself at any time.

so if someone who takes a weapon away from you they can't possibly kill you with it?

I don't see how that compares at all it wasn't two incidents it's just one. One guy tried to disarm the other and the other wrestled the gun away and shot him with it.

Who did he kill later that you're talking about I don't know that that's even part of this.

 

What he did is like assassinating a man that he is afraid might be going to kill him a week from now.
I guess if you believe that is morally justified, then you might see this as okay too.

Well, I'm not sure that we can say for absolute sure that the man was going to actually kill him if he had gotten his hands on the gun.
So what you're saying is not quite literally true.
You are making a little bit of a logical fallacy by conflating trying to take his gun with trying to kill him. Just because self defense is justified by something doesn't mean that thing is completely 100% equivalent to that person trying to kill you.

Verbal threat and physically trying to disarm the man is still not fully equivalent to attempted murder.

 

well you are talking about waiting for an imminent threat to become more imminent. I don't think you understand that by then it could be too late.

Is this how you judge whether or not you're correct based on how popular you are?

 

You're making a conflation/equivocation fallacy.
The word "trying", at what point in time exactly? Are they actually literally trying in that moment, or instead is it that they have tried a few seconds ago?

 

I don't think you understand that there are different degrees of "imminent". In that moment, it wasn't "imminent" enough.
Was he adding much more additional risk to himself if he had just waited for that man to try charging at him again before shooting?

 

not from the video I watched the one guy tried to take the gun away from him and he fought to keep control of the gun and then shot him.

What do you think happened the week later?

I'm just a little confused about what this other event you're talking about is. This is the first I've heard of it

so you would just have to let someone have your gun and then see?

so you are of the position that if someone's trying to take your gun away you have to let them have it and just see if they shoot you with it. Maybe they won't I suppose but you can't know for sure until you're already dead so but you apparently believe in self-defense but only after you die.

well you go ahead and let someone take away your weapon and then decide whether to kill you or not with it.

I only have one life so it's not something I would risk.

So you actually have to let someone forcefully take a firearm from you because they might not shoot you with it?

You have to be at their Mercy and if they decide to kill you only after you're dead do you get to defend your life?

Well it must be nice being clairvoyant but most of us aren't so we have to just go by with what we know at the time.

 

Let's suppose he has the right to shoot to prevent the other person from taking away his gun. He still did not need to shoot at that point, because he could have shot a few moments later if or when that person actually tried going for the gun again.

 

so you have to let him try again and possibly succeed before you can defend yourself?

So you can't defend yourself with your firearm until you don't have it anymore?

 

So you tell me exactly when you're allowed to defend yourself is it when you've been completely disarmed how much of a chance do you have to let the person have to kill you before you can defend yourself?

 

Oh, wait, wait, wait! That is not exactly what was in the video. They struggled for the gun, the man who was trying to take it was repelled away some distance, and THEN the man was shot.

Do you see the critical detail here? There was already a fair distance of space between the two men, and the other man was not moving towards the man with the gun when he was shot.

 

if it's not imminent enough right after you successfully work the attempt to disarm you then it never is.

So you have to wait until your weapon has been taken away from you to use it how does that make any kind of sense?

You have to give someone a chance to kill you first before you can defend yourself?

 

I understand your argument, and it is a great and worthwhile question you are asking.

Is it fair to say that we have to allow ourselves to be put at some level of risk and be vulnerable, before that level of risk rises to a high enough level to justify using self defense?

 

Well, I will respectfully disagree with you.

Good luck finding someone else on this forum who agrees with you.

Tell, you what. If two other members come into this thread and agree with your position, I will give your argument extra special thought and try harder to see if I can bring myself to agree with it.

 

from the video I watched and there wasn't the equivalent of a week between two incidences there it's actually just one incident

The guy with the gun fought to maintain control of the firearm took two steps back in the firing a round.

So I don't know what distance you're talking about other than about 2 or 3 steps. The people I saw in this scenario where adults and you can easily take a step and try and snatch the gun again are you supposed to wait for that or are you supposed to wait till they get a hold of it and shoot you with it before you can use it?

I'm just trying to clear this up and you never say what you're supposed to wait for all this talk about waiting wait wait wait wait wait for what until after you're dead?




[QUOTE[
Do you see the critical detail here? There was already a fair distance of space between the two men, and the other man was not moving towards the man with the gun when he was shot.[/QUOTE]
NO THERE WASN'T. HE TOOK TWO STEPS BACK AND FIRED THE SHOTGUN.

This isn't cowboy movies you don't wait for someone to charge up on you again. That kind of crap can get you killed.

 

He was at the greatest possible risk he could have been he had just regained control of the shotgun I don't know why you think he's supposed to wait until he doesn't have control over it again.

 

That's obviously not what I said.

But the man was not literally charging at him in that moment.
He had just been flung AWAY.

If taking the gun would result in a near certainty of someone dying, then you might be closer to being right, but that is not exactly the case.