Self Defense or Murder

That’s the meat of it. The dad and the guy with the gun had had both clearly backed off. At the point he fired he was not defending himself, he shot just because. He should fry IMO. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

... Sorry there, mate. ... It doesn't work that way.

The weapon is used for self-protection. The gun should have
de-escallated the situation. The taller bloke reached
for the gun - and it's been reported that he said he
would kill the smaller fellow with it. Surely then
the threat has been established.

Not sure what they will charge him with once it all
shakes out, but actual murder is the WRONG charge.
Maybe aggravated homicide - something like that.

But I do believe he was defending himself.

... Don't weigh THIS case against the result of
any others... Each shooting must stand on its own,
and the FACTS with it.

#### Salty

Salty

How can self defense shake into aggravated homicide?

What I meant is that "aggravated homicide" should be
the charge... Something like that... They'll surely
charge the fellow with something - because somebody's dead.

I believe it was self-defence from what I saw from
the video - but I'd need to hear what led to him
bringing out the weapon... What was said.
WE dont know-of all the facts.

I think a good barrister can defend this.

### Salty

This is America!

What I meant is that "aggravated homicide" should be
the charge... Something like that... They'll surely
charge the fellow with something - because somebody's dead.

I believe it was self-defence from what I saw from
the video - but I'd need to hear what led to him
bringing out the weapon... What was said.
WE dont know-of all the facts.

I think a good barrister can defend this.

### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

He had no real reason to bring out a weapon. What throws a dent in the Self Defense narrative is the gunman retreated he left the area of conflict. Then returns with the weapon. No one was in danger, he wasn't, his wife wasn't. The ex-husband was just pissed off. He wasn't damaging property, threatening, he didn't brandish any type of weapon. When the ex-husband grabbed the barrel of the gun he never had complete control of the weapon where they had to fight over it. I don't see self defense in this case, then again I am not from Texas so I am not familiar with their Laws in cases like this.

I don't see self defense in this case, then again I am not from Texas so I am not familiar with their Laws in cases like this. Originally Posted by Levianon17

I agree that I don't see self defense but Texas is pretty forgiving when it comes to shooting people on your property after you tell them to get off it and are even remotely aggressive when they refuse to do so... and we're talking about West Texas so that chicken shit is not going to be doing any time for killing that man.

Anyway, good and interesting thread for discussion regardless of which side of the fence you are on.

Does anyone know where this guy lives. There have charger this the psychotic boyfriend. There haven't even shot him. If done can get me his address and a gun I will drive down to Texas and kill him myself that how bad this makes me. I hope to God I don't live though night.

there are several videos of this.








the boyfriend reacted in a harsh manner by going in and getting his rifle. but he was within his rights to do so. and once the ex-husband got uppity and got in the boyfriend's face he made himself the aggressor. and when he grabbed at the rifle he became a threat.


some people in comments on uboobie claim the boyfriend firing a warning shot at the ground somehow revoked his right to self defense. no, on the contrary it enhanced it.


he gave the ex-husband a chance back off and he didn't. he became the aggressor. one of the contentions those idiot prosecutors in the rittenhouse trial made, that fat fucktard idiot with a burr haircut, was that rittenhouse didn't have the right to shoot even while being assaulted, he blabbered some stupid shit about "ya gotta take a beating every once in a while ..". what an idiot. that's when the law clearly says you can use deadly force.


while this shouldn't have escalated to the point it did, it's self defense. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

The boy friend shot the gun warning shot or not he shot it. He also had it unholstered which is all a sine he intended to kill which did. The ex try to save his life and was acting self defense. The boy friend need the death peantly. I hope he don't live though night and thugs get him.

He had no real reason to bring out a weapon. What throws a dent in the Self Defense narrative is the gunman retreated he left the area of conflict. Then returns with the weapon. No one was in danger, he wasn't, his wife wasn't. The ex-husband was just pissed off. He wasn't damaging property, threatening, he didn't brandish any type of weapon. When the ex-husband grabbed the barrel of the gun he never had complete control of the weapon where they had to fight over it. I don't see self defense in this case, then again I am not from Texas so I am not familiar with their Laws in cases like this. Originally Posted by Levianon17

... Me problem is that we're ALL doing guesswork about
the whole situation. ... We surely DONT KNOW if anyone
was in danger - or what threats were made. OR WHY he
returned with the weapon. ... We'll have to WAIT
for the trial.

Maybe Texas has "stand yer-own ground" laws, or
homestead laws... Lucas already mentioned that
Texas got property laws that may protect the
shooter bloke a bit.

I'd surely need to see and hear more of what
actually happened - not from the dead fellow's
family or barrister, but from the shooter and
the ex-wife there. Then I could give a better opinion.

But from what I seen on video - I reckon the
shooter got a fair arguement for self-defence.

just sayin'

#### Salty

What's really fucked about this situation is this. If the mother retains custody, does the kid they're arguing over have to live with the man who killed his father?

Thank you sweet lady! Originally Posted by WTF

Originally Posted by R.M.

I love dumbasses killing each other...

Lol I found something funner but one of these thin skinned tards would RTM me.

So this is what I got.

there are several videos of this.


[YOUTU


he gave the ex-husband a chance back off and he didn't. he became the aggressor. one of the contentions those idiot prosecutors in the rittenhouse trial made, that fat fucktard idiot with a burr haircut, was that rittenhouse didn't have the right to shoot even while being assaulted, he blabbered some stupid shit about "ya gotta take a beating every once in a while ..". what an idiot. that's when the law clearly says you can use deadly force.


e. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

but I'd need to hear what led to him
bringing out the weapon... What was said.
WE dont know-of all the facts.

I think a good barrister can defend this.

### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

Salty, I agree that each case is different. For instance the Judge ruled that the DA could not bring up Rittenhouse prior comments about wanting to shoot these protesters prior. Now that is from memory. That is what got the DA in trouble during the portion of the trial I watched.

Now if it comes to light this Texas shooter had mentioned killing the baby daddy....should that be allowed at the trial, if there is one?

Btw thank both of you gents for rational discussion without any insults. Somewhat refreshing.

Maybe Chairman Xi purge of all the DPST from the forum has been a success!

Lol I found something funner but one of these thin skinned tards would RTM me.

So this is what I got.
Originally Posted by R.M.

Reminds me of LD calling out Ole Ho back in the day!