Self Defense? Premeditated? Or Just A Whole Lot Of Stupidity On Both Sides

[Ruffnek]

I honestly can't figure out what difference could come from her (biased) testimony in this case.

 

[DFacres]

Proof that testosterone can be deadly

 

[dudley0]

So can they use his FB pics as evidence to further prove he was a potential danger? Posing with a gun and then saying get me the gun or whatever in the video would add to the problem?

I would have had my own camera I guess. Took some photos or vid of the trash at the dumpster and used that as evidence for when the police did their investigation. I would have been carrying, in a holster, probably concealed. Then I would have walked back to my house to make the call for dumping.

Orange would still be alive, but I would not be going thru the extra drama.

 

[Ruffnek]

So can they use his FB pics as evidence to further prove he was a potential danger? Posing with a gun and then saying get me the gun or whatever in the video would add to the problem?

I would have had my own camera I guess. Took some photos or vid of the trash at the dumpster and used that as evidence for when the police did their investigation. I would have been carrying, in a holster, probably concealed. Then I would have walked back to my house to make the call for dumping.

Orange would still be alive, but I would not be going thru the extra drama.

I think I'd do the same. Something tells me that this was a conclusion to a chronic problem. Right or wrong, criminal or not, I have a hard time deciding.

 

[HoughMade]

So can they use his FB pics as evidence to further prove he was a potential danger? Posing with a gun and then saying get me the gun or whatever in the video would add to the problem?

I would have had my own camera I guess. Took some photos or vid of the trash at the dumpster and used that as evidence for when the police did their investigation. I would have been carrying, in a holster, probably concealed. Then I would have walked back to my house to make the call for dumping.

Orange would still be alive, but I would not be going thru the extra drama.

Maybe, but "potential" danger is irrelevant. Was he a danger at the moment he got shot? That is the only pertinent question.

As for what the wife could say- will she deny he had a gun or any other weapon no matter what is said? It makes a difference.

 

[JettaKnight]

A certain INGO member that practices yoga and shaves his back once said, "we study the sword to avoid using the sword."



It seems these folks knew the letter of the law and wanted to be seen as the victim and given carte blanche to retaliate. However, every move they made was to escalate the conflict, which makes them guilty in my mind.

 

[Route 45]

A certain INGO member that practices yoga and shaves his back once said, "we study the sword to avoid using the sword."



It seems these folks knew the letter of the law and wanted to be seen as the victim and given carte blanche to retaliate. However, every move they made was to escalate the conflict, which makes them guilty in my mind.

Guilty of eating too many carbs, maybe. Outside of that, I'm not familiar enough with Texas law to say what they might be guilty of. Do they have a brandishing law in Texas? Were they legal to have their firearms in the alley? Does anyone have a duty to retreat? If you shoot someone who swings a bat at you, does it matter that you just called him a bad name?

If the jury in Texas is truly comprised of their "peers," then I'm seeing an uphill battle for a murder conviction.

 

[JettaKnight]

Guilty of eating too many carbs, maybe. Outside of that, I'm not familiar enough with Texas law to say what they might be guilty of. Do they have a brandishing law in Texas? Were they legal to have their firearms in the alley? Does anyone have a duty to retreat? If you shoot someone who swings a bat at you, does it matter that you just called him a bad name?

It seems that everything was done in an attempt to goad the other party into "making the first move". As such, I can be persuaded that each party had the intent to do harm, but were savvy enough to wait until it reached a point where they could have an articulated claim to fear of grave personal injury. The events leading up to the strike of the bat are just as relevant as the strike of the bat, are they not?

I can imagine that no one involved was ever modeled good conflict management and only knew how to escalate with insults & show of force until the other party backed off (or it turned to fisticuffs). A wise man would offer the other party a way out of the situation where his "honor" could remain intact.



It just looks like a nature film where two males fight for the right to mate with a female.

If the jury in Texas is truly comprised of their "peers," then I'm seeing an uphill battle for a murder conviction.

That's probably the most factual statement in this thread.

 

[HoughMade]

...It just looks like a nature film where two males fight for the right to mate with a female...

With guys like that competing over me, if I was that female, I'd consider going nun....or lesbo.

 

[Route 45]

It seems that everything was done in an attempt to goad the other party into "making the first move". As such, I can be persuaded that each party had the intent to do harm, but were savvy enough to wait until it reached a point where they could have an articulated claim to fear of grave personal injury. The events leading up to the strike of the bat are just as relevant as the strike of the bat, are they not?

Regardless of the degree and nature of any words or provocation, I would think that the first physically violent act is much more relevant than any prior rooster crowing. Especially if that first physically violent act involves a baseball bat or similar deadly weapon.

 

[JettaKnight]

With guys like that competing over me, if I was that female, I'd consider going nun....or lesbo.

Obviously, you're not a Texan.

 

[Fargo]

Maybe, but "potential" danger is irrelevant. Was he a danger at the moment he got shot? That is the only pertinent question.

Mmmmmm that is not the legal standard or anything really like the legal standard. Subjective belief of an imminent threat which is not objectively unreasonable is the basis for the defense.

The whole defense is based off potential danger, and there is no requirement that anyone prove actual injury would have occurred. It is a subjective standard, from the point of you of the defendant, which simply can’t be objectively unreasonable.

Propensity for violence based off previously known prior acts is pretty much always admissible in the context of self defense because it goes to subjective belief as well as to reasonableness.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Propensity for violence based off previously known prior acts is pretty much always admissible in the context of self defense because it goes to subjective belief as well as to reasonableness.

Posing with a gun on social media shows propensity for violence?

 

[Fargo]

Posing with a gun on social media shows propensity for violence?

By itself I don’t personally think so, but a good number of judges would likely let it in. I was under the impression that his social media went way beyond that and included threats. Plus, when it is coupled with a request to get him a gun during the confrontation, it is almost certainly going to be considered a relevant if the shooters were aware of the postings and possibly even if they were not.