Lost_in_the_HTTP
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2019
- 10,673
- 6,398
- 136
Well, on the video he also says that he told yall this would happen… So planning and state of mind, intent… but that shit doesnt fly in court according to the Rittenhouse doctrine?Before video evidence became everywhere it would have gone like this:
1: Aggressor shows up at house.
2: In-face physical threat /conflict.
3: Self defense. Close closed.
But with it on video? The pause after they separated comes into focus. It is a real factual part of the case that would never have existed without the video to prove it. Does it prove murder? It is an interesting case, I'll say that. Does that pause matter? It probably should, but TX law might say otherwise.
There’s a white culture that glorifies guns, violence, drugs, and money. Maybe they should concentrate on bettering themselves than spending money on guns to shoot each other.White on white violence where's the outrage from conservatives?
So, you're not going to acknowledge your error, or my citing of the successful undermining efforts of the NRA and their lackeys, and are now pretending that I had in fact submitted that Obama and others had met with great success after the tragedy? Oh dear.
You tried to attribute the nihilistic apathy of people like LaPierre to the whole country, while completely ignoring the facts of post Sandy Hook politics. We had a president literally breaking down in tears on national TV, NRA taking the event as an "existential crisis" yet 'no one batted an eye' according to you. It would be funny if it wasn't about something so sad.
My point stands, and I'll leave your attempt to deflect and move goal posts to any other poster that doesn't mind wasting their time.
Well, on the video he also says that he told yall this would happen… So planning and state of mind, intent… but that shit doesnt fly in court according to the Rittenhouse doctrine?
How does this differ from the Librarian case?
I don’t know if anyone has posed this question yet. If the dead guy was able to wrestle away the gun from the guy that shot him and shot and killed the guy, would he had been able to claim self defense as well. It’s just interesting that all you have to do to be in self defense is to be the one that do the killing.
I'm not sure why the pause matters. After the attempted disarming, the shooting was likely justified... if that's all that had happened.
What are you even saying? Obama cried on live TV...ok?
What has changed with respect to gun laws or even gun culture after Sandy Hook?
So you think this was a good shoot and the other was a bad shoot?Well…if you are on your own property you apparently can shoot whoever you want so long as they are on your property and you fear for your life. But because the other party wasn’t on her property, they now have the right to shoot the home owner because they feared for their lives when she got her gun. Seeing how she’s the one that died, it’s pretty clear the motor cycle guy feared for his life more and is therefore innocent of any crime.
/eye roll
So you think this was a good shoot and the other was a bad shoot?
I personally think the instigator in both was the person that went inside and came back with a gun.
The issue is that everyone has a gun and have been told to use it any time someone bothers them.
Since gun guy shot first I would 100% say yes. This varies by state a bit, but that's one of the tricky things w/ self defense law and guns. The mere presence of a gun can set off a back and forth cascade of legally justifiable self defense.I don’t know if anyone has posed this question yet. If the dead guy was able to wrestle away the gun from the guy that shot him and shot and killed the guy, would he had been able to claim self defense as well. It’s just interesting that all you have to do to be in self defense is to be the one that do the killing.
Before video evidence became everywhere it would have gone like this:
1: Aggressor shows up at house.
2: In-face physical threat /conflict.
3: Self defense. Close closed.
But with it on video? The pause after they separated comes into focus. It is a real factual part of the case that would never have existed without the video to prove it. Does it prove murder? It is an interesting case, I'll say that. Does that pause matter? It probably should, but TX law might say otherwise.
Intent is to piece together motive for a circumstantial case where you are simply guessing at who did it. Not sure how relevant it is for cases such as this.
Even a person with the worst intent is legally allowed to defend themselves, so long as they did not start it.
Now, normally I'd say a duty to retreat is in order. But Castle Doctrine sort of fucks that up? Man "attacks" you at your home, it could be a lot more lenient than most people would guess. Myself included. Returning with a gun is just protection of property. It is a warning to get lost. Instead the other man escalates.
A very interesting case, reasons for it to go either way. I don't know how it will play out.
It's also clear the ex-wife did not look threatened at all by her ex. At least she said nothing to that effect nor acted like it. There was no need to get the gun to escalate.No, intent can be something like someone saying that he wish he had his AR so he could shoot people who then gets an AR and goes out to do just that. I mean, if the judge allows it.
The man was there to pick up his child as per agreement so he has EVERY right to be there and does not have to leave without them, insisting on that is not a provocation at all and NOT trespassing in any case. The guy getting the weapon is the problem, this could be handled by him just getting his kid as he was there to do and nothing else needs to happen.