Here We Go Again, Texas Edition - Man Killed Trying To Pick Up Son

[Ajay]

The shooter is just being an idiot IMO, telling him to leave the premises, and then escalates with a firearm.

This didn't have to happen, guns make it easy.

The guy appears to be a sociopath. Straight up cold blooded murder (well, probably not in Texas). Totally unfazed by the corpse next to him.

That said, the father was dumber than a box of rocks. You don’t step up to a guy threatening you with a gun. You do not try to take a gun from someone, you just don’t. People are insane.

 

[Artorias]

It's about time your country moves beyond living like cowboys and bring it forth into modern society.

Nowhere else in the world you see this shit happen on a regular basis.

 

[MrSquished]

It's about time your country moves beyond living like cowboys and bring it forth into modern society.

Nowhere else in the world you see this shit happen on a regular basis.

The conservative party is unevolved and at this point trying to regress us many many decades.

 

[mikeymikec]

You should stick to your doom and gloom predictions and love of being scared. Or maybe try researching things before you post on them, perhaps specify who you are talking about.

Everybody 'batted an eye' after Sandy Hook, communities nowhere near Sandy Hook were crying over it for weeks. It horrified parents coast to coast. Guess you didn't hear about the behind doors reaction to it from the NRA. "Chaos," was enough to create Wayne LaPierre's 'silent no more' initiative. So no, you're completely wrong.

3 seconds of google: Wayne Lapierre 'worried about going to jail'

In the context of what he was responding to, America's response to the incident was largely "thoughts and prayers". To demonstrate how lukewarm a reaction it got, you even had Alex Jones and his audience claiming it never happened. What was the reaction to that? Ooh, legal action. Passionate stuff. He should have had his windows smashed in and the odd bullet whistling past his ear.

Compare and contrast: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre
^ that's the kind of change I was originally talking about.

 

[MrSquished]

Up North people shoot each other, but in the South it's just a way of life, and they like it that way.

 

[kage69]

In the context of what he was responding to, America's response to the incident was largely "thoughts and prayers". To demonstrate how lukewarm a reaction it got, you even had Alex Jones and his audience claiming it never happened. What was the reaction to that? Ooh, legal action. Passionate stuff. He should have had his windows smashed in and the odd bullet whistling past his ear.

Compare and contrast: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre
^ that's the kind of change I was originally talking about.

Well, I think you both are attributing the reactions of republicans as being the reactions of non-republicans to Sandy Hook. It's true Congress made a show of support but then sided with the NRA, which is why I suggested some specification could help his post. People should be careful not to conflate the successful obstruction of new gun control laws by congressional republicans and their NRA overlords as a measure of apathy by those who aren't part of that cult. Psychos like Jones don't prove anything beyond their own lack of humanity and love of chasing money and fame. I wouldn't use him as a barometer for anything apart from things like cognitive dissonance, greed, toxic masculinity or mental illness. There is no analog to the NRA or American firearm industry in the UK, then or now. To expect the same kind of public response to Dunblane just isn't realistic, sadly.

I recall Obama and the Dems being absolutely heartsick over this, like any parent of small kids. Here is a list of their immediate reactions in the form of Executive and Congressional planning.

The executive actions signed by President Obama were:[19] (wiki)

• Issuing a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
• Addressing unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), that may prevent states from making information available to NICS.
• Improving incentives for states to share information with NICS.
• Directing the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
• Proposing a rule making to give law enforcement authorities the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
• Publishing a letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
• Starting a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
• Reviewing safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
• Issuing a presidential memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
• Releasing a report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and making it widely available to law enforcement authorities.
• Nominating an ATF director.
• Providing law enforcement authorities, first responders and school officials with proper training for armed attacks situations.
• Maximizing enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
• Issuing a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to research gun violence.
• Directing the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenging the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
• Clarify that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
• Releasing a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
• Providing incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
• Developing model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship, and institutions of higher education.
• Releasing a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
• Finalizing regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within insurance exchanges.
• Committing to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
• Starting a national dialogue on mental health led by Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, and Arne Duncan, the secretary of education.

The White House's proposed congressional actions were these:[19]

• Requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales, including those by private sellers that currently are exempt.
• Reinstating and strengthening the federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 (AWB 1994) that expired in 2004.
• Limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.
• Banning the possession of armor-piercing bullets by anyone other than members of the military and law enforcement.
• Increasing criminal penalties for "straw purchasers" who pass the required background check to buy a gun on behalf of someone else.
• Acting on a $4 billion administration proposal to help keep 15,000 police officers on the street.
• Confirming President Obama's nominee for director of the (ATF).
• Eliminating a restriction that requires the ATF to allow the importation of weapons that are more than 50 years old.
• Financing programs to train more police officers, first responders and school officials on how to respond to active armed attacks.
• Provide additional $20 million to help expand the system that tracks violent deaths across the nation from 18 states to 50 states.
• Providing $30 million in grants to states to help schools develop emergency response plans.
• Providing financing to expand mental health programs for young people.

And on the other side it was more or less a mix of 'no we're the victims' and 'blame violent video games,' followed by shameless pandering and outright denial, then the undermining of legislative responses. How about we put the blame for apathy and obstruction where it belongs, quit any and all flavors of more BothSides bullshit? Not aimed at you mikey, just getting a little tired of recent history getting far too wide a brush. Details matter, when we're talking dead kids they really matter.

 

[cytg111]

He was using whoever was recording inside the house as backstop as well…

 

[kage69]

Seems the shooter is a very active republican, has a lot of involvement with current GQP politicians from helping his ex become a judge.

So yeah, pretty much zero chance anything becomes of this other than emotionally damaged children and a dead father.

Such a damn shame, but I'm sure the disgust I feel will ramp up once this is used for politics, soon.

 

[kage69]

It's about time your country moves beyond living like cowboys and bring it forth into modern society.

Nowhere else in the world you see this shit happen on a regular basis.

You've never heard of Mexico? Really?

 

[Lanyap]

The casualness afterwards is what got me.

The shooter looks like he's strutting around like he just shot a deer.

 

[kage69]

The shooter looks like he's strutting around like he just shot a deer.

He just lived out the purest form of fantasy for his kind. That he knew he was getting it on video probably gave him a semi.

Guy might be getting booked for NRA and radio show appearances as I type this.

 

[Leeea]

He has the legal standing to defend his property from the aggressor with lethal force (I believe, in Texas) and despite presenting with a weapon, the victim took a more aggressive posture and then touched the gun. As I said earlier, I'd be shocked if this isn't self-defense easily.

There is what is legal.

And there is what is right.

 

[TheVrolok]

There is what is legal.

And there is what is right.

Couldn't agree more. I'm just being a realist here. This country is fucked.

 

[shortylickens]

I have no idea; my interest is in America throwing out 2A entirely and I know that for that to happen in an ideal manner public opinion in America would have to change dramatically, the police would need to be reformed, supply of guns and ammo curtailed dramatically, huge amounts of firearms and ammo turned in for destruction, firearms licences granted to only those who need them for professional reasons. The likelihood of it happening IMO in our reality is similar to the likelihood of humanity adopting the kind of culture one sees on Star Trek.

I'm fine with getting rid of guns.

Start with the cops.

 

[Zorba]

Right in front of the kids. Could have gone inside and let the cops deal with it, but no, someone's talking shit on my lawn.

A man is dead and the shooter now probably has a lucrative culture war career ahead of him with Fox Noise appearances; this shooting will be celebrated and will happen again and again.

Texas. What a hole.

I doubt this guy gets whorshiped. He killed a white guy, who's "bitch ex-wife was prevent him from seeing his kid." This won't get the racists and will upset the male rights people.

 

[Zorba]

You should stick to your doom and gloom predictions and love of being scared. Or maybe try researching things before you post on them, perhaps specify who you are talking about.

Everybody 'batted an eye' after Sandy Hook, communities nowhere near Sandy Hook were crying over it for weeks. It horrified parents coast to coast. Guess you didn't hear about the behind doors reaction to it from the NRA. "Chaos," was enough to create Wayne LaPierre's 'silent no more' initiative. So no, you're completely wrong.

3 seconds of google: Wayne Lapierre 'worried about going to jail'

And what actually changed because of it? Far more AR-15s sold, bump stock sells going through the roof, etc.

 

[HurleyBird]

Well, Rittenhouse instigated the violence in Kenosha by walking around in a volatile situation openly carrying an AR-15, but he got away with it and is now a hero of the Right.

One of the dumbest (yet persistent) Rittenhouse takes. Open carrying in an open-carry state is not instigation. Don't be dumb.

As for this shooting, totally different animal. I don't think it's self defense, and I predict the shooter will be charged and found guilty.

When Carruth (the shooter) spins around, backs up, and fires, Chad is not approaching him in a threatening manner. Chad is standing still with his arms by his sides, and there's ample distance between the two. Objectively, Chad is not a threat to the Carruth when he fires the two shots.

And Carruth's subjective state of mind does not seem to be that of a man that who is fearing for his life either, given his calm, rationalizing presentation immediately following the shooting.

If Chad had been moving towards Carruth, then a claim of self defense would be stronger. If Carruth had killed Chad sooner (but after Chad touched his gun), then a claim of self defense would be stronger. If Carruth had presented more fear, then a claim of self defense would have been stronger. I do not think Carruth has a strong claim of self defense.

 

[ivwshane]

Maybe not a "gun law" per se, but I agree with the concept. Using lethal force should be a last resort, not the go to standard. I think it will be difficult to ever get rid of guns themselves, but certainly making a more reasonable standard for their use in "self defense" would go a long way to eliminating needless killings.

Edit: we also should have a national gun ownership and use of force law, so we dont have states that seem to think we should be back in the wild, wild west.

While I agree, I think any federal restrictions would be unconstitutional. However at the state level I believe that not only could you implement something like that or add restrictions but I think the state would also have the ability to ban all guns as well.


However that’s only if the Supreme Court actually upheld the constitution as written.

 

[MrSquished]

One of the dumbest (yet persistent) Rittenhouse takes. Open carrying in an open-carry state is not instigation. Don't be dumb.

The kid posted online he wanted to shoot people, went and did it while pretending to be a medic, then instead of calling 911 he called a buddy. Who cares if it was legal to open carry? There is legal and there is right. But the gun nuts and the right ain't right in the head.

The fact this is the kind of country that you want to live in and is ok with you is disturbing. You folks are disturbed in the mind. Sociopathic tendencies.

 

[HurleyBird]

The kid posted online

Wrong four words in. The incident that you're thinking of is a video, and there's a reason it was barred as evidence for being prejudicial. Boasting and acting tough is one thing, actual actions when the rubber hits the road are another. This is what happens when you don't do your own research and just regurgitate the talking points that sound good to you. Did you even watch the trial?

 

[ondma]

One of the dumbest (yet persistent) Rittenhouse takes. Open carrying in an open-carry state is not instigation. Don't be dumb.

As for this shooting, totally different animal. I don't think it's self defense, and I predict the shooter will be charged and found guilty.

When Carruth (the shooter) spins around, backs up, and fires, Chad is not approaching him in a threatening manner. Chad is standing still with his arms by his sides, and there's ample distance between the two. Objectively, Chad is not a threat to the Carruth when he fires the two shots.

And Carruth's subjective state of mind does not seem to be that of a man that who is fearing for his life either, given his calm, rationalizing presentation immediately following the shooting.

If Chad had been moving towards Carruth, then a claim of self defense would be stronger. If Carruth had killed Chad sooner (but after Chad touched his gun), then a claim of self defense would be stronger. If Carruth had presented more fear, then a claim of self defense would have been stronger. I do not think Carruth has a strong claim of self defense.

Open carry may be legal in Wisconsin, but anyone who doesn't think it is provocative in the situation KR came into simply is devoid of any understanding of human behavior.

 

[cytg111]

Wrong four words in. The incident that you're thinking of is a video, and there's a reason it was barred as evidence for being prejudicial. Boasting and acting tough is one thing, actual actions when the rubber hits the road are another. This is what happens when you don't do your own research and just regurgitate the talking points that sound good to you. Did you even watch the trial?

IANAL, but, I thought this was a thing

intent

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[MrSquished]

Wrong four words in. The incident that you're thinking of is a video, and there's a reason it was barred as evidence for being prejudicial. Boasting and acting tough is one thing, actual actions when the rubber hits the road are another. This is what happens when you don't do your own research and just regurgitate the talking points that sound good to you. Did you even watch the trial?

Semantics. He said it.

Your justification of a sociopathic society is nuts.

The thing is he boasted, then went and did it not long after. Clearly he meant those words because he pre meditated plan to do it. Then Pretended to be a medic, but couldn't be bothered to call 911 after but felt safe enough to call a friend to n boast.

Who cares what a biased judge suppressed. And your bullshit narrative that anything that is legal is fine is insane.

Have you read a history book of what has been legal and fine throughout history? Including in our own recent history? It's such an idiotic statement for those either weak of mind or who have an agenda.

Btw this shooter from this op will get away with this murder most likely. And the gun nuts will be just fine with it.

 

[HurleyBird]

IANAL, but, I thought this was a thing

intent

www.law.cornell.edu

The benchmark used when it comes admitting prior acts into evidence to show intent is: is this thing more probative than it is prejudicial? For components of that, look at temporal proximity and whether it would be reasonable to take a claim literally.

In the KR case, this point is especially dumb because, as far as the narrative of this being evidence of a biased judge, it was a totally predictable outcome, and as far as being evidence of intent, it is completely overridden by Kyle's actions that day. If it were an accurate depiction of Kyle's intent, he would have treated the crowd chasing after him as a shooting gallery as opposed to constantly retreating and firing at the last moment only at individuals threatening him.

You may be able to say that the video shows something of Kyle's character, but as evidence of intent it's very weak.

 

[HurleyBird]

Have you read a history book of what has been legal and fine throughout history? Including in our own recent history? It's such an idiotic statement for those either weak of mind or who have an agenda.

Sure, except I never made that statement.

Btw this shooter from this op will get away with this murder most likely.

Want to bet?