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

[HurleyBird]

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.

Doubly dumb because:

1) You're goalpost moving. The post you replied to stated "According to the law its not self defense if you instigate the violence." When you replied that Kyle "instigated the violence... ...and got away with it" you were talking in a legal context.

2) Even after you move the goalpost, no reasonable person would think to assault someone because they are open carrying. A reasonable person would think exactly the opposite. If open carrying somehow provoked Rosenbaum into attacking Rittenhouse, it wouldn't be a matter of "basic understanding of human behavior," but rather abnormal psychology.

 

[soulcougher73]

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.

Did you factor TX into your equation?

 

[HurleyBird]

Did you factor TX into your equation?

Legally, I don't think it will matter. In the KR case, some people brought up Wisconsin's lack of a stand-your-ground law as a liability for Kyle's defense, but it was irrelevant given that Kyle was retreating the whole time.

In this case, the victim was either stepping back or standing still, had his hands at his sides, and was not making any threatening moves or gestures towards the shooter at the time he was killed. If he had been killed while the two were physically engaged in a scuffle it would be one matter, but objectively, Chad was not a threat at the moment he was killed, so in the same way that lack of stand-your-ground was basically irrelevant to KR, I don't see the existence of stand-your-ground or castle doctrine as very relevant to the facts here. Neither says you can shoot someone who isn't a threat.

The primary factor is going to be Carruth's state of mind when he pulled the trigger. Did he reasonably fear death or great bodily injury despite the lack of an objective threat at the time? If he did, then he has a claim to self defense. If he didn't, he doesn't. Carruth's demeanor immediately after the shooting doesn't do him any favors here.

If TX factors in, it's less about the law and more about the people. Texans are more biased towards gun rights and self defense claims. On the other hand, I imagine they're also biased towards a biological father over a step-father, but to a lesser extent. Whether an objective threat actually existed is absolutely going to bias one's interpretation of whether it was reasonable to perceive such a threat.

Being in TX probably helps Carruth, but I think the other elements overshadow it.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Legally, I don't think it will matter. In the KR case,

Hey Bird brain, this isn't that thread.

 

[HurleyBird]

Hey Bird brain, this isn't that thread.

Of all the places you could have taken umbrage with for bringing up KR, that was the dumbest. First, the "Kyle is a murderer" team originally brought him into this thread on page 2. Second, the post that you quoted was 100% on-topic.

 

[Bitek]

Regardless of the law, the victim was a fool for: 1. going ape shit, bumping up against a guy with a gun
2. not having your own gun


Things I've learned from cases this week:
If everyone has guns, not having one sounds dangerous.
Not shooting first if self def is plausible is dangerous.
May end up with a murder charge, but better than dead.

 

[HurleyBird]

Regardless of the law, the victim was a fool for: 1. going ape shit, bumping up against a guy with a gun

Absolutely. It may not be a good self defense claim since Chad wasn't a threat the moment he was killed, but there were a number of moments prior to that point where Carruth would have had good justification due to Chad's aggressiveness.

If you ever find yourself thinking it's a good idea to puff up your chest, get in someone's face, and rub your nipples against their body to try and intimidate them, you're probably low class trash.

2. not having your own gun

I don't know how having a gun would have helped Chad, especially given his mentality. Like you said, he just had to "not go ape shit."

 

[NWRMidnight]

Absolutely. It may not be a good self defense claim since Chad wasn't a threat the moment he was killed, but there were a number of moments prior to that point where Carruth would have had good justification due to Chad's aggressiveness.

If you ever find yourself thinking it's a good idea to puff up your chest, get in someone's face, and rub your nipples against their body to try and intimidate them, you're probably low class trash.



I don't know how having a gun would have helped Chad, especially given his mentality. Like you said, he just had to "not go ape shit."

Chad's aggressiveness? You mean his aggressive words, or his I'm mad (rightfully so) body language? Or is there something I missed where he was being violent. Wait, that's right, you have spent half of the last page arguing about KR shit, who murdered an unarmed man because of a plastic bag and aggressive words... you sir are an idiot. At no time did Chad do anything that gave Carruth justification to shoot him. And when he did, Chad was acting in self defense trying to take the gun way from Carruth as he just shot a gun at his feet. who knows if it was warning shot or a missed shot..

As for everyone saying Chad was an idiot with his anger, you won't understand until you are in such a situation. Specially when men's rights are stomped on all over the US when it comes to their kids and Mother's do shit like this all the time, knowing that they can get away with it most of the time. I don't condone how he acted, but I have been there and I understand his reaction and why he was mad.

 

[HurleyBird]

At no time did Chad do anything that gave Carruth justification to shoot him.

He gave plenty of justification when Chad shouted at him "You better fucking use it motherfucker, cause if you don't I'll fucking take it from you and use it on you" and proceeded to make aggressive physical contact. He lost that justification when he found himself at a distance from Chad, where Chad wasn't making any threatening actions towards him.

And when he did, Chad was acting in self defense trying to take the gun way from Carruth as he just shot a gun at his feet. who knows if it was warning shot or a missed shot..

Sure. At that moment, if Chad had exercised deadly force against Carruth he may have had a decent claim to self defense. If Carruth had shot Chad at that moment instead of firing a warning shot, he would have ended up with a stronger self defense claim too.

It's a spectrum, not binary, but there were moments during the encounter where Chad and Carruth both had stronger and weaker justifications for self defense. Carruth shot Chad when his own justification for self defense was weakest. I think he's guilty. I think he'll be found guilty. I've said as much many times. Given that, it's hard to understand your ire; I agree with, but not enough?

Justification can, and does, change on a dime. That's the nature of self defense that few posters here seem to grasp. What is justified one moment may not be justified the next, and vice versa.

you have spent half of the last page arguing about KR shit, who murdered an unarmed man because of a plastic bag and aggressive words... you sir are an idiot.

You're either ignorant of the facts, or just being intellectually dishonest and intentionally selective, if your description of Rosenbaum's actions reads as "throwing a plastic bag and saying some aggressive words".

As for everyone saying Chad was an idiot with his anger, you won't understand until you are in such a situation. Specially when men's rights are stomped on all over the US when it comes to their kids and Mother's do shit like this all the time, knowing that they can get away with it most of the time. I don't condone how he acted, but I have been there and I understand his reaction and why he was mad.

Family court is bad in general, and is especially bad in Texas. You have elected judges, who can appoint amicus on behalf of the minor, where the judge can then award the amicus a portion of the losing party's payments to the winning party (always "in the interest of the minor"), who can then contribute to that judge's re-election. It's a racket. Judges only need to say those magic words "in the interest of minor" and they can justify basically anything, no scrutiny, and there's nothing you can do about it.

So yes, I understand his emotions. I would understand them more if they were trying to take his child away rather than him being the one taking custody. Sometimes emotions like those are necessary and can help us to perform heroic acts. Sometimes those emotions lead to evil acts. For Chad, it was not the time to act on his emotions. Part of being a man is controlling and harnessing your emotions, and not the other way around.

 

[digiram]

I can’t wait for the next reality show. Self Defense. And we all thought dude getting kicked in nuts from idiocracy was idiotic.

 

[railer]

This story won't last two days in the national media, as there's no race card angle to be played.
Nevertheless, my two cents is this:
Some of you guys make too big a deal of of redneck #1 going into his home and retrieving a gun. He's legal in doing that. Redneck #2 gave every impression that he was an unhinged lunatic, so if you're not going to get your gun when that guy is around screaming in your face, why even have one?
The open question here, IMO, is the time between the struggle for the gun ending and the shot being fired. To me, RN1 did have time and distance after the gun struggle to point and ward off RN2 without shooting. Had RN2 then advanced upon RN1 after disengaging then it probably would have been an OK shoot. However RN2 was dead before he had a chance to decide whether to advance or retreat, which makes this iffy. With all of RN2's nutcase antics, and the fact that he was white, I'll give this one slightly better than even odds that it is indeed a "good shoot", and RN1 will be exonerated.

 

[MrSquished]

Amazing some people consider that a guy going ape shit.

People are nuts.

 

[gothuevos]

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'

So what has changed since then?

 

[ch33zw1z]

So what has changed since then?

Theres actually a wiki page about it. I would say not enough nationally

Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[NWRMidnight]

He gave plenty of justification when Chad shouted at him "You better fucking use it motherfucker, cause if you don't I'll fucking take it from you and use it on you" and proceeded to make aggressive physical contact. He lost that justification when he found himself at a distance from Chad, where Chad wasn't making any threatening actions towards him.



Sure. At that moment, if Chad had exercised deadly force against Carruth he may have had a decent claim to self defense. If Carruth had shot Chad at that moment instead of firing a warning shot, he would have ended up with a stronger self defense claim too.

It's a spectrum, not binary, but there were moments during the encounter where Chad and Carruth both had stronger and weaker justifications for self defense. Carruth shot Chad when his own justification for self defense was weakest. I think he's guilty. I think he'll be found guilty. I've said as much many times. Given that, it's hard to understand your ire; I agree with, but not enough?

Justification can, and does, change on a dime. That's the nature of self defense that few posters here seem to grasp. What is justified one moment may not be justified the next, and vice versa.



You're either ignorant of the facts, or just being intellectually dishonest and intentionally selective, if your description of Rosenbaum's actions reads as "throwing a plastic bag and saying some aggressive words".



Family court is bad in general, and is especially bad in Texas. You have elected judges, who can appoint amicus on behalf of the minor, where the judge can then award the amicus a portion of the losing party's payments to the winning party (always "in the interest of the minor"), who can then contribute to that judge's re-election. It's a racket. Judges only need to say those magic words "in the interest of minor" and they can justify basically anything, no scrutiny, and there's nothing you can do about it.

So yes, I understand his emotions. I would understand them more if they were trying to take his child away rather than him being the one taking custody. Sometimes emotions like those are necessary and can help us to perform heroic acts. Sometimes those emotions lead to evil acts. For Chad, it was not the time to act on his emotions. Part of being a man is controlling and harnessing your emotions, and not the other way around.

Yep! You're an idiot.. thanks for confirmation.

 

[m8d]

White on white violence where's the outrage from conservatives?

 

[cytg111]

Dude were there about his kid too and highly emotional about it.
I mean, you could turn up to a funeral and begin talking shit about the diseased and when the inevitable happens you could draw and put people down calling self defense.

Is there nothing in US law about instigating?

 

[mikeymikec]

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.

Things I wasn't intending with my previous post:

1 - Bothsides.
2 - Suggesting Alex Jones is a fair representation of the US as a whole.

The items you listed are a symptom of what I'm talking about: There wasn't / isn't sufficient support behind big changes to America's gun policies, so lots of tiny sticking plasters were used instead, and so the overall problem remains (according to the first website I encountered, there have been >2600 mass shootings since Sandy Hook).

My argument totally isn't about bothsides. Wrt 2A, if I had to concisely sum up the Dem's and GQP's attitudes, it would be this:
Dems: This country has a gun problem.
GQP: Problem? What problem? Who's trying to take our drugs I mean guns away?

Even if the country's position was as I described the Dem position, that's still a long way away from scrapping 2A in a civil manner. It would surprise me if the vast majority of the Dems were truly pro scrapping 2A.

Alex Jones - please note that while I mentioned Alex Jones, the more important bit is what I said afterwards being the reaction to him in the case of Sandy Hook. Every country has its Alex Jones or thereabouts, but say if there was a (in)famous Alex Jones in the UK claiming Dunblane never happened, even the scummiest major right wing newspapers (e.g. The Daily Mail) would have torn them to shreds.

Just like with covid, climate change, etc, when looking at the bigger picture and judging how far a country is to achieving a goal, it's pointless to say (for example), "well, 63% of people are pro the necessary changes", because that isn't going to cut it with 2A.

Admittedly 2A isn't quite like covid or climate change: Climate change has a fairly well-understood time limit by which many population centres will likely be lost. Covid does in some ways, if a country's medical facilities become completely over-run with cases then there could be serious consequences resulting in civil unrest. 2A just has a death toll.

Anyway, this is my last post on this topic.

I'm kind of curious to read up about Prohibition now, though admittedly that seemingly didn't involve taking something that people largely already had (ps: my knowledge of prohibition is limited to watching 'The Untouchables' ).

 

[shortylickens]

Dude were there about his kid too and highly emotional about it.
I mean, you could turn up to a funeral and begin talking shit about the diseased and when the inevitable happens you could draw and put people down calling self defense.

Is there nothing in US law about instigating?

There is but the average American is too dumb to understand, so they just do whatever the fuck they want and call a lawyer afterward.
In my humble opinion that is not the sign of a civilized nation. its the sign of a broken immature one.

 

[himkhan]

This story won't last two days in the national media, as there's no race card angle to be played.
Nevertheless, my two cents is this:
Some of you guys make too big a deal of of redneck #1 going into his home and retrieving a gun. He's legal in doing that. Redneck #2 gave every impression that he was an unhinged lunatic, so if you're not going to get your gun when that guy is around screaming in your face, why even have one?
The open question here, IMO, is the time between the struggle for the gun ending and the shot being fired. To me, RN1 did have time and distance after the gun struggle to point and ward off RN2 without shooting. Had RN2 then advanced upon RN1 after disengaging then it probably would have been an OK shoot. However RN2 was dead before he had a chance to decide whether to advance or retreat, which makes this iffy. With all of RN2's nutcase antics, and the fact that he was white, I'll give this one slightly better than even odds that it is indeed a "good shoot", and RN1 will be exonerated.

I doubt this will escape public scrutiny for long. The Arbury case was known about here for a while before it gained any traction on MSM. If there is no bait for the race sharks to take then we'll have to wait to see if either of them ever voted for a D in their life so they can be vilified on RWM.

 

[sandorski]

This story won't last two days in the national media, as there's no race card angle to be played.
Nevertheless, my two cents is this:
Some of you guys make too big a deal of of redneck #1 going into his home and retrieving a gun. He's legal in doing that. Redneck #2 gave every impression that he was an unhinged lunatic, so if you're not going to get your gun when that guy is around screaming in your face, why even have one?
The open question here, IMO, is the time between the struggle for the gun ending and the shot being fired. To me, RN1 did have time and distance after the gun struggle to point and ward off RN2 without shooting. Had RN2 then advanced upon RN1 after disengaging then it probably would have been an OK shoot. However RN2 was dead before he had a chance to decide whether to advance or retreat, which makes this iffy. With all of RN2's nutcase antics, and the fact that he was white, I'll give this one slightly better than even odds that it is indeed a "good shoot", and RN1 will be exonerated.

"Legal"? Ok. It is also Stupid.

 

[K1052]

White on white violence where's the outrage from conservatives?

Being at the top of the social order it's their right to kill each other.

 

[Xcobra]

I think one of the main problems here (and in a lot of other situations) is that people are super on edge and/or a snowflake who think that just because someone is yelling at them gives them an excuse to feel like their lives are being threatened and to shoot anyone down. I mean, wtf, arguments and yelling should not equal death. He straight up murdered him. Thank God I'm not living in the US anymore. As a brownie, I feel scared coming back.

Edit: I will agree with others here. The blatant complacency and lack of reaction at a man being shot to death is utterly telling and is socio/psychopathic.

 

[kage69]

So what has changed since then?

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.

 

[Vic]

White on white violence where's the outrage from conservatives?

The white community needs to do something about its gun violence problem.