Custody argument results in Texas man being shot to death, lawyer claims it was self-defense

For starters I think everyone can agree both parties at some point could have deescalated the situation at some point and a mans death could have been avoided.

Still no word I have seen if this was a place of pick up in court documents, although I am not sure if that is a thing as I have no experience with child custody law or requirements. I am sure someone with said experience can clarify how that works.

This incident happened at the shooters home which is also his place of business, the shooter is the ex wife's boyfriend.

Shooter asked the father to leave his property and went inside to get a firearm, a warning shot is fired, a scuffle over the firearm ensues and the father is shot dead on the shooters porch.

I think due to the fathers verbal threats of taking the gun and using it on the shooter followed by the grabbing of the firearm on the shooters property (after he was asked to leave) will be enough in Texas to justify the shooting. Just my opinion though, and sadly as I state at the start of the thread, both parties could have deescalated the situation by standing down and calling the police resulting in no loss of life.

Lots of video out there including in the link to the article (two videos and angles available), what do you think based on the videos - justified shooting or not.

 

The father was never a threat to his life or even property. It's not self defense.

 

If you watch the video, at that moment it's obviously not self defense. It seems to be murder to me.

But what is interesting about this case is that the man could have claimed self defense if he had managed to be able to shoot just a few moments before.

The other guy was acting really stupid and was almost asking to be shot.

So even though this guy should be punished for murder, I think he should get a lot of sympathy and leniency due to the stupidity of the other guy.
Maybe 4 years in the prison would be enough to teach him, and he should pay for half of the dead guy's burial expenses.

Unfortunately the law does not always draw a distinction between different types of murder. There are totally different levels of murder, in reality.

 

If you go up to a person and try to pry a gun out of a person's hands, and are acting very aggressively, and it's obvious the person with the gun is threatening to shoot you, then I think that does or should fall under self defense, in my opinion.

(That's still not exactly what happened here)

Of course opinions like this will divide society these days, since many would think that guy had no right to bring a gun to the situation in the first place, and thus would blame the man.

But I'm pretty sure in old traditional conservative America, it would be seen as self defense. (which again is not exactly what happened here)

But even though that's not exactly the situation, I think that mentality will still very much determine how much prison time this man gets. Since if you view this as being closer to self defense, even though it was not, you will think he should get much less prison time. (And if you are anti-gun, you will blame him for the death because he brought a gun into the situation, and then you will want to hold him entirely responsible for the mistake that ended up resulting from his prior actions of bringing the gun into the situation)

 

The only way I see a lawyer getting around that, is that the Father did threaten to take the gun away from the shooter while possibly trespassing(Still not sure on the custody agreements/laws/aspects of that). What he says he will do with the gun is edited for language in the video from the article/link, but if he says he will take and use it on the shooter then attempts to take the weapon then could be seen as threat to life based on his words/threats and actions to carry them out.

 

Anyway, I don't trust the system.

He should probably be shown some mercy but will probably not be.

It's an inherent black & white mentality in human psychology. If individuals made even a small mistake, then people will automatically tend to blame them entirely for the situation. The mentality of "He either committed murder or he did not", so "He either should spend life in prison or not be punished at all".

 

Those are all mitigating factors that will lend the shooter sympathy. But it will not save him.

Just because someone is on your property and is (verbally) threatening to take away your gun you are holding does not give you the legal or moral right to shoot them.

(But this argument does not address the entire situation of this story but just the specific points you brought up)

 

I also feel like even if the situation had been such that this man had the legal right to shoot (which it was not exactly), it would still probably not have been the moral decision.

We could ask ourselves, what if this man offered to go temporarily put away his gun and then came back out.
Or what if the other man had gotten his hands on the gun. Would that have been likely to happen in that scenario been worth the life of a man?

When someone brings a gun to a confrontation, it does up the stakes. Then that person has to use it if the other person comes too close and there becomes a danger that other person might get their hands on it.
It can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, where someone has to use self defense simply because they have the means.

 

I've never understood custody arguments as the only ones I ever had were getting my wife to take them. No joke and neither one of us were bad parents, though neither of us were exactly helicopters and the kids seemed to like that overall (They're all in college and not jail now)

 

Those factors are not meant to provide sympathy, its all boils down to what the father said and his actions to take the gun after making a verbal threat to the shooters life, do they amount to a threat to the shooters life (I THINK they do). If a lawyer can prove that, then I am sure the shooting was justified under Texas law.

 

The man wasn't carrying the weapon for self defense. He clearly obtained and brandished the weapon for the specific purpose of threatening the other man. The only thing that can be argued to be self defense, is the father trying to unarm him before being murdered.

 

The other man was on his property and acting belligerently and confrontational.

It wasn't entirely unreasonable to have a gun.

"brandishing" a gun shouldn't always be illegal when you are telling a person to get off your property. (maybe in certain city areas, but that is another issue)

There are different types of "threatening". A property owner holding a gun to carry an implicit possible threat in the event a trespasser does something shouldn't always be illegal.

 

I do not think father threatened him. I think he dared the guy to shoot him. Tried to call his bluff but didn't realize that he really was a murderous *******.

 

It depends on what the Father stated before grabbing the weapon, as I have said it is edited for language. If he says he will take the firearm and use it on the homeowner, then tries to take the weapon, I am sure it can be argued that it is not self defense based on verbal threat.

 

I can tell you did not watch the video.
I am saying it was not self defense. But I just disagree very much with your arguments for why you are saying it was not self defense.

 

Possibly agreed, depends on the possible threat the Father made, hard to make a statement here considering in the link it is edited for language. If he made no threat, it does change things.

 

Being belligerent and angry isn't illegal or a threat to your life.

Having a gun isn't illegal. Threatening someone's life with a gun is illegal and opens the door to self defense. The fathers mistake was not having concealed and ending it quick as soon as he was threatened.

 

I don't think we can entirely determine with certainty whether this guy is a murderous _____ .
But it is completely true at the least that he did end up making a big mistake and that the shooting was not justified.
People might not always be thinking clearly in those situations. Anger and aggression and adrenaline likely played a factor, as well as being caught up in the altercation that had just flung him away.

All I am saying is it is maybe "10%" "understandable" how this guy might have done what he did. It is not inconceivable that there is a chance he was not totally "morally responsible" for his actions. Mistakes are not always done fully consciously and fully intentionally.

 

I watched the video. The guy shot at the father before he tried to take the gun.

 

The point was, if someone is trying to take the gun out of your hands, it is to be assumed that they will then be the one holding the gun.

Would you not think (in general) a person should have the right to stop that?

Maybe this is an important scenario which we all (as a society) need to discuss.

 

That's not entirely true. He tried to take the gun, and then the man with the gun was flung back away from the man, now creating some distance between them, and then the man shot him.

 

I don't think what was said matters so much, either way.

If I was a member of the jury, I would mostly disregard if a threat like that was made. It would not affect my opinion one way or the other.
A threat can still be assumed by physical actions, regardless of whatever verbal threat was made.

 

Watch the video again, there is what could be perceived as a warning shot to the Fathers feet, but a shot was fired.

 

Would that even be relevant, if it had happened?

Again, that wouldn't affect my opinion about this, if I was on a jury, one way or the other.

 

This is just my opinion but situations like this are too complicated for most people to have the ability to be entirely logical.

Even a small handful of factors and variables can combine and relate together in very complicated ways.