Posted on 11/30/2021 11:59:52 AM PST by Phoenix8
A Lubbock, Texas, man was shot and killed while arguing with his ex-wife over their child custody arrangement, and it was all caught on cell phone video.
The incident unfolded on Nov. 5, according to attorney Matthew L. Harris, who is representing the victim's widow. Harris says the footage was filmed by Jennifer Read.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
This is murder. Shooter brought out the gun in a verbal argument—between his wife and her ex for child visitation. Wasn’t even punched, fired first in the ground. Guy was itching to get a feather in his cap, when he shot the blond man wasn’t even advancing on him.
Bad name for the rest of us firearm owners.
Guess the Gubermint will raise the kid now.
I saw this video last week.
2nd degree murder....
Looks like to murder to me too. But the Texas Castle doctrine law may complicate things. We’ll see I guess.
I disagree.
Teal shirt dude was clearly the aggressor. Moving towards someone in a threatening manner is legally Assault. Physical contact is battery.
Yep, definitely not justified self-defense. If justice is served, the shooter will catch a manslaughter charge.
I’m not sure it’s so clear-cut. The “victim” advanced on him twice while talking about taking the gun away from him, he and might have been coming at him again. He’s out of the frame when the shot is fired.
Jimminy Christmas! that was Murder.. the guy left and came back with a rifle for a scuffle that wasn’t even his! and the guy never laid a hand on him or her.. he was 8-10 feet away and shot a guy who wasn’t advancing .. How are you gonna convince a rational person that the guy with the gun was in fear for his or the womans safety???
If I recall from the video, the husband had the gun pointed down and the ex got in his face and then tried to take the weapon from him.
He had backed up, created separation, and fired when not being pursued.
The fact that the victim reached for the gun isn't sufficient.
Having said that, the victim should have made a full on effort to take the gun, once he made the move. He was larger and should have prevailed.
Another edition of
“When Idiots Collide”
Also, the Teal shirt guy is ordered to leave the property. Legally, he has been trespassed. Refusing to leave at that point is criminal trespass. From the moment he was told to leave, the Teal shirt guy no longer has any legal justification for being on that property. Yet he chooses to not only remain, but to:
1) move in a threatening manner towards the gun owner
2) physically come in contact with the gun owner
3) attempt to take (larceny) the fire arm from the gun owner
4) when the gun owner discharges (warning shot?) he advances on the gun owner
Teal shirt is the aggressor here. If I am on the jury, and this video is presented into evidence, I would not convict.
You can not go to someone else’s house, get up into someone’s face, refuse to leave when told to do so, assault and batter them, and then be portrayed as the innocent person.
I totally disagree. Homeowner told belligerent ex to leave the property. He refused. Homeowner retrieved firearm, and belligerent ex closed on him, pushed against him and tried to grab the gun AFTER A WARNING SHOT WAS FIRED. There is a significant disparity of size and force between the two.
Actions have consequences. I’d vote to acquit.
I watched the video again.
Yes the victim was out of view BUT. When the image panned back over the blond guy (now shot) he was farther away than when the camera moved.
He not only wasn’t advancing I’m fairly sure he was backing up from the shooter.
The guy who got shot had a shared custody arrangement with the ex wife. He had an absolute right to come pick up his kid and was trying to do just that——trespassing would be hard to claim?
Maybe, maybe not. My understanding is that he had a right to be there pursuant to a order of visitation.
One can pickup a child without being on the property, assaulting or battery upon others. You can not use a court order to enable a crime.
“the guy left and came back with a rifle for a scuffle that wasn’t even his!”
Wasn’t his? It was on his property, and an ex was being aggressive with his woman. He tried that big guy looming doofus routine trying to bully the other guy at his own house. Got his lamp blowed out instead.
West Texas isn’t the place to forget your manners that way.
He had a right to see his child. If impaired in his right to do so, he had the right to file suit. He had no right to remain on the property when told the child was not there. He had no right to aggressively approach and make contact with the homeowner, threaten to take away the gun and use it on him, and to try to disarm him. He had no right to fling the smaller and lighter homeowner off his porch and into the yard while attempting to disarm him.
He had the ABILITY to inflict death or grave bodily harm to the homeowner.
He had the OPPORTUNITY to inflict death or grave bodily harm to the homeowner.
He demonstrated the INTENT to inflict death or grave bodily harm to the homeowner.
A reasonable person would have been fully justified in being in fear of his life or of great bodily harm, justifying his use of lethal force to stop the threat.
I’d vote to acquit and no argument would convince me to do otherwise. If that hung the jury, so be it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.