Cellphone Video of Shooting In Texas

[1KPerDay]

What a bizarre video! No one involved seemed to think the shooting was a big deal at all... the camera woman didn't even gasp, scream, etc... just kept right on talking. The way they were all so casual about it kind of freaked me out.

Helps if the person in question is a sociopathic felon living an abusive and codependent relationship

 

[DT Guy]

They made a GIF out of it?

Why would they make a GIF out of it?

That sequence is actually pretty illustrative; the deceased grabs the gun and swings the shooter AWAY from him, REDUCING his imminent threat (remember deceased is unarmed.)

The only logical thing I could think of the shooter using is a fairly complex argument that the deceased had now gained access to the door, and presented an imminent threat to the people inside.

Larry

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The deceased collapsed on the porch, which appears to disprove the shooter's argument that he was advancing on him and had to shoot him in self-defense.

Using arguments ala Kyle Rittenhouse, the teal guy threatened to take the gun and use on the shooter, DID advance on the shooter and DID grab his gun. The shooter broke, opened distance, and stopped the threat.

The warning shot into the porch was an abysmal failure. That may be problematic.

 

[armydog]

Regardless of any laws, if I showed up on someone else's land/front yard all pissed off and belligerent and then bow up in someone's face with a rifle threatening to shove it up his butt, I would expext to be shot dead. But I know better than to do that. lol

 

[Kleanbore]

the teal guy threatened to take the gun and use on the shooter, DID advance on the shooter and DID grab his gun.

"Did", but was not so doing at the time he was shot.

Imminent means now--right now.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Imminent means now--right now.

Yes it does and I am sure the argument will be made that the threat was still imminent.

 

[DT Guy]

Using arguments ala Kyle Rittenhouse, the teal guy threatened to take the gun and use on the shooter, DID advance on the shooter and DID grab his gun. The shooter broke, opened distance, and stopped the threat.

The warning shot into the porch was an abysmal failure. That may be problematic.

I think the crux of that statement would be 'the threat'; what threat precisely? The shooter now has distance, superior armament and there's no indication (from the GIF, and we all realize how limited that is) of the deceased continuing to attack or even engage.

The hardest thing to teach police is how to ramp their responses, both up AND down. They need to be able to escalate to protect and deescalate to retain their mantle of innocence. It's the same for an armed citizen, in most cases. You have to be in imminent jeopardy at the moment you pull the trigger-each time you pull the trigger-to be justified in using deadly force. The worst-case scenario of this (and one we used in training) is an offender who dumps a mag at you and goes to slidelock, then immediately puts his hands up and surrenders. People, however well trained, can't control their adrenaline perfectly, and very few trainees 'pass' that scenario the first time they run through it.

Sticky, grey; most of us picture a lethal encounter being clear-cut and obvious, but that's not even usually the case. This incident is a good representation of that; informed people with similar values coming to completely different conclusions.

Larry

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I think the crux of that statement would be 'the threat'; what threat precisely? The shooter now has distance, superior armament and there's no indication (from the GIF, and we all realize how limited that is) of the deceased continuing to attack or even engage.

He had superior armament and distance previously as well. The teal man had already threatened to take the gun from him and attempted it. The teal man was not backing down. The threat still exists. Whether or not lethal force was warranted certainly can be debated, but the threat is still 100% present.

 

[DT Guy]

He had superior armament and distance previously as well. The teal man had already threatened to take the gun from him and attempted it. The teal man was not backing down. The threat still exists. Whether or not lethal force was warranted certainly can be debated, but the threat is still 100% present.

I appreciate the thoughtful discussion.

Consider this: I tell you 'I'm going to run up to you and grab your gun and kill you with it', and you have reason to believe it. That's essentially the situation that existed when the first shot was fired, correct?

Without a concurrent second lunge/grab/approach, doesn't that seem like a long, uphill argument for self-defense? There have been plenty of people with murderous intent, who expressed it or even evidenced it, and who stood a few feet away making serious threats; does it seem likely that would justify immediate lethal force?

Larry

 

[Kleanbore]

The teal man had already threatened to take the gun from him and attempted it.

What had been done was past.

The teal man was not backing down

Did he appear to be about to attack?

 

[armydog]

The homeowner goes out of his way to not even flag his feet as he tried to create space cause this guy is shoving all his upper body weight on him. He didn't come out and shove the muzzle in this guys face and tell him not to even breath. Is the guy not allowed to get a firearm on his own property if he thinks this guy is getting out of control? This guy got himself killed. The better course of action would have been for the homeowner to grab his lady by the hand and walk in the house and shut the door.

I do feel bad for the guy who got killed. But he let the situation drive him crazy and now he's dead.

 

[Jeff White]

The first video shows the weapon grab attempt at 1:54 and the first shot fired at 1:56. Two seconds between the disarm attempt and the first shot being fired. The second video (from inside the house) shows the disarm attempt at 2:07 and the first shot at 2:08. I can't account for the difference of one second between the two videos, maybe editing? In the view from inside the house you can see that the "victim" is still facing the shooter. It's unclear if he steps towards the shooter. How many people have the training and experience to read the situation and assume the fight was over after managing to retain your weapon in a fight? For those who think that the fight was over at that poi8nt I'd like to give the example of a state trooper who I knew, Kim Rhodes. Kim had pulled over a suspect on US 45 and as was common ISP practice at the time, had the offender seated in the squad car next to her while she wrote the ticket. It turned out the offender had a warrant and was savvy enough about police procedure to know what the "hit tone" on the radio meant. He grabbed for her weapon and a fight ensued n the front seat of her squad car. During the fight the offender shot her 3 times. Her body armor saved her. She regained control of her weapon and shot and killed the offender. She was cleared criminally but sued in civil court. The offender's family maintained that the fight was over when she regained control of her weapon. A jury didn't agree and the Kim was cleared in civil court. Mas Ayoob wrote this story up in American Handgunner a couple decades ago. Was the fight over when she regained control of her weapon? I can't say for sure, I wasn't there. Kim said it wasn't over and a jury agreed.

No one in this conversation was there. We don't know the history between the two people involved and we only have snippets of the words that were exchanged between the two. We do know that the "victim" threatened to disarm the shooter and then acted on that threat. One or two seconds later the victim was shot. I honestly don't believe you're going to convince a jury that the shooter should have reasonably concluded the fight was over when he retained control of his rifle after the disarm attempt.

We talk about getting inside your opponent's OODA loop here all the time. We talk about thinking a couple moves ahead of your opponent. We accept that in a fight where both parties are moving that it is possible for one to be shot in the back and it still be justified because of the speed that things happened and the decision to fire was made simultaneously with the suspect turning away and that's how the suspect was hit in the back. This has been proven in court many times. So if we accept the speed these encounters move at, how can we say that the shooter here committed murder?

What's the standard for reassessing a threat during a fight? Two seconds like in the video shot from the street? One second like in the video shot from the house? How long does it take for the brain to process the information? If the shooter had made the decision to shoot to defend from the weapons grab attempt, which would be reasonable, what's a reasonable amount of time to take to reassess the situation and decide not to shoot? 1 second? .5 seconds?

It's really easy to take video like this, watch it multiple times and in slow motion and judge a decision that someone made in a second or two while experiencing an Adrenalin dump.

Do I think that the entire situation was stupid and could have been avoided, yes. Do I wish that everyone involved could be charged with aggravated ignorance? Yes. Do I think this was murder? No. I might change my mind if someone can answer the questions about what is a reasonable time to recognize the fight is over. It would be a different story if the "victim" had made an obvious sign he was disengaging but I didn't see that in the video.

 

[Kleanbore]

As Jeff points out, things will likely hinge on what the triers of fact perceive about the timing.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Without a concurrent second lunge/grab/approach, doesn't that seem like a long, uphill argument for self-defense? There have been plenty of people with murderous intent, who expressed it or even evidenced it, and who stood a few feet away making serious threats; does it seem likely that would justify immediate lethal force?

To answer your first question, NO, I don't think so. That is my opinion.. As to your second question, if a guy engages you in a fist fight, can you only return punches when he is swinging at you? How long after his last punch can you punch back if he hasn't retreated from the fight he started? Zero seconds? 1? 2? 3? 30?

As Jeff points out, things will likely hinge on what the triers of fact perceive about the timing.

Yep. Exactly. I don't think they will perceive the couple of seconds difference between being grabbed and breaking away and firing at the aggressor as events significant different in timing, that it was an ongoing, 'immediate,' threat situation. I certainly could be wrong, but I think things happened fast enough to perceive 2 seconds as being too long.

I am in no way suggesting that what the homeowner did was necessarily within the explicit confines of the law, only that it may be perceived that way, sort of like with the parents in the Jorge Ramos incident a few months back. I don't even think what he did was right and am in no way advocating it, as with the Jorge Ramos incident.

 

[armydog]

I don't see anyone asking, "when does a pissed off man who is riling himself up and getting angrier and angrier, see that a gun is now present by a man on his property, and realize that his life could be in danger? Is it because Kyle doesn't have it pointed at him? Maybe it should occur when Chad's eyes first see the gun... but no... the clock is ticking on the video and it never occurs to Chad one bit, he just gets worse. He doesn't realize it... cause he keeps getting away with his tantrum well after the wife tells him his son isn't even on the property. Maybe if Kyle was 6'6" 250lbs Chad would have had a different tune... oh.. maybe not. First person to break the law was Chad by shoving his upper body into Kyle's while Kyle is holding a RIFLE.

Let's say Chad lived and in some civil or criminal trial he's asked, "did you think it was a good idea to shove your body into Kyle's as he's holding the rifle and telling you to get off his property? Did you know that a rifle can kill you? Weren't you scared when this rifle came into the situation? Wouldn't a reasonable person calm down and walk away? How long were you ranting and raving before being asked to leave? And with many more questions, it will be evident that Chad was the sole reason for causing what happened to him. Never occurred to him to wait in his vehicle till his son arrived, however long it took. It was a better idea to yell and pace back and forth threatening to subpoena everyone. lol

If Kyle would have used a concealed pistol, people would be saying he should have announced it and given the guy a chance to back off. Kyle being calm about the situation isn't getting results. Kyle getting a rifle and then yelling at him to leave his property is not getting Chad to change his behavior. But people still think Chad is acting reasonably and maybe Kyle should bend over some more for this guy. So now Chad is pushing his upper body into Kyle, why?, cause that is still a reasonable thing to do for Chad right? lol But yet, to some, Chad is not posing a danger... not a dangerous situation at all, hell, Chad now feels he can get even madder and act even more irrational.

For some reason, as much as I've watched this video, I can't find a single thing Kyle did that was criminal. Yet to some on here it was murder. lol There is a reason why these situations are often described as the most dangerous to LE. Some people can't control themselves and the chemicals in their brains cause them to self destruct.

 

[DT Guy]

Yep. Exactly. I don't think they will perceive the couple of seconds difference between being grabbed and breaking away and firing at the aggressor as events significant different in timing, that it was an ongoing, 'immediate,' threat situation. I certainly could be wrong, but I think things happened fast enough to perceive 2 seconds as being too long.

For a parallel case that I think speaks to this, look at the CPD officer charged (correctly, IMHO) with murdering LeQuan McDonald. The prosecutor reviewed the video evidence frame-by-frame, and based his charges on what McDonald was doing as each shot was fired. As soon as the threat was ended, every subsequent shot accrued a murder charge, IIRC.

Not saying any of this is 'right'; I don't think too many reasonable people feel the TX situation was handled well by any party, but these are the criteria you need to be prepared to be judged by. Just because it's VERY, very difficult to disengage immediately in real life doesn't mean a prosecutor and jury, with the luxury of slow motion (as Jeff mentioned) won't hold you to that standard.

It always comes down to this, IMHO: you shoot when you have absolutely, positively no choice but to shoot to prevent GBH. While that may not be the standard written into law, it is very commonly the unspoken test applied by the judicial system.

Keep in mind we just watched a young man tried for shooting someone who'd jump-kicked him, someone who'd struck him in the head with a 3# wood/aluminum skateboard and someone actually aiming a gun at him. And while I don't think he *should* have been charged, he was. That's the world we're living in, whether we like it or not, or agree with it or not.

Larry

 

[Double Naught Spy]

For a parallel case that I think speaks to this, look at the CPD officer charged (correctly, IMHO) with murdering LeQuan McDonald. The prosecutor reviewed the video evidence frame-by-frame, and based his charges on what McDonald was doing as each shot was fired. As soon as the threat was ended, every subsequent shot accrued a murder charge, IIRC.

The LaQuan McDonald incident was absolutely nothing like this incident. McDonald was clearly moving away from the police when he was shot 16 times. He had not assaulted any officer beforehand, either. He wasn't standing his ground with the cops.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Laquan_McDonald

Charges mean nothing in the legality grand scheme, as with Rittenhouse. Getting charged in a shooting can and does happen in good shoots. That is sometimes part of due process whether people like it or not. Some folks don't get charged and don't have to go through it, but getting charged is NOT the same thing as a conviction. It may be unfortunate, time consuming, and expensive, but a being charged and even going to trial doesn't mean it was a bad shooting. A conviction is another matter all together.

 

[anothernewb]

After watching the video I can't see where the homeowner was in the wrong. Albeit I'm no expert.
the other individual was clearly an antagonist and was constantly escalating the situation. From the evidence in the video, I believe If he had gained control of the gun, it would have become a hostage situation and perhaps several murders. I would not be surprised to discover that the deceased had a history of violent confrontation. My sympathies go to the shooter who now has a world of civil garbage to deal with.

 

[SteadyD]

What a bizarre video! No one involved seemed to think the shooting was a big deal at all... the camera woman didn't even gasp, scream, etc... just kept right on talking. The way they were all so casual about it kind of freaked me out.

That was my exact thoughts. That man was laying there dead or dying and nobody lifted a finger or even cared. Regardless of the legalities involved, there was absolutely no concern whatsoever for human life by anyone, and that bothers me a great deal.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

That man was laying there dead or dying and nobody lifted a finger or even cared.

Well, if he was dead, there isn't any reason to do anything at all other than to not disturb the scene. It isn't like any of the geniuses on scene were likely to have the capabilities of restoring life to the dead and they shouldn't be expected to try.

Maybe he was just dying. Okay, let's see, he was a belligerent, aggressive, litigation threatening, trespassing threat. He has the potential to be a biohazard as well. 911 was being called. No, I would not expect anybody there to be jumping up to administer first aid.

Even if somebody did jump up to administer first aid for a .22 (just guessing on the caliber) penetrating wound. He isn't apt to be bleeding out much and a shot to the chest isn't something you can tourniquet if blood loss is the issue. He could have had a sucking check wound and maybe something would have been smart enough to seal it, but probably not.

 

[SteadyD]

They acted like nothing had happened. That’s the disturbing part. The argument continued along as though nothing had changed. But something very grave just took place. If their behavior isn’t disturbing to you I’m not sure what to say.

 

[Jeff White]

They acted like nothing had happened. That’s the disturbing part. The argument continued along as though nothing had changed. But something very grave just took place. If their behavior isn’t disturbing to you I’m not sure what to say.

I've seen it before. I hate to think back on the number of child custody disputes I responded to that were just that heated. The participants were too wrapped up in the current fight to realize what happened. Now that a little time has passed I would be surprised if one side isn't praising the dead man as a saint and martyr and the other side if they are smart is staying silent. They probably aren't that smart though. This fight isn't over.

 

[Sistema1927]

“It's a mess, aint it Sheriff?"

"If it aint it'll do till a mess gets here.”

 

[twarr1]

I don’t have all the relevant facts. Just watching the videos, I don’t see a threat to property or a threat of great bodily harm until after the Kyle guy brings out the rifle.
Teal guy was being a jerk, but does being a jerk justify homicide? In my mind, both sides share responsibility for this tragedy. Teal guy was belligerent and trespassing. Shooter let his pride (or fear) get the better of him. His best course of action was to let LE remove the trespasser.
2nd degree murder?
The dead guy is dead, no redo’s on that. The legal system will deal with kyle, justified shooting or not, But the son will live with this event the rest of his life. His step-father killed his father in an argument over him. That’s a lot to deal with for a kid of any age.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I've seen it before. I hate to think back on the number of child custody disputes I responded to that were just that heated. The participants were too wrapped up in the current fight to realize what happened. Now that a little time has passed I would be surprised if one side isn't praising the dead man as a saint and martyr and the other side if they are smart is staying silent. They probably aren't that smart though. This fight isn't over.

Yeah, that probably isn't the first time the ex-husband has been there making a lot of noise.

Actually, the only thing that I find disturbing about the onlookers' behavior is that once the gun came out, nobody seemed to be seeking cover or perceiving that the danger radius just exponentially expanded. It is one thing to be a few feet back and an onlooker at a fist fight or even a knife fight. There is very little chance of getting hurt unless you are in contact distance of the participants and their area of fighting. That all changes with projectile weapons and onlookers and bystanders are not uncommon victims to such events.

I don’t have all the relevant facts. Just watching the videos, I don’t see a threat to property or a threat of great bodily harm until after the Kyle guy brings out the rifle.
Teal guy was being a jerk, but does being a jerk justify homicide? In my mind, both sides share responsibility for this tragedy. Teal guy was belligerent and trespassing. Shooter let his pride (or fear) get the better of him. His best course of action was to let LE remove the trespasser.
2nd degree murder?
The dead guy is dead, no redo’s on that. The legal system will deal with kyle, justified shooting or not, The son will live with this event the rest of his life. His step-father killed his father in an argument over him. That’s a lot to deal with for a kid of any age.

While not smart, particularly in these circumstances, bringing out the rifle without pointing it at the trespasser would not have been illegal. The disparity in size and once the trespasser got physical and is another matter all together, although I don't believe disparity of size is a defined legal criterion in Texas law, but it does play to juries very well. At the moment when the trespasser grabbed the gun, it did become a lethal force event. Cops go through this all the time. The only thing to assume if another person is trying to take your gun is that they will use it on you. Part of the quibble above is whether or not the same level of threat still existed when the homeowner broke free. No doubt that will be scrutinized by the grand jury and then possibly by a jury.

A lot of stupid in this situation and a lot of bad ramifications, even if all legal.