"...take a swing...back off...take a swing...back off..."

The crazy thing about this incident is how people can stand around and carefully video record this while guns are drawn, threats of murder happening. I don't understand this at all.

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:
"...take a swing...back off...take a swing...back off..."

The crazy thing about this incident is how people can stand around and carefully video record this while guns are drawn, threats of murder happening. I don't understand this at all.

I wonder if the good widow thought maybe she should use her phone for something other than recording the contest, like maybe calling the cops...

There is so much stupid in that video I don't even know where to start. There were so many opportunities to deescalate that situation, and none of the participants had a hint of interest in doing so.

My quick opinion is that it was probably self defense at the moment the gun was aimed and trigger was pulled, but the situation NEVER should have been allowed to get to that point. I donn't live in Texas but it would be hard for me to believe that a Stand Your Ground law covers "I'm right, you're an idiot, I have a gun, so fuck you"

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:
"...take a swing...back off...take a swing...back off..."

The crazy thing about this incident is how people can stand around and carefully video record this while guns are drawn, threats of murder happening. I don't understand this at all.

I wonder if the good widow thought maybe she should use her phone for something other than recording the contest, like maybe calling the cops...

I'm not a mind reader, but she showed no indication of wanting to bring the situation to a peaceful resolution.
Quite the contrary.

Semi-serious question: if handgun guy shot bat guy in the head and bat guy was then dead, what would shotgun boy be charged with in relation to shooting bat guy?

Hey, meet me in the alley. We'll have a few shots...

Well alrighty then

quote:

Originally posted by newtoSig765:

quote:

Originally posted by Ryanp225:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by Ryanp225:

I feel bad for the lady who had to see that happen to her husband regardless of any fault.

Despite it all, her anguish was heartbreaking.

Yes it was. I can't get the sound of her voice out of my head.
A good reminder to be courteous to everyone around you if just for your loved ones sake.

And yet, she was able to hold onto the camera and keep it pointing in the general direction of all the action, so zero sympathy for her, she goaded them all on.

She not only filmed the dick measuring, egged it on, and captured part of the shooting but she also filmed & posted the aftermath. There is a 2nd video on Live Leak (which I do NOT suggest anyone watch) where it had less dick measuring before the shooting but included the aftermath such as the shotgun wound to the head (I did not want to see that but couldn't hit the close window button fast enough).

quote:

Originally posted by honestlou:
Without researching Texas case law, I find it hard to be believe that doing something that someone else dislikes, such as removing a mattress from a dumpster, would be considered provoking the person in this context. A better example would be the deceased saying repeatedly “I’m going to kill you”. If the dad raised his gun in response to those words, and then was killed with the bat, bat guy would be precluded from using self-defense because of his provocation.

Again, without researching, and Texas caselaw may say differently

The father put the mattress in the dead guy's yard. Yet when I watch the video I see a mattress in the alley (i.e. where the dumpster is located). The timeline question is how do the dead guy, mattress, man-boob Sr, and & man-boob Jr all end up in the alley together?

The original story had the bail at $25k, but later in this thread there was an article posted that the DA went to court to get the bail increased to $250k. This occurred after the common-law wife posted the video on-line. The shooting occurred on Sept 1 and the video was posted on Sept 20. It's a safe bet that both the DA and Police have been working together to establish a timeline for everybody involved. It's interesting that DA went back to court to get bail increased 10x after the video was released. Is he just a political animal doing CYA or did the video change the known timeline?

As far as case law, I cannot point out a specific case. However, as I mentioned earlier I attended a class/seminar put on by a defense attorney licensed in Texas, and he was adamant that if you started a confrontation that you needed to walk-away or attempt to walk-away from the situation without using deadly force. If the other party prevented you from walking away then the use of force or deadly force in self-defense was back on the table. He also said to be extremely vocal that you're walking away and don't want to be part of the confrontation any longer so all of the bystanders heard it and preferably recorded it. Obviously, seek your your own legal counsel and don't rely on some internet stranger for 2nd hand legal advice.

As others have stated, I wholeheartedly agree that everybody involved in this is a loser - the dead guy, the common-law wife, man-boob Sr, and man-boob Jr. Trash taking out trash over trash.

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:...
I wonder if the good widow thought maybe she should use her phone for something other than recording the contest, like maybe calling the cops...

Maybe it's another one of those Youtube challenge thingys.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:...
I wonder if the good widow thought maybe she should use her phone for something other than recording the contest, like maybe calling the cops...

Maybe it's another one of those Youtube challenge thingys.

It seems the dead guy ate one too many Tide pods.

quote:

Originally posted by tatortodd:

quote:

Originally posted by honestlou:
Without researching Texas case law, I find it hard to be believe that doing something that someone else dislikes, such as removing a mattress from a dumpster, would be considered provoking the person in this context. A better example would be the deceased saying repeatedly “I’m going to kill you”. If the dad raised his gun in response to those words, and then was killed with the bat, bat guy would be precluded from using self-defense because of his provocation.

Again, without researching, and Texas caselaw may say differently

The father put the mattress in the dead guy's yard. Yet when I watch the video I see a mattress in the alley (i.e. where the dumpster is located). The timeline question is how do the dead guy, mattress, man-boob Sr, and & man-boob Jr all end up in the alley together?

...

However, as I mentioned earlier I attended a class/seminar put on by a defense attorney licensed in Texas, and he was adamant that if you started a confrontation that you needed to walk-away or attempt to walk-away from the situation without using deadly force. If the other party prevented you from walking away then the use of force or deadly force in self-defense was back on the table. He also said to be extremely vocal that you're walking away and don't want to be part of the confrontation any longer so all of the bystanders heard it and preferably recorded it. Obviously, seek your your own legal counsel and don't rely on some internet stranger for 2nd hand legal advice.

As others have stated, I wholeheartedly agree that everybody involved in this is a loser - the dead guy, the common-law wife, man-boob Sr, and man-boob Jr. Trash taking out trash over trash.

I completely agree with those statements and it is excellent advice. My only issue is with what constitutes provocation, or starting the the confrontation. It is quite common that the initiator of a fight cannot claim self-defense, unless he has made it clear that he has withdrawn and has attempted to disengage. I think that from a legal standpoint that the provocation for the fight has to be more proximate in time, and more directly related to the confrontation; ie. "I'm going to kill you", or taunting, such as "what are you going to do? Go ahead, take a swing, or are you too much of a pussy?" Something like that. I don't think these type of provisions in the self-defense statutes were intended for things such as throwing trash in someone's yard, or sleeping with their wife, etc. Unless the mattress being put in the yard immediately preceded the fight, I don't think it precludes his right to use self-defense. Throwing trash in his face, or throwing the mattress over the fence right in front of him, maybe, or even probably so. But if the mattress was put in his yard earlier and the confrontation was later, I just don't see it.

Things like bringing the guns with them to toss the mattress would be factors showing that they anticipated a confrontation, and could be argued to show that they started this confrontation.

On the bigger picture, I agree that there was stupidity all around. I teach that no matter what you think about the law being in your favor, never shoot anyone who doesn't need shooting. Even if you have the right to stand your ground, if you can safely retreat you should. The two with guns here clearly could have left the scene. And so could have the deceased.

quote:

Originally posted by RaiseHal:
Let them out of jail and give them a medal.

A medal?

The worst part about this is that they all didn't simultaneously shoot and kill each other in one instant and save us all the trouble. Absolute shit-stains on all sides.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
Eloquent exchange between the bottom one percent of the gene pool. Hmmmm.

That sums it up perfectly.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:

The worst part about this is that they all didn't simultaneously shoot and kill each other in one instant and save us all the trouble. Absolute shit-stains on all sides.

Come on - we live in a world that has dumpsters, and those dumpsters have to be guarded by men with guns.

Who's gonna do it? You??

The Millers have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Orange Shirt Guy, and you curse the shirtless Millers.

You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that Orange Shirt Guy's death, while tragic, probably saved lives; and the Miller’s existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, probably SAVED LIVES.

--------------------------------------------------

That is classic!

Well done.

That really is awesome! Bravo Sir

quote:

Originally posted by BenderRodriguez:
"When Michael Miller discharged his shotgun and John Miller fired the final two rounds from his pistol, Aaron Howard was unarmed."

So what. He was armed when they first shot them. People who get shot tend to drop their weapons.

This is an issue that comes up frequently in police officer involved shootings. Once something starts happening and it’s necessary to shoot in self-defense, very often attackers continue to get shot after they’ve dropped a weapon or even turned away and get shot in the back. A recent report is just one discussion of why shooters who are defending themselves don’t just turn themselves off instantly when an attack stops.

I even experienced it myself in a lot less stressful situation than defending myself against a deadly attack. The one time I played airsoft I hit an opponent with several shots even though the rules called for stopping after the first good hit. When he got annoyed with me, I realized that airsoft wasn’t for me because I wasn’t going to play a game in which it was necessary to stop shooting the instant someone was hit by the first pellet—or that I was going to fall down and act dead immediately after being hit once myself.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
Semi-serious question: if handgun guy shot bat guy in the head and bat guy was then dead, what would shotgun boy be charged with in relation to shooting bat guy?

I don't know about Texas law, but we had a slightly similar case several years ago that pertains to your question.

Victim gets into argument with friend. Friend stabs victim, then hands the knife to his nephew and convinces the nephew to stab him as well. Victim is found dead with stab wounds.

Friend and nephew were both arrested. Both confessed to stabbing the victim. Both were charged with the murder. But then the autopsy results came back and revealed that by the time the nephew stabbed the victim, the victim was already dead.

Nephew was allowed to plead to a reduced charge of Abuse of a Corpse.