Was this self defense?

Help Support CattleToday:

callmefence said:
You are not required to wait for law enforcement to protect your private property. At least not in Texas.
If a situation escalates to needing deadly force. ( Someone threatens to kill you and trying to take your weapon) the castle doctrine kicks in. You are not required to retreat.
Click to expand...
Again, protect from what? I saw no threat. Trespassing alone is not cause to shoot someone dead.
 
I'll add this and be done. Right or wrong, if I went to someone else's home and made threats and approached an armed homeowner I would fully expect them to pull the trigger. No sense to add fuel to a bonfire.
 
callmefence said:
Your right. But it's not illegal to brandish a gun on your property. When someone threatens to kill you and charged you, tries to take your gun. That's more than trespassing.
Click to expand...
If that's the case, we've created a logical circle where everyone gets to claim self defense as soon as a gun is involved. Person A felt his life was in danger because Person B was brandishing a gun, so he tried to take it. Person B felt his life was in danger because Person A was trying to take his gun. Whoever survives is the winner and immune from liability. God bless America!
 
Buck Randall said:
If that's the case, we've created a logical circle where everyone gets to claim self defense as soon as a gun is involved. Person A felt his life was in danger because Person B was brandishing a gun, so he tried to take it. Person B felt his life was in danger because Person A was trying to take his gun. Whoever survives is the winner and immune from liability. God bless America!
Click to expand...
The difference is private property.
The man was told"get of my property" before a gun was introduced. Why do you insist on leaving out facts?
 
callmefence said:
Your right. But it's not illegal to brandish a gun on your property. When someone threatens to kill you and charged you, tries to take your gun. That's more than trespassing.
Click to expand...
But for his failure to comply with the family court order, as he agreed to do, none of it would've occurred. Texans need to learn to take responsibility for their actions.

This case needs to go to trial.
 
Last edited:
callmefence said:
The difference is private property.
The man was told"get of my property" before a gun was introduced. Why do you insist on leaving out facts?
Click to expand...
What difference does that make? Didn't you already agree that trespassing isn't a reason to shoot someone?

If you go in your house, get a gun, come back out and shoot them, it's murder. Stay in the house and call law enforcement. If he tries to break in, fire away.
 
Son of Butch said:
IF it can be proven the step-father planned the murder (so the mother could get full custody) he deserves the death penalty.

But since that does not appear to be the case, I'm good with an 18 year prison sentence and out in 12 on good behavior/parole.
Click to expand...
No exaggeration, there have been 4 people killed within a half mile of my home (that spans my 50 year lifetime). All 4 cases were declared self defense, all 4 cases involved a neighbor killing a neighbor. I wasn't present at any of these, but like everybody in the neighborhood, I had my questions and doubts. I wasn't exactly surprised when the news broke, and I wouldn't have been surprised if the story was the other way around. All 8 of these men were easily provoked., but only 4 are still with us.
 
Buck Randall said:
What difference does that make? Didn't you already agree that trespassing isn't a reason to shoot someone?

If you go in your house, get a gun, come back out and shoot them, it's murder. Stay in the house and call law enforcement. If he tries to break in, fire away.
Click to expand...
That's not what happened. Again why won't you stick to facts.
 
If my kid was in there and I had a court order that said I could have him at that time and place trespass rules would mean less than nothing. And I'm guessing most people on here would feel the same way. This all fell apart when the step dad decided to break the law and play games. If the first law were followed the kid would still have a dad, now he just has a step dad that killed his father.
 
Silver said:
If my kid was in there and I had a court order that said I could have him at that time and place trespass rules would mean less than nothing. And I'm guessing most people on here would feel the same way. This all fell apart when the step dad decided to break the law and play games. If the first law were followed the kid would still have a dad, now he just has a step dad that killed his father.
Click to expand...
This is simply visitation. It doesn't work that way.
Even if the father had called the police they would have only documented the violation and it would have went back before to the judge before penalty for contempt of court was handed out.
 

Similar threads

G
Fred Flintstone was by this evening.
Replies
1
Views
374
wbvs58
wbvs58
D
This is a first
Replies
18
Views
562
greybeard
greybeard
L
What color would you call this cow?
Replies
17
Views
557
puzzled in oregon
puzzled in oregon
Named'em Tamed'em
What's this?
Replies
1
Views
284
chaded
chaded
shaz
What makes a footprint like this?
2
Replies
39
Views
1K
CowboyRam
CowboyRam

Latest posts

Top