(NSFL) Man shot and killed by father-son duo in Abilene Texas - General

Okay. If I hit an old man in the head with a bat, he dies. I shoot him in the head, he dies. Mortality can't go above 100%.

I'm not seeing that cited in the police report, just from the wife herself, whose account of events already doesn't line up with the video. If that was the case they wouldn't have been able to post bond.

They are the same even though they are not? If the dude with the bat had a sword even that would be different, there is a difference between weapons, it's very nuanced. Guns are especially crazy good, though. If the guys both had autoloading crossbows, that'd be bad in a very similar way.

That's literally not the point. The point is that there is even a chance of a death in the first place. There doesn't need to be an equal chance of dying from someones fists pummeling your face vs you shooting them and saving yourself.

I really don't think you understand that if Miller had not been armed, a single blow to the head from that bat would easily have killed him. Bats are not 3 dmg noob weapons in some video game.

There is always a chance of death, fists can kill...so...point??

You already have the police report? Could you post it?

Context is important. A small area alley way with a beefy aggressive adrenaline pumped guy with a bat, and an old fat man in terrible physical shape with a pistol; the son only shows up after the hubbub to see this play out.

And who's fault is it, exactly, that he was in that situation? It was all of them, especially the people with the guns. I'm done talking about this since we're going in circles. Peace.

I don't have it, news stations have it as part of the press package, and everywhere that's cited, it cites the wife's account and not the police report.

You're picking and choosing and ignoring context, again. Great, so it's not obviously 100%. The fact is that a bludgeon to the head against an old man is similarly likely to cause death as a gunshot to the head would. It's not exactly the same, there is no science for such things. If something could feasibly kill you, that's all that matters. A baseball bat against an old man is very very likely to cause death.

Are you possibly under the influence of something?

I don't disagree with that at all. I think these two idiots created this situation by being smug inbred trailer trash garbage in the first place, but obviously had Aaron not attacked Miller (which would almost certainly have killed him) with a bat there would not have been a shooting. I don't think they're morally in the clear at all, only probably legally.

I guess we'll just have wait and see then. Until then I reserve my opinions on the basis that they could've gone back into their yard and called the cops. Both sides were stupid as fuck but shooting a man dead is kind of fucked. He was already clipped.

Last post: you are literally saying that every situation, because they have a chance of deadly force (because fists) should become deadly on both sides, and one side can become INFINITELY escalated (have guns) vs someone with a measly bat, and "because there was deadliness" it's okay to kill the fuck out of the weaker one if they freak out from being assaulted.

There is no such thing as a measly bat. If you get clonked in the head with a baseball bat even once, that can be instant death at any age, and it's not some minuscule chance. Multiple blows will almost certainly be fatal to all people.

There is this huge dissonance between what is ethically justified, and what is legally justified. The two fat dudes carrying guns are likely in the legal right. That does not mean I agree with their behavior from an ethical standpoint; ethically everybody involved is acting like shit, and while I do believe that the two fat dudes were ethically justified in defending themselves, I do not believe they were ethically justified in helping escalate a situation by not simply walking away and calling the police. However, this is an ethical fault the father has as well. Anyone could have just stopped, left, and called the cops, but nobody did, and that means everybody here is pretty much ethically responsible for this situation playing out the way it did. It just happens that the two fat dudes were likely legally justified in using deadly force in self defense.

why wouldn't someone be afraid if they're being assaulted by someone? why shouldn't that person have the means of protecting themselves? why can't you understand such a simple concept?

yes, where this took place, and thus, texas law is the only law that matters

From what I've seen, those fat shirtless men seem to be brandishing firearms while taking a mattress out of a garbage can. (This is illegal in Texas.) I have no idea why they took it out of the garbage can. Why they have guns while doing this, I have no idea likely due to the illegal nature of dumpster diving in Texas. The man in the orange shirt confronts them over it because the city won't haul the mattress away unless it's inside a garbage can. Although I believe that he truly thought they wouldn't shoot him to begin with. He was hoping to scare them off but the fat men stood their ground and the three men hurled insults at one another, orange shirt man claims to want to kill the two fat men, and the fat men claim to want to kill him. Orange(Aaron) shirt man was handed a bat by his brother, and old fat man(John) shoots a few warning shots. Aaron throws the bat towards the two men, and the young fat man(Michael) shoots Aaron in the head with a shotgun. Yes, guns weren't necessary in this situation. As far as I can see, the escalation when from like 0 to 100. The fact that John discharged his weapon was unnecessary and likely pushed Aaron into fight or flight mode thus, he threw the bat. The fact that Michael shoots Aaron in the head is unjustifiable to me. Something seems fishy about this, and the fact that it seems the duo just had 25k in bail money just lying around seems suspect to me. I'm not claiming anything, but I think someone should look into who these guys are.

The man who was shot had a history of having a very short temper. https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/774/833c1a71-8c73-463c-8e36-83167a82b6c8/yep.jpg

You can pay bail with bonds, or loans, very few people choose to stay in jail the course of their time, since they need to be able to work, contact an attorney, and so on. They likely don't have this money laying around. Also, your chain of events is wrong according to the article. From the wife's story, which again, is likely highly inaccurate in favor of her dead husband, the old man came to remove the mattress from the dumpster, which is likely illegal. Father should have called the police and been justified; however, father chose to be a vigilante and confront the old man in the middle of the act, likely acting aggressively based on his behavior in the video. Wife says that old man refused, the two likely exchanged violent words, and only then does old man brandish his gun. That's the key point here. If defense can show or prove using the video and testimony from people other than the (obviously biased) wife that the father was acting violently enough towards the old man as to make the old man fear for his life, then him brandishing the firearm is legally justified. If the father was as aggressive as he was in the video (again, it's why the video harms his character defense more than helps their case) and was threatening violence towards an out of shape old man, it may be legally justified because I can see an old man legitimately feeling his life threatened. However, if the father was civil, and the old man pulled a gun as an intimidation move, then old man is in the wrong for brandishing a weapon, but when the father escalated further with a baseball bat, he sort of diminished his own defense, especially when threatening their life and threatening to use their own gun against them. That's sort of the big stickler with this whole situation. The old man didn't come to take out the mattress with a gun in his hand, it was likely hidden or tucked away because either he was spoiling for a fight, or because the father has a history of violence and the old man worried for his safety. We can't know for certain, but video shows a very aggressive father, and two fat dudes who were far less aggressive, especially as they never pointed the gun at him, and thus never committed assault. A key element here is to understand that if somebody commits a crime, and you commit a crime to stop them, that doesn't put you in the right. You cannot go to a dumpster diver or person openly carrying a gun and threaten them with death and be in the legal right. You must call the police and have them sort it out unless the two threaten you, in which case you can either walk away, or defend yourself, but only once they commit assault. Brandishing a weapon alone is not a felony, it's "disorderly conduct." You cannot answer "disorderly conduct" with a baseball bat and life threats, because now you are committing assault yourself, and they have yet to point a gun at you. Even if they fire the gun into the ground as a warning shot, the worse they've done is fired within city limits, which is a misdemeanor, but charging the bat or throwing it is now deadly force and legally justifies the shooting. Again, having the guns and escalating everything is shitty thing to do, but legally, even if they're committing minor crimes like this, you can easily leave and call the police and get them arrested. You charge or bring a weapon, and you're making things worse, and the video doesn't do you favors because the two never commit the major crime of pointing the gun at him until after the bat is shown hitting the old man.

From the way the dude is behaving it's pretty easy for me to believe that he said something in the past or during the lead up to the encounter that prompted them to want to have a gun on themselves for this little interaction. Like, this dude wanted to flex his white trash muscles on two dudes he really had no business tangling with considering they were, uh, armed, and now his kids have to grow up without a dad over pride and a mattress. That, and for what reason would the wife release this video? I don't see a video of a guy blowing up and threatening to kill his neighbors before being shot by them helping her defense at all. What a senseless waste of life.

Seems to confirm my belief that the old man brandished the gun because the father was acting extremely violently and the old man was aware of the danger he was in when pulling out the mattress if the guy confronted him, (again, even if that is a misdemeanor, vigilante dad should've just called the police, but obviously I can see why he wouldn't since he's a blood psychopath and the cops know it) especially if the guy is on meds and has had trouble with the law over a fucking mailman walking in front of his house.

So he had a gun but decided to bring a bat instead which basically nullifies the argument that he was just trying to protect himself from the old guy's gun.

Regardless of who is 'in the right' here, egging on a bunch of inbred fat melanoma-collection-plates to shoot you the moment they warn you that they will shoot you, really isn't a smart idea But this is what happens when you grow up in a shit-shack in the middle of bum-fuck nowhere.

I don't think the old man should have discharged his weapon, and Aaron was being super aggressive. All this, and we still don't have a good idea about WHY the heck the Millers were taking the mattress out of the garbage can. You could argue that they took it out to make space, but WHY did they bring guns? The way everyone just holds their ground in the video is so strange to me. Why are the father and son so adamant in taking a mattress out of the dumpster after it had been sitting there for days already? There are so many questions, and a man is dead over something so innocuous. They made a mountain out of a molehill and now an overprotective father is dead.

World class athletes hit each other in the face repeatedly and don’t die. Ifyiu did that with a bat, they’d all die in a hit or two. You literally are saying a weapon is not a weapon in the presence of a deadlier weapon.

Everyone is in the wrong here. However, the degree of "Wrong" is different for each person. These two idiots are never gonna be able to claim castle law, they already been video recorded stating they will kill the other guy. That is premeditate murder. They had no ground to stand on to begin with, as trash at a public curb is just that...public property. That video just made me feel so much anger and rage. Hearing her screams was one of the most gut wrenching and depressing things I've heard. I don't really hope this upon anyone, but I hope they get ol' sparky.

I'd be shocked if they went to prison for murder for this tbh, solely off of Texan Law.