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

I don't think they will - Texas' version of a stand-your-ground law is known as the Castle Doctrine. It was revised in 2007 to expand the right to use deadly force. The new version allows people to defend themselves in their homes, workplaces or vehicles. The law also says that a person using force cannot provoke the attacker or be involved in criminal activity at the time. Raul Rodriguez, Texas man, gets 40 years in prison for fatally s..

They will be fine. Texas Castle doctrine removes the duty to retreat from anywhere you have a right to be. Not just your home. So if you are on the street and a guy comes at you with a bat, you can use deadly force before attempting to flee. They somewhere they had a legal right to be and the guy came at them with a bat. They provided ample warning about what was going to occur if that guy came at them. The dead guy was agitated and this video will sink any attempt at prosecution. And of all the people who could possibly die via electrocution? These two sister fuckers? Really?

So, if you're in those shoes, and you get confronted in an alley by someone with a bat who's screaming that he's going to kill you, and you have your firearm on you which is 100% legal to have on you, one that you have on you for situations exactly like this one, and you calmly inform them that you're going to kill them if they come at you. Do you honestly think that you were 'premeditating their murder' and also that you deserve the electric fucking chair? lmao what the fuck dude. The ground they have to stand on is that the other dude was SCREAMING he was going to kill them. The dude with the pistol calmly stated twice "If you come within 3 feet of me I will kill you". Meanwhile the now dead dude was repeatedly threatening he was going to kill them and he had a fucking baseball bat. I get that it's sad as fuck to hear that wife scream in distraught agony like that but these men aren't in the wrong and it's not a case of 'castle law' to shoot at the man who attacked you with a fucking baseball bat after, again, and I emphasize, screaming at you that he's going to kill you.

I dunno, one article states The neighbors had been arguing about the trash in the alleyway for days before the fatal shooting, police said. The day of Howard's death, John Miller had gone to throw the garbage out before the situation escalated.Police said the elder Miller had a handgun, and the younger Miller went inside his home to get a shotgun. "Someone reportedly went inside the deceased's residence to get a baseball bat," but ultimately Howard was killed. Box told the Forth Worth Star-Telegram that John Miller took a mattress Howard placed in a dumpster in the nearby alleyway out of the dumpster, and threw it on Howard's property. Following that, Box said, John Miller pulled "a pistol out of his shorts." Someone dumping shit on your lawn isn't really grounds to pull a gun on you. I mean maybe the original sisterfucker had some ground to stand on. But, when someone enters their home, retrieve a weapon, and comes back out to argue some more then I don't see that as being a justifiable defense. I mean they've already been charged, so we'll see what happens. But I highly doubt a jury will be sympathetic to their cause.

The bat was by the fucking garbage bin, once that idiot put it down they should have the fucking brains to remove themselves from the situation. They had that dude outgunned and he was unarmed up-till the threw the fucking bat. Sorry I'm not a weak ass who thinks I have to sit there and continue arguing with someone, if you can remove yourself from the situation then fucking do it. Both had ample time to remove themselves. I carry a firearm and I'm licensed to do so Texas. Maybe I had a more sensible CHL trainer, maybe I'm not afraid of everything that says scary words. Just because you can "legally" do something doesn't fucking mean you should. At least have the brain power to make a rational decision, easily could have removed themselves from the situation. Yes, they had the right to stand their ground once the bat was thrown. But why did it have to lead up to that?

I kind of feel like you missed that my post was that I didn't agree that they deserve the electric chair, not that their acts were justified. Defending yourself in a situation that unfortunately results in someone's death shouldn't mean you deserve execution for retaliating against an act of violence. By no means would I say that the situation was justified, I'm saying that they don't deserve death by electric chair on account of reacting the way they did. It obviously didn't have to lead up to that, but the fact that it did and lead to the things it did doesn't mean that these men deserve to die for their actions. Nobody needed to die in a situation that overblown and stupid, but you don't solve a situation afterwards by just killing off more of the people involved, that's not justice, nor does it actually solve anything.

Fair enough, sorry for misunderstanding you. They need to be held accountable to a degree for their actions. Their actions also helped led the situation to the route it took.

It's absolutely cool! I agree entirely, they don't deserve to walk away without consequence, but, from the way I see it, the consequence for what was ultimately a tragically handled but still legal exchange of deadly force shouldn't just be more perpetuation of death, it's just not right.

Honestly, this is pretty clear cut case for self defense under Castle Doctrine. It should have also been handled by calling the police and not escalating the situation.

I get how everyone was in the wrong here, especially rage-guy, and I'm usually a strong opponent of publicly owned firearms for reasons like this. I don't get why they felt the need to shoot him in the head? Your means of defense should measure up to the threat you are receiving. They come at him with a bat, you don't kill the man dead. You shoot him in the arm, or leg, or torso - somewhere potentially non-lethal. Cops over here are taught exactly that. Lethal force should never be applied unless your own life is at actual risk and there is no other way to neutralize the threat.

Because firearms are always deadly force and should only be deployed in defense of life or to prevent serious injury. A human with sufficient adrenaline can continue to fight for as much as thirty seconds after having their heart fatally pierced with a bullet. Contrary to popular belief, poking holes in people generally does little to nothing immediately. Why would it? Unless you strike the femur with a bullet, a leg shot offers no real physical incapacitation with a handgun cartridge. Meanwhile on the flip side, while those holes may not immediately kill, they have a decent chance of killing you AFTER the fight. Now you've shot and killed a human who wasn't enough of a threat to your life to justify deadly force. Also unacceptable. Police here vary by department, but generally policy for situations where other nations might use leg shots, is for cops to draw a mix of handguns and tasers. If they have the time and equipment, we do like to use beanbag shotguns, but it is important to understand that even those can be deadly force if used on center mass. In both cases it is an attempt to preserve life.

Is that what fat redneck #1 should have done? Shoot the bat out of his hand?

They don't have to be. They can be, they usually are, but they can also be used as a last-resort tool to neutralize a threat. They don't have to be lethal. See: Swedish use of police firearms. For sure, but is this the most common of cases? But yeah, if that happens then you should consider lethal shots. If they drop when you shoot their knees, you can stop firing. ... so if I shot you in the leg right now you wouldn't fall over and yelp out in pain? 🤔

Too soon for black humour? https://i.imgur.com/esjgGko.png

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIaWywzYgqY

This is dumb. Anno Domini 2018 and the limb shooting meme still persists, it's incredible. I'm not looking to keep a fight with a guy who wants to kill me "fair", I'm going to want every edge I can get. If someone is coming at me with a bat, I have no reason not to shoot to kill. I don't care what the police in Sweden are trained to do, at all. I'm not a cop in Sweden. A bat is plenty lethal. If you believe otherwise, I'd buy one and walk up to any average sized male and let them swing it at your head a few times and let us know if I'm mistaken.

"All guns are weapons of extreme destruction meant only to kill!" "Why didn't he just non-lethally shoot him in the leg or disarm him with a shot to the weapon?" These things I see people constantly say cannot co-exist. If you aren't treating every firearm as the incredibly dangerous tool it is, you are at fault. See: everyone killed by a gun that could have just walked away like this guy. Also why American police do not hesitate to kill any threats, you should know how threatening a police officer works, if you attack him your only objective must be to kill him, so hes going to take you out.

Seems pretty simple to me. All of this could of been avoided but once the big guy starts swinging the bat it's too late and you have to defend yourself. Either way, both sides are wrong but one is more wrong than the other.

You call attempting to neutralize a threat without also killing it a "meme", but I'm the dumb one? Okay dude. Either way, the point is that if you have a gun and the other guy doesn't, you have the upper hand. You don't have to kill the other guy. There are so many ways that you can not kill a person, even if you have a firearm. Then maybe you... should care? If there's a method of neutralization that doesn't require death and it's working then maybe you should adapt it so people don't, I dunno, die? For a bat to kill you in the situation seen above you would need to have them run at you with it, charging up a hit, and assuming you didn't step out of their way or run you could perhaps die - yes. For a gun to kill you in the situation seen above you raise it and pull the trigger. Oh, and look, it did.

When she started screaming I immediately regretted watching this

Angry bat dude was in the wrong. I need more context overall, though. As an aside, what if angry papa bear dude didn't have a bat? How effectively do you think he'd be able to dispatch the old bloke "unarmed" and how does this change the situation, if at all?

You do have the upperhand, correct. Now you're getting it. The entire point of having a gun is to either meet another one or preventing someone from getting close enough to kill you. It's up to the assailant to back out at that point. You're assuming I care about the outcome of an assailant who is trying to kill someone else or myself, when I really, really don't. I'm going to go with whatever stops them the quickest and most effectively. Nothing is quicker or more effective at stopping someone from trying to kill you than killing them first, certaintly not going for a risky leg shot or similar nonsense. I don't personally think theres anything even morally wrong with killing someone whos trying to kill you or threatening to do so, either, really. It's not up to a victim to keep their assailants safe. I doubt this old dude could outrun or outfight this guy, so turning and running or putting away the only thing giving the guy pause was not as safe of an option as staying eyes on and ready for the guy who is threatening to violently kill him and waiting for him to back off or make his move.

Yes im sure swinging a bat takes as long as charging a kamehameha and that an old fat geriatric can easily just run away from a big angry dude with a bat or dodge it like he's neo from the matrix or some shit I don't know what videogame world you live in but in real life bats are deadly weapons that can easily kill somebody

You have no clue what you're talking about. Is this really the hill you wanna die on? You're being really dumb.

Not only are the legs and arms bad to shoot at cause they are small targets and if you are under the stress that comes with a serious situation that requires you to shoot someone then aiming for the arm or leg can result in a miss that could potentially be fatal for the police officer. Not only that but arms, and especially legs, contain high pressure veins that could easily result in the one getting shot bleeding to death anyway. I know for a fact that the Swedish police is underfunded and badly managed so it wouldn't surprise me if some higher up politician who doesn't properly know how you should handle a handgun in a potentially lethal situation would decide that it's a good and surface level "progressive" idea to train cops to shoot arms and legs. Here's an article that goes more in depth on why cops do not shoot for the limbs. https://www.thebalancecareers.com/why-dont-police-shoot-people-in-the-arms-or-legs-974607

Senseless waste of life. Americans can't be trusted with guns.

Here's the question I have, not knowing Texas law: does the son have any legal basis for stand your ground? The father felt threatened, fired the warning shots, and was the one attacked, but the son was the one who fired the fatal shot. In Idaho, I know homicide is justifiable in the defense of a member of your family, but there had to have been good faith and endeavor to disarm the situation beforehand (or if they're already engaged in combat). Is that also the case in Texas?

I wasn't arguing anything other than that it's stupid to treat a bat as if it isn't a deadly weapon. Also, you're delusional if you think a fat old man is going to last even half a minute against a huge dude with a bat. This isn't an anime. The dude was also threatening to kill them constantly so it's not exactly out of the question he'd blugeon and old man to death. Please don't put words in my mouth and argue things you're imagining I'm arguing

A bat is less deadly than a gun. That doesn't make the bat less dangerous. It just makes it less dangerous in context. You can get punched in the face repeatedly, and be totally(relatively) fine. If you took one bat swing to the face, there's a good chance you'd have a life threatening brain bleed, a concussion, several fractures/broken bones, cranial trauma, and numerous other issues. Why do you people keep acting like getting hit in the face with a bat isn't a lethal or near lethal activity? A kid I grew up with literally got brain damaged to the point of being literally "retarded" when in 4th grade, he took a baseball bat being swung by a 8 year old to the face. That's all it took. A full grown man, swinging a bat with any strength will more than likely kill someone. Yes, that is harder to do than to shoot someone. In all honesty, everyone in this situation is in the wrong, but there's no way to view a bat as "not deadly" in these contexts, so no one should be arguing that. It's hollow.

Awful lot of victim blaming going on in this thread.