Off Topic Off Topic (Possibly Controversial)

15-20 ft. That's if the pistol is holstered.

Correct. In texas you can walk around holstered (with a CC permit) but if you draw that weapon (without justification) you have just illegally threatened with deadly force. I read nothing indicating he was justified to pull the pistol in the first place. Nor that he had a CC permit.

 

Great points, knifeleather.

 

The son reminds me of Danny McBride, its good to let the rest of America know that California is more than hippies and Antifa now and again....we got people that fight over mattresses!

Now I'm gonna watch a little...

 

Cmon man don't insult Danny like that. lol

 

Psychopath

 

Nm

 

(Random thought)
I think I know why you posted this here..
You want Jerry and the crew to make an INFI shield!!

Call it HHS
HOG. HIDE. SHEILD.
Or just H.H
Would go great with the models released this year.

 

Always try a to find a less than lethal solution to a problem...



(actually he's pretty dang lethal)

 

This is the correct analysis, IMO. My specialty is civil litigation and my criminal practice has been limited to white collar defense, but I also used to carry and did a lot of reading on justification/use of force law as part of that. Pistol-packer brandished a deadly weapon by drawing and displaying; he instantly created an unjustified threat of death/SBI to the eventual victim/his wife and kids. Anyone perceiving the situation would, in most US jurisdictions, have been within their rights to shoot him dead at the moment he began brandishing. Ditto for the shotgun brandishing son.

The threats and movement towards the pistol/shotgun creating a dangerous situation for those already lawfully killable are legally irrelevant — they created the situation by threatening death/SBI without justification. They cannot legally claim fear for their lives/SBI because the person they claim was a threat to them was allowed to not only threaten them but to use deadly force against them.

None of that matters practically-speaking. Being legally correct and dead makes you no less dead.

 

Thanks Dr. Lecter. I thought the same thing. If I’m standing there and Jed and Jethro approach with firearms in hand, I’m thinking bullets might soon be flying. Like I read and stated from the law in my home state - Virginia defines weapon brandishing as “causing fear” in another person. PS: Love your films.

 

It's just trash talking, and it was pretty clear the fat man with the handgun recognized it as such.

And what about the son with the shotgun? Finishing the guy off with a shotgun blast after he'd already been shot twice with a handgun?

Also, the guy with the gun was just a world class a-hole. Next time a "stand your ground" law is debated, this video is going to be exhibit A on why it's a bad idea. If those laws make some thickhead think he can say "if you come within three feet of me, I'll shoot you," and then do it, it's a pretty powerful argument against the laws. (That's not the way the law works, but this guy seemed to think it was. And that's why we can't have nice things.)

 

I agree with Dr. Lecter's reasoning. Murder appears to be an appropriate charge.

I am no lawyer, but I am a firearms instructor and have been carrying concealed for >16 years. I'm familiar with what one can/can't do (legally) versus what one should/shouldn't do in relation to civilian use of deadly force in self-defense. The presence of firearms "in hand" constituted an unjustified threat of deadly force use, and negates the shooters' claim of self-defense for the reason Dr. Lecter indicated.

I think the standard which will (and should) apply in this case is how a 'reasonable person' would have behaved in this set of circumstances. The dead guy was verbally abusive/aggressive/making death threats, but the shooters could have (should have) just retreated to their domicile -- they weren't forcibly restrained from doing so -- they were armed and could still defend themselves should the aggressor follow them/physically attack them on their own property. Instead, they chose to stand there and 'push the guy's buttons' until he acted (I think the video shows he threw a baseball bat at the dad), and then they lit him up. The "no duty to retreat/stand your ground" doesn't mean that you shouldn't retreat ... and that would have been a reasonable thing to do (in my opinion). That the dad & son didn't just return to their house indicates (to me) their desire to continue -- or to escalate -- the confrontation in spite of their outwardly calm demeanor.

 

It looked to me like those two guys wanted trouble and were trying to provoke it. Who knows what the history between these three is? This event was probably the culmination of a long-term series of interactions. They probably knew exactly what kind of a person this guy was, and knew exactly how to provoke him. Throwing the mattress out was probably another test of 'lets see how far we can push this guy'. If baseball bat guy didn't react this time, I bet the two gun guys would have kept trying different things until he did.

 

Under the circumstances, this is totally inappropriate and in bad taste:



But the only clip from The Godfather I could find was too long and you could barely hear the part about "going to the mattresses."

 

From a legal standpoint, under Texas law, if the shirtless gentlemen provoked the angry guy, they forfeited their right to "stand their ground," and their use of force was not legally justified unless they had tried to abandon the encounter but the angry guy pursued them. That pretty clearly wasn't the case here.

Also, under Texas law, unless the white-haired shirtless gentleman had a concealed handgun license, he could not legally take a handgun off his own premises unless directly en route to his car. And if he was unlawfully carrying the handgun, and he sought "an explanation from or a discussion with" the angry guy regarding their differences, his use of force was legally unjustified.

And regardless of the "stand your ground" law, the shirtless gentleman's use of force was unlawful unless they reasonably believed it was necessary to to prevent the angry guy's use or attempted use of unlawful force. I don't think coming within three feet of him meets that standard.

The law might be different in Colorado:

 

Every member here seems to be in agreement. Reasonable people, like us will find Jed and Jethro guilty of a pretty stiff charge. The’re going to (not) occupy an important level in the prison hierarchy. Killing a guy over a mattress. An interesting weekend. And an interesting upcoming week with the Kavanaugh accuser’s testimony on Thursday.