Fore Left! said:

---

LOL at warning shot. Find me the warning shot statute. I'll wait

That shot went right past the dude's leg

Deadly force is not allowed to terminate a trespass in Texas, so if you find yourself in such a situation of wanting to scare off a trespasser, I would actually caution you that warning shots aren't a great idea

---

thirdcoast said:

---

All that matters is that the trespasser grabbed the gun, and was immediately shot after doing that. My point is the warning shot doesn't matter either way. You and others here are claiming the warning shot matters.

If the dad hadn't grabbed the gun, you have a decent legal argument. But we have undisputable evidence he grabbed gun and was shot less than 2 seconds after that.

---

AggieLostinDallas said:

---

Old Army Ghost said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

Fore Left! said:

---

Watch the video closely. He did not attempt to grab the gun until after it was fired past his shin

---

So if a resident fires a warning shot after telling a trespasser to leave, that then means the trespasser can then grab the gun?

I must have missed that statute.

---

the shooter has demonstrated intent to do harm and shows that he doesnt feel in immediate threat of his life as he didnt shoot to kill

---

What we all need to agree on is that everything done by just about everyone was wrong.

---

Fore Left! said:

---

Yet if the first aggravated assault was the first shot fired in the direction of the victim, then it's murder

---

Quote:

---

9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

---

Fore Left! said:

---

Yet if the first aggravated assault was the first shot fired in the direction of the victim, then it's murder

---

erudite said:

---

Fore Left! said:

---

Yet if the first aggravated assault was the first shot fired in the direction of the victim, then it's murder

---

I wonder if a "porch" is part of habitation, then this could be relevant (bolded mine):

Quote:

---

9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

---

If rushing up to someone, getting in their face, and flinging them from the habitation, then I think he is justified.

---

erudite said:

---

Fore Left! said:

---

Yet if the first aggravated assault was the first shot fired in the direction of the victim, then it's murder

---

I wonder if a "porch" is part of habitation, then this could be relevant (bolded mine):

Quote:

---

9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

---

If rushing up to someone, getting in their face, and flinging them from the habitation, then I think he is justified.

---

Old Army Ghost said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

Fore Left! said:

---

Watch the video closely. He did not attempt to grab the gun until after it was fired past his shin

---

So if a resident fires a warning shot after telling a trespasser to leave, that then means the trespasser can then grab the gun?

I must have missed that statute.

---

the shooter has demonstrated intent to do harm and shows that he doesnt feel in immediate threat of his life as he didnt shoot to kill

---

thirdcoast said:

---

Fore Left! said:

---

Yet if the first aggravated assault was the first shot fired in the direction of the victim, then it's murder

---

So what you are saying is that the dad was within his legal right to grab the gun from the resident on his front porch after being told to leave and shot at?

It's scary that people think like you. No wonder people often avoid jury trials.

---

unmade bed said:

---

erudite said:

---

Fore Left! said:

---

Yet if the first aggravated assault was the first shot fired in the direction of the victim, then it's murder

---

I wonder if a "porch" is part of habitation, then this could be relevant (bolded mine):

Quote:

---

9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

---

If rushing up to someone, getting in their face, and flinging them from the habitation, then I think he is justified.

---

Can be if the porch is a structure that is appurtenant to the habitation, which I would argue the porch in the situation is.

Not sure that is a get of jail free card for shooter in this case though.

---

Quote:

---

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

---

Quote:

---

Sec. 30.02. BURGLARY. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, the person:

(1) enters a habitation, or a building (or any portion of a building) not then open to the public, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault;

---

Wycliffe_03 said:

---

Old Army Ghost said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

Fore Left! said:

---

Watch the video closely. He did not attempt to grab the gun until after it was fired past his shin

---

So if a resident fires a warning shot after telling a trespasser to leave, that then means the trespasser can then grab the gun?

I must have missed that statute.

---

the shooter has demonstrated intent to do harm and shows that he doesnt feel in immediate threat of his life as he didnt shoot to kill

---

He fired a warning shot hoping the aggressor would leave. Then the aggressor struggled to get his gun. That is when his life was truly threatened.

---

erudite said:

---

unmade bed said:

---

erudite said:

---

Fore Left! said:

---

Yet if the first aggravated assault was the first shot fired in the direction of the victim, then it's murder

---

I wonder if a "porch" is part of habitation, then this could be relevant (bolded mine):

Quote:

---

9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

---

If rushing up to someone, getting in their face, and flinging them from the habitation, then I think he is justified.

---

Can be if the porch is a structure that is appurtenant to the habitation, which I would argue the porch in the situation is.

Not sure that is a get of jail free card for shooter in this case though.

---

So long as he did not commit anything above a class C misdameanor OR provoked it (I don't think he did, because he says "Get off my property"). I believe it is explicitly stated (Might be wrong) that retrieving your firearm is NOT to be considered so long as it is not carried in a method "calculated to cause alarm".
If I was the defendant, I would be arguing "I shot and missed".
Also, the deceased says he KNOWS that his kid is not in there.

I am not sure he can argue protection of property, it depends on if his act of throwing the defendant is a crime (Since he "entered" the porch and thus the property).

Quote:

---

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

---

Quote:

---

Sec. 30.02. BURGLARY. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, the person:

(1) enters a habitation, or a building (or any portion of a building) not then open to the public, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault;

---

If someone walks onto your property (porch), threatens you, touches the firearm, and then flings you from your property, that seems to apply here.

---

thirdcoast said:

---

For all those claiming murder, just imagine you found yourself potentially losing control of loaded firearm to someone threatening you on your front porch.

If your first inclination is to mention you would never let it get to that, or to tell us what Steven Segal tactical move you use, then you fail the exercise.

---

Ryan34 said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

For all those claiming murder, just imagine you found yourself potentially losing control of loaded firearm to someone threatening you on your front porch.

If your first inclination is to mention you would never let it get to that, or to tell us what Steven Segal tactical move you use, then you fail the exercise.

---

Imagine if someone shoots at you from a few feet away and you are unarmed. How would you defend yourself, or would you stand there and get shot?

---

Wycliffe_03 said:

---

Ryan34 said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

For all those claiming murder, just imagine you found yourself potentially losing control of loaded firearm to someone threatening you on your front porch.

If your first inclination is to mention you would never let it get to that, or to tell us what Steven Segal tactical move you use, then you fail the exercise.

---

Imagine if someone shoots at you from a few feet away and you are unarmed. How would you defend yourself, or would you stand there and get shot?

---

If a homeowner came out with a gun demanding I leave, I can't imagine getting in his face on his property and assaulting him or getting very aggressive. That is the LAST thing I would do.

Would you really do that?

---

unmade bed said:

---

erudite said:

---

unmade bed said:

---

erudite said:

---

Fore Left! said:

---

Yet if the first aggravated assault was the first shot fired in the direction of the victim, then it's murder

---

I wonder if a "porch" is part of habitation, then this could be relevant (bolded mine):

Quote:

---

9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

---

If rushing up to someone, getting in their face, and flinging them from the habitation, then I think he is justified.

---

Can be if the porch is a structure that is appurtenant to the habitation, which I would argue the porch in the situation is.

Not sure that is a get of jail free card for shooter in this case though.

---

So long as he did not commit anything above a class C misdameanor OR provoked it (I don't think he did, because he says "Get off my property"). I believe it is explicitly stated (Might be wrong) that retrieving your firearm is NOT to be considered so long as it is not carried in a method "calculated to cause alarm".
If I was the defendant, I would be arguing "I shot and missed".
Also, the deceased says he KNOWS that his kid is not in there.

I am not sure he can argue protection of property, it depends on if his act of throwing the defendant is a crime (Since he "entered" the porch and thus the property).

Quote:

---

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

---

Quote:

---

Sec. 30.02. BURGLARY. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, the person:

(1) enters a habitation, or a building (or any portion of a building) not then open to the public, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault;

---

If someone walks onto your property (porch), threatens you, touches the firearm, and then flings you from your property, that seems to apply here.

---

That part of the statute is listing when the shooter's belief that deadly force is necessary is presumed to be reasonable. It's just a presumption though and can be overcome.

---

Quote:

---

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

---

Quote:

---

Sec. 22.01. ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse;
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or
(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.

---

Ryan34 said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

For all those claiming murder, just imagine you found yourself potentially losing control of loaded firearm to someone threatening you on your front porch.

If your first inclination is to mention you would never let it get to that, or to tell us what Steven Segal tactical move you use, then you fail the exercise.

---

Imagine if someone shoots at you from a few feet away and you are unarmed. How would you defend yourself, or would you stand there and get shot?

---

thirdcoast said:

---

No idea if he owns the property. But pretty sure it was his occupied habitation at very least.

How many times are you supposed to let someone grab your loaded gun before you have the right to shoot them? Seems to be a hard question for many here to answer. Despite the logical legal answer, which is once.

---

Old RV Ag said:

---

TRADUCTOR said:

---

Marlin39m said:

---

Chest bump and words with no other deadly threat exhibited do not warrant pointing the gun and then firing at the feet of dead guy. Dead guy then had a right to self defense from that use of deadly force. Pushing the gun away or even grabbing it to try to take it away is reasonable. Separating, raising the rifle for deliberate aim from several feet away, and then firing at an unarmed man who is not advancing on you is murder.

---

Not reasonable, abject stupidity. Lesson is stupidity killed green shirt dude. Don't be an the unarmed idiot and half ass try to take away the gun, you always lose.

---

This argument has been given over and over. From my military tactical eyes, if someone has pulled a gun and discharged at my feet, I'm not turning my back on that person and walking away. In this case, the bio dad did exactly what someone should do in self defense with someone with a long gun - he closed the distance so it was negating the effectiveness of a rifle and he was then using his size advantage (yet, everyone who keeps pointing out his size was a threat, just being bigger is not a threat). What bio dad did wrong was sling the little guy and create separation with the gun still in little guy's hands.

Everyone saying it was a 50/50 fault are somewhat correct. The bio dad is dead so he got his "punishment." Little guy should be in jail for his.

---

thirdcoast said:

---

Ryan34 said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

For all those claiming murder, just imagine you found yourself potentially losing control of loaded firearm to someone threatening you on your front porch.

If your first inclination is to mention you would never let it get to that, or to tell us what Steven Segal tactical move you use, then you fail the exercise.

---

Imagine if someone shoots at you from a few feet away and you are unarmed. How would you defend yourself, or would you stand there and get shot?

---

If someone shoots at me from a few feet away I am retreating. Especially, if it's the residence of someone yelling at me to leave. Then I think about how I may have died if I did otherwise.

What do you do? You grab the gun? Or do you do what Jason Bourne would?

---

Fore Left! said:

---

Infinite stupidity by both. The dead guy paid the price for his. But I admittedly want to see some consequence for the bait job this appears to be. If these people were afraid, he doesn't leave his girlfriend out there.

If this dad was something to be afraid of, I'm telling her to get in the house and call the cops, then I'm right behind her, retrieving the rifle, but keeping my cover inside and ready if he pursues.

---

Fore Left! said:

---

Infinite stupidity by both. The dead guy paid the price for his. But I admittedly want to see some consequence for the bait job this appears to be. If these people were afraid, he doesn't leave his girlfriend out there.

---

Ryan34 said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

No idea if he owns the property. But pretty sure it was his occupied habitation at very least.

How many times are you supposed to let someone grab your loaded gun before you have the right to shoot them? Seems to be a hard question for many here to answer. Despite the logical legal answer, which is once.

---

When are you allowed to shoot your loaded gun at someone? If someone shoots at you, by what means are you allowed to defend yourself?

---