Beiruty,Beiruty wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 2:47 pmIt the father has no valid CHL he would are committing a crime. At least technically.Mike S wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 2:42 pmActually, the No Duty to Retreat clause found in TPC 0.31 & 9.32 only applies if you:jordanmills wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 12:35 pmFailure to retreat can't be considered, by law. I'd go so far as to say that they were familiar with Howard's history of violence which would make it dangerous to even turn their backs on him. Also, that would be a good reason why the elder Miller would be inclined to come out with a handgun in the first place (assuming he doesn't habitually carry outside his home, as I and many other people do), and why the younger would go inside to get the shotgun.fickman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:47 am This is a mess. I am extremely unsympathetic to the shooters even if there is an avenue by which a shrewd attorney may cobble together an effective defense. Their temperaments subvert everything we are trying to accomplish on this forum.
BEGIN WILD SPECULATION BASED ONLY ON CURRENTLY AVAILABLE PUBLIC INFORMATION
Were I a juror, I would find them guilty of murder.
I feel strongly that they were not standing their legal ground, but rather that they entered the alley to be the armed enforcers of the neighborhood dumpster rules. They go into the alley with the intent to enforce their side of the dumpster dispute, they refuse to deescalate / walk away / defer to governing authorities, and throughout the video - they make it apparent that they want the fight and are looking for an excuse to make good on their threats. I'd go so far as to say they went into the conflict thinking they could bait him into crossing their line in the sand. These two wanted to shoot somebody and (again - my own speculation) probably thought they'd gotten their legal defense airtight by trying to use all of the self-defense magic words. I wouldn't be surprised if they both have years of posts on AR15.com about how tough they are.
I hope they get the longest sentence possible; if nothing else than for the message it will send to other mouth-breathers who think their gun elevates them to a new power strata. I'll be disappointed if they get away with lower charges.
That said, I'm not convinced they weren't out to shoot someone, regardless of actual justification, and I have a hard time finding sympathy for anyone involved in the mess.
1. Had a right to be present;
2. Did not provoke the person; and
3. Were not engaged in criminal activity.
From the little snippet of video I've seen, I have no idea if either Miller would have forefeited the protection of No Duty to Retreat. My understanding was that the dumpster was in a common area, so they likely had a right to be present. If the judge deems the Millers provoked it (especially given any history between the actors), then it might be introduced at trial.
I almost included that as well, but I'm not tracking all of the particulars of this case, such as:
- Was this a common area included in their lease? And if so, would he be allowed to carry there as 'premises under his control'?
- Did he already have a justification under the self defense statutes to use either force or deadly force? If so, TPC 9.04 might apply and allow for him to produce a firearm, although this is limited to the sole intent to cause apprehension in the other party that you'll use deadly force if needed (which based on the goading in the video I'm thinking won't apply here). The law is also clear that force is never justified due to verbal provocation alone. And again, if we provoke we may lose the ability to claim self defense, which would render moot the protection of 9.04.
Another angle on 'committing a crime at the time the deadly force was used' could be a terroristic threat (by putting someone in fear of imminent death/serious bodily injury), or aggravated assault (threatening another with unlawful deadly force). So, your correct that there's likely lots of ways their behavior neutered any real self defense claim.