Shooting In Abilene

[fickman]

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.

[Jusme]

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.

There are other ways to have a "dumpster rule" enforced. No one, elected, them "dumpster monitors". Rather than try to speak with the person reasonably, about it, they took it upon themselves, to remove the offending item, and toss it onto, the other guys property. Then, they armed themselves, to confront him, about it when he put it back. I don't have much sympathy, for the victim either since, he could have also deescalated, the situation, by walking away, and contacting the police. Too much stupidity, coming together in one place. I don't see them, getting much sympathy from a jury, when they have to answer, as to why they were there in the first place, rather than just report, a dumpster violation. JMHO

[puma guy]

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.

There are other ways to have a "dumpster rule" enforced. No one, elected, them "dumpster monitors". Rather than try to speak with the person reasonably, about it, they took it upon themselves, to remove the offending item, and toss it onto, the other guys property. Then, they armed themselves, to confront him, about it when he put it back. I don't have much sympathy, for the victim either since, he could have also deescalated, the situation, by walking away, and contacting the police. Too much stupidity, coming together in one place. I don't see them, getting much sympathy from a jury, when they have to answer, as to why they were there in the first place, rather than just report, a dumpster violation. JMHO

Somewhere there's a lawyer chomping at the bit to file a wrongful death suit against both the Millers.

[jordanmills]

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.

Failure 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.

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.

[Mike S]

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.

Failure 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.

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.

Actually, the No Duty to Retreat clause found in TPC 0.31 & 9.32 only applies if you:
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.

[Beiruty]

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.

Failure 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.

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.

Actually, the No Duty to Retreat clause found in TPC 0.31 & 9.32 only applies if you:
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.

It the father has no valid CHL he would are committing a crime. At least technically.

[Mike S]

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.

Failure 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.

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.

Actually, the No Duty to Retreat clause found in TPC 0.31 & 9.32 only applies if you:
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.

It the father has no valid CHL he would are committing a crime. At least technically.

Beiruty,
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.

[PriestTheRunner]

I've already accepted that the trial, and the anti-2nd Amendment fallout, are going to be a dumpster fire.

My hope is that it doesn't get the national coverage that media likes to throw at these things... But if the media needs a patsy to remind everyone of the 'need' for gun control, expect this court trial to reach the MSM and stay there as long as needed.

[Soccerdad1995]

There are some similarities between this case and the "handicap space monitor" case coming out of Florida. Most importantly, in both cases, the shooters appear to have had an opportunity to deescalate the conflict and/or disengage entirely but chose not to take that opportunity.

In this case, it would be very helpful to see what happened before the camera started recording. It would also be very helpful to see the man who was shot more clearly right before the shooting took place. Like Charles, I also cannot see if that guy was armed. What I do see is a man armed with a handgun that he has drawn, who is speaking in a calm voice throughout and who is not aggressively moving forward, but is also not actively retreating. I also see a much larger man, obviously irate, who is not afraid to repeatedly get right in the much older guys' face, even appearing to touch his chest early on. If the older guy had fired at that point (when the larger, irate, man reached out and touched him), I was thinking he might have had justification based on the disparity of force and the likelihood that the larger man could take his gun. Tactically, I'm not sure I would have let the guy get that close if I was the old man. Then again, I wouldn't be there in the first place.

Then there is the son, who appears to be much more immature than his dad. But the dad is doing most of the talking.

Other than leaving, or at least attempting to leave, the dad is at least telling the other guy to "back off", repeatedly, in that same relaxed voice. I'm not sure how much weight that carries, but I'm guessing it probably won't hurt.

Based solely on what the video shows, it appears to me that the man who was shot is the primary person escalating this confrontation. If the guy who got shot did arm himself with a bat and did attack the older man by throwing the bat or raising it to strike, then I think this becomes a very tough case. Put a police officer in the place of the old man, and the officers' partner in the place of the son. Do we have the same discussion about it being a justified shooting?