(08-10-2021 02:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-10-2021 01:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-10-2021 12:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-10-2021 10:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Tanq - from a legal perspective with regards to burden of proof, how does that work in the state of Texas? I imagine someone can't just say "I killed Bob in self-defense" and then require the state to disprove that from the start, right?

Isn't there some, initial burden (albeit lower) for them to meet to argue that the self defense claim has merit? As in, you have to reasonably show that someone felt threatened AND they didn't start the altercation?

If not, doesn't that create a massive loophole that could be exploited?

There are two burdens -- one is the burden of moving forward, the second is the burden of proof.

The defense has the burden of moving forward with the matter. When met (and the standard for moving forward is low), the state has to prove the opposite beyond a reasonable doubt.

I tried to convey that earlier.

And, the standard is not quite as you note. In order to defeat a self-defense, the state must show that that the defendant did could not reasonably believe that they were facing imminent death or bodily harm, and that the defendant themself did not act in a manner that led the deceased to rightfully escalate.

If person A acts in a deadly manner, person B has the right to use equivalent force. If person A then finishes after B reacts properly --- A's first use of deadly force does not erase person B's conduct.

Think of this:

1) A pulls out a knife in a fight, B yanks out a pistol in return, A then kills B -- not a valid self-defense.

2) A pulls out a knife, B pulls a pistol, A drops the knife, B kills A -- improper self-defense since A de-escalated.

3) A balls his fist to hit B, B shoots A --- improper self-defense.

4) A balls his fist to hit B, B pulls out a machete, A pulls a gun and kills B -- proper self-defense, since B's raising of the deadly force was instigated first.

Car turns slowly into a street, which is walled off in protests, car honks and yells, moves slowly; B pulls an AK; A pulls his AR out and kills B.

Thanks - and I believe I understood what you were trying to convey earlier, as I'm very much on board with your examples above (that I've bolded).

A question about the other examples (3rd and 4th ones). Is the key to you that the balling of the fist doesn't constitute a potential life-threatening action? If so, that boils down to the fist not being a deadly weapon, right?

As to the final item, which references this case, I definitely see that perspective (which I've tried to communicate in my posts). If the facts are as you've stated - the car just honked and then all of a sudden an AK is pointed right at the driver, that is self-defense by the driver.

But if the AK wasn't pointed, or if the driver had acted instigated the escalation of violence before the honk (again, the only video I saw is what you posted, which doesn't show anything before the honk), then wouldn't it not be a valid claim of self defense? The articles I've read indicate witnesses claim both things are true (so there appears to be some disagreement in these accounts).

The critical issues appear to be: did the shooter act in a deadly manner and did the "victim" do the same? If the answer is yes to both, self-defense wouldn't be viable, right (since the shooter first acted in a deadly manner)? If the answer is no then yes, then self-defense would be viable, right (since the shooter did NOT first act in a deadly manner)?

Again, I don't really have a dog in this fight about whether the guy is guilty or not (it seems like there isn't enough evidence to find him clearly guilty, to be frank).

Also when one thinks about, item 2 is in play as well, as well as item 1.

A slow moving car probably is not realistically a threat of death commensurate with the use of an AK.

Even if it was, when the car stopped, the threat goes away --- thus again the issue is very much in play here.

Finally, there are pictures of the deceased holding it on the car and driver. Look up the defense attorney in the case as he has published those freeze frames.

Again, the issue for me isnt the indictment. It is the the DA and how he has approached this. And yes, I fundamentally believe the lead investigator -- he literally has zero issue in this, and it is all a down side for him to even do this.

I think it's tough to say that the car being stopped alone is de-escalation, given how quickly someone could jam on the gas. But it certainly isn't escalating the situation, that's for sure. This is why, to a point Ham made and I agreed with, open carrying long rifles during these protests is creating a powder keg situation.

I hadn't seen any extra photos, so I did some Googling to try and find them. I found an alternate angle that shows when the driver "entered" the crowd - the dude seems to accelerate quickly around a corner and into the crowd before he is forced to stop. My first thought is it was a really dangerous and aggressive move.

https://twitter.com/chadloder/status/128...8186205184 (go to 0:28)

It wasn't until that video that I realized the car that I had always thought fired the shots, hadn't actually fired the shots (the video I'd seen shows a car stopped at the light and you can't see the shooters' car turn into the crowd- shown here: https://www.statesman.com/story/news/202...981476002/)

In that twitter thread, I found a photo that someone posted showing Foster holding his rifle and pointing it "downwards," but in a way where the muzzle could easily be pointed at the driver.

To your point about the DA, my hope is it isn't true that he basically squashed evidence - it sounds like we'll find out from the article I read. Do you think that's the case?

Quote:

Quote: Is the key to you that the balling of the fist doesn't constitute a potential life-threatening action? If so, that boils down to the fist not being a deadly weapon, right?

Correct. The issue is whom escalated, or re-escalated, or continued with, deadly force without equivalent deadly force on the other side.

After watching the video I found, it looks like the escalation stands with the driver - but that could have easily been accidental. I mean, he had to have known the protest was ongoing and people were walking in the street, but he may not have realized how wide of a berth they had. But he also drove around the corner much more quickly than he needed to, especially given how many people were in the street. I'm sure he was pissed off at being blocked by a large crowd, but that wasn't a smart move.