Texas Man Sentensed to 40 Years

he should have called police about the loud music first! never showed his ''firearm''before or after, when asking his neigbors to turn down the musicunless the neighbors flashed a ''firearm'' first/ the way the law is wrote..make sure you are not the aggressor!!!!

of course hes not...but the judge want see it that way

Damn shame

 

I see a lot of stupidity here, and from what I saw in the video, I can't say he not guilty.

1. He should have called the police rather than confronting them. It made him the instigator of the confrontation.

2. He should not have showed his gun. You only let them see the gun when you feel you're out of options and you're ready to shoot. I certainly don't get that impression from watching the video. Also, having showed them the gun makes you the instigator once again. The other people might see it as you making a deadly threat to them. One could argue they could get a gun and shoot you in self defense.

3. Since he ignored the first two, he should have left and called police when he became concerned rather than continuing to film. I get the impression he wasn't in danger up until the very end.

4. Carrying a camera and a gun at the same time is just careless.

 

the "castle doctrine" or 'stand your ground" does not give you a reason to murder someone.

i don't know all the facts of this case, but it kind of sounded like the guy went down the road with a gun and started some crap, which ended in someone being shot and killed. IF this is the case, he is guilty of murder.

if dumb A's keep acting stupid, these laws, which protect law abiding citizens protecting themselves with firearms, will come under serious fire. these laws are meant to protect homeowners/citizens who DO NOT start trouble & used a gun to protect themselves.

loud music is not a reason to end someone's life. this isn't why these laws were put into place.

 

He made some mistakes, but it looked like they attacked him first. If he was one HIS property, that would give him the right to shoot. If he was on THEIR property, then they had the right to attack him (though, not very smart).

 

i agree with this. in the end, it doesn't look like anyone's actions were smart though.

 

filming yourself provoking a drunk so you can try and kill them priceless.

guilty as charged.

all he ghad to do was leave and cal the police he put himself into a situation and provoked the attack in a belligerent manner.

 

That's 100% correct. Had he gone back into his house and called the police, he wouldn't be serving 40 years for murder, and his neighbor would not be dead.

 

i wonder if he'll get donations?

hope its cigarettes

 

true i heard the same thing i did not see him pull his firearm however the guy also kept moving closer to him and the man told him to stop multiple times and the man kept instigating him

 

I did not see him pull his fire arm, but from what I heard it sounded like they knew he had a gun and they threatened to get a gun a come shoot him at the beginning of the video. I assumed he informed them, or showed them his gun before the video.

Regardless, the other points still stand.

 

if the guy left his own property to to confront them about the loud music, then there was his first mistake. if going armed, leaving his property to confront them about the loud music, then that was his second mistake. he should have just called LE and made a complaint and let them handle it.

i support the Castle Laws and Stand Your Ground defences, but IMO, this wasn't that case. yes the others people appeared somewhat intoxicated and belligerent, but until he started telling them he was armed. which IMO is what caused the escalation and him firing his gun. so if i were a juror in his case, and after seeing that video, there is a high possibility, that i would find him guilty of murder, or at least negligent manslaughter.

 

if this guy never left his property....this should change everything!

not guilty!

 

all i can do is comment based on a bad video. im not privy to the actual police reports interviews investigation evidence and trial testimony.

it appears similar to the zimmerman case. an individual attempting to take the law into his own hands resulting in a death due to vigilante behaviour.

 

So much going on in this one that its really hard to know right or wrong with the info available. No doubt, exercising your rights does come with liabilities and possible outcomes that are not positive. If he truly felt in fear of his life, he did the right thing because he is still alive. Now comes judgement day when the right thing for him gets scrutiny by everyone else including the courts.

Having the right to do something and doing the right thing may not be the same thing, in this case, he really pushed the envelope too far. Actually, His filming probably was the death blow to his case, His fear factor didnt drive his response until after it got way out of hand, he was trying to make a point with drunks, not smart!. I do believe he was angry to begin with, probably not the first time his peace had been violated by these folks. Judgement lacking, he confronted drunks with a camera and a gun in hopes of creating a you tube moment, what did he think was going to happen, a beer summit at the Whitehouse? After he realized the situation had moved from uncomfortable to near riot, he got scared and did defend himself.

This is a chicken and egg thing, who really was responsible for the final action seems to be predicated on the belief that this was an unprovoked response, while the noise was the initial sign of an issue, the situation grew more dangerous as he attempted to control a dangerous situation that nobody with a brain should have tried to do alone with a camera.

MikeJK, you were 10th mt, would you have tried to defend your position against a mob of drunks alone with a camera and a handgun or retrograde and call for backup? Defending ones post is honorable but there was no danger close until he tried to deal with it inappropriately. My guess is you would choose the second response and live to fight another day. Im pretty sure most of us would do the same, loud music is not a precursor to the need of lethal response; that wasnt an invasion, it was an irritation.

Its not cold blooded murder but certainty isnt the classic case of one defending their property or self against an intruder. I wouldnt want to have been on that jury, it would be really tough for me to support his actions leading up to the shooting and I would have to be able to to set him free without any repercussions but I do think 40 years is excessive, someone was making a point, dont take the law into your own hands, right or wrong, he's got 40 years to think about it now.

Just because we can doesnt mean we should, the law of unintended consequences is always in effect and he should have thought more and acted less, sorry a drunk is dead but they sounded like a bunch of scumbags, he may have done his neighbors a favor. I do believe it will cause confusion and redirect the intent of the Stand your ground law in areas it wasnt designed to deal with, thats the really bad part.

 

"Stand your ground" is a bad name for these laws.

They don't give people the right to go provoking people and then shoot someone. From the limited evidence we have seen it seems like they got the verdict correct but 40 years seems a bit harsh. There are people who kill people at random and get less.