TexasCHLforum.com

The bat was thrown after the shots were fired. Or, this is my impression

Duel at the Dumpster, Part 1, from The Tactical Professor, Claude Werner.
https://tacticalprofessor.wordpress.com ... er-part-i/

PriestTheRunnepost_id=1222536 wrote:Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:22 am I don't see how they aren't found guilty since there seem to be several factors where they lose protections (IE public space?, engaging in the confrontation, threatening language, etc...) IANAL though, and the law can be odd.

As I said in another post, I don't know how this is going to play out. We don't know what happened before the video began and that can be critical. However, the factors you listed do not necessarily spell a loss for the defendants. Read TPC §§9.04, 9.31, 9.32 and 9.33 again. While provocation can cost one the ability to legally use deadly force, that provocation must be the factor that started the problem between the parties. Again, without seeing the events from the beginning, we don't know who started the trouble.

The death threats were primarily coming from the dead man. While the father and son also threatened to kill the man who was killed, their threats seem to have been more in the nature of warnings that would be justified under TPC §9.04.

I don't know if they can afford a good attorney, but if they can, this will be a very interesting case to follow.

No one should interpret this post to be supporting the actions by the defendants. Their problem is one they likely could have avoided, at least for the moment.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:52 pm No one should interpret this post to be supporting the actions by the defendants. Their problem is one they likely could have avoided, at least for the moment.

Chas.

I agree. This sort of thing (especially with video) does significant damage to the optics of the 2nd amendment, despite the legal end-result. The sad thing is that a man (likely a loving husband and father), however justified it may be, is dead over an argument about garbage. Both sides had the opportunity to walk away before things turned deadly, it is a shame that they didn't.

jordanmills wrote: Sun Sep 23, 2018 3:57 pm On the other hand, a detective who interviewed them after the incident claims that they admitted to wanting to have a situation where they could shoot Howard.

That seems a lot like premeditation if I read that right.

After watching the video, I don't feel much sympathy for any of the people involved, particularly the woman who seemed to be double-dog daring them to shoot her husband.

Press release from the Abilene popo:
http://press.abilenepolice.org/index.ph ... ead&id=710

A relevant excerpt:

It was determined that John Miller and Michael Miller discharged firearms at Aaron Howard after engaging in an argument about the placement of a box spring in the alley, killing him. When the first shots were fired, Aaron had a bat in his hand and was approximately seven feet from John Miller, who was the closest to him. When Michael Miller discharged his shotgun and John Miller fired the final two rounds from his pistol, Aaron Howard was unarmed. Both the Millers admitted to shooting Howard, who died after being transported to Hendrick Medical Center. Aaron Howard’s wife/girlfriend, Kara Box, recorded the incident on her cellphone and Detective Jordan Brown reviewed this video. He believes it is apparent from the video, combined with the interviews of the Millers, that they were tired of their neighbor, Aaron Howard, acting out and yelling and threatening them verbally. They brought out firearms during this argument and both Millers stood in the alley as Aaron Howard got more and more upset. As soon as he raised the bat while approximately seven or more feet away from John, John shot him.

I am not convinced that Howard was "seven feet or more" from the video. It looks like he was closer and had turned and stepped away as he was shot. In fact, the video shows the person holding the camera appearing to suddenly make a full turn (incidentially, showing the legs and feet of a fifth person who I haven't seen mentioned) which might be from Howard pushing Box aside to approach John Miller (that is entirely my supposition and not clearly shown or disproven by the video).

Also, the release seems to try to make a point of saying that Howard was unarmed when Michael Miller shot him, but he was unarmed because he threw the bat at John Miller, and Michael Miller appeared to pull the trigger less than a tenth of a second after that. Outside of the issues of provocation and ... everything else, I think that Michael Miller's actions in response to Howard assaulting his father are otherwise clearly justifiable. I would expect the chief and DA to have some trouble if they focus on that aspect.

I must be seeing an edited version of the video. Where are you folks seeing that much detail?

I didn't see a bat, Howard raising any object, or him throwing a bat. (I did hear what sounded to be a baseball bat hitting the ground after the first shot was fired.) The camera was not pointed at the father when he fired the first shot. However, the police dept. statement said the father fired when Howard raised a bat while standing seven feet away. The camera swung toward the father after the first shot and I got a glimpse of his head dodging an incoming object, before he fired again.

Some have said that Howard was unarmed after he threw the bat at the father. That's an assumption that may or may not be correct, because Howard is not on camera at this point. Also, as many have correctly noted in other threads, unarmed does not mean harmless. The huge disparity of size and apparent physical ability between Howard and the father is a major factor in a self-defense case. Throughout the entire interaction, Howard was threatening to kill both the father and the son. He obtained a bat from someone on the scene, then raised it as if to strike when he was very close to the father. This is by no means a slam-dunk for the prosecution. (I've already posted on the provocation issue, so I won't repeat it here.)

So much for the legal side; let's look at the aftermath. I don't think that the father or son shot Howard over a mattress or a dumpster. I think both shot because each felt the father was in grave danger. Regardless of the motivation, a man is dead and two men are in jail awaiting trial on murder charges. Even if the police and DA had agreed that the shooting was justified self-defense, both father and son will have to live with the knowledge that they voluntarily remained in a confrontation with an enraged man that was likely to lead to bloodshed.

After going over the use of force in my LTC classes, I then talk about the non-legal, real-world aftermath of a self-defense shooting. How one handles the emotional impact of such an event depends not only on their personality, but also on the fact-pattern underlying the shooting. It's one thing to take a life when you were thrust into a situation where you had no choice. It's quite another thing to try to sleep knowing that, although legally justified in shooting, you could have simply walked away.

When a grand jury and trial jury watch this video, I don't think they are going to like anyone involved. There are no heroes in this story.

Chas.

Note for al: If some deranged person shouted shoot me, shoot me, please do not comply.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:23 am When a grand jury and trial jury watch this video, I don't think they are going to like anyone involved. There are no heroes in this story.

Chas.

I do my best to avoid people, especially neighbors, who behave like those on both sides of this incident.

bblhd672 wrote: Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:49 am

Charles L. Cotton wrote: Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:23 am When a grand jury and trial jury watch this video, I don't think they are going to like anyone involved. There are no heroes in this story.

Chas.

I do my best to avoid people, especially neighbors, who behave like those on both sides of this incident.

Approximately 1 in 5 adults in the U.S.—43.8 million, or 18.5%—experiences mental illness in a given year. Approximately 1 in 25 adults in the U.S.—9.8 million, or 4.0%—experiences a serious mental illness in a given year that substantially interferes with or limits one or more major life activities.

I consistently advise my family members, when asked for my opinion about a decision, that they should choose an action with which they can live ... as well as consequences with which they can live.

If confronted like this, I hope I would have the presence of mind to use my run-fu at the first opportunity.

Bitter Clinger wrote: Tue Sep 25, 2018 12:22 pm Approximately 1 in 5 adults in the U.S.—43.8 million, or 18.5%—experiences mental illness in a given year. Approximately 1 in 25 adults in the U.S.—9.8 million, or 4.0%—experiences a serious mental illness in a given year that substantially interferes with or limits one or more major life activities.

Well, I know you and I, plus a couple other sane people, not sure about the fifth person though!

bblhd672 wrote: Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:56 pm

Bitter Clinger wrote: Tue Sep 25, 2018 12:22 pm Approximately 1 in 5 adults in the U.S.—43.8 million, or 18.5%—experiences mental illness in a given year. Approximately 1 in 25 adults in the U.S.—9.8 million, or 4.0%—experiences a serious mental illness in a given year that substantially interferes with or limits one or more major life activities.

Well, I know you and I, plus a couple other sane people, not sure about the fifth person though!

Didn't AndyC volunteer that he was the 5th person at breakfast?

Beiruty wrote: Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:35 am Note for al: If some deranged person shouted shoot me, shoot me, please do not comply.

Yeah I neglected to stir up trouble on that point. Howard says something like "Go ahead and shoot me!" Doesn't that mean that TPC 9.31(b)(3) applies to the actions of John Miller, making Howard's act of throwing the bat unprovoked assault?