|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 115,424 Likes: 13
Campfire Sage
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 115,424 Likes: 13 |
You're assuming the shooter was the legal property owner, it's not clear that he is. He was legally present, dumb schit.
Trump being classless,tasteless and clueless as usual. Sorry, trump is a no tax payin pile of shiit. My young wife decided to play the field and had moved several dudes into my house
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,496 Likes: 4
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,496 Likes: 4 |
You're assuming the shooter was the legal property owner, it's not clear that he is. As long as the place was his home, rented or owned he had a right to tell anyone to leave.
Dog I rescued in January ![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/yYDjsxrQ/IMG-0124.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,297
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,297 |
Some of you guys have a hard time grasping that the dead hothead was trespassing, was told to leave, refused to leave, and was aggressive.
Some dont seen to understand when parents are arguing over their children to mind their own business. Outsiders sticking their nose in it will only make things worse. Some don't know that DIVORCED parents arguing over children needs to take place in front of a JUDGE.................. You would be in front of the judge every other month. All the woman had to do was what the judge told her to do. She couldnt even do that. I repeat" outsiders sticking their nose in it will only make things worse".
Last edited by jdm953; 11/27/21.
Ideas are far more powerful than guns, We dont let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas. "Joseph Stalin"
He who has braved youths dizzy heat dreads not the frost of age.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,125
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,125 |
I'd love to read the back and forth if one of them was black.
LOL That would make it easy,..
~MolÉĚËn LabĂŠ SkĂ˝la~
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,316 Likes: 3
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,316 Likes: 3 |
Some of you guys have a hard time grasping that the dead hothead was trespassing, was told to leave, refused to leave, and was aggressive.
Some dont seen to understand when parents are arguing over their children to mind their own business. Outsiders sticking their nose in it will only make things worse. Some don't know that DIVORCED parents arguing over children needs to take place in front of a JUDGE.................. You would be in front of the judge every other month. All the woman had to do was what the judge told her to do. She couldnt even do that. THAT's why you go to the judge....................
"...A man's rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box..." Frederick Douglass, 1867
( . Y . )
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 37,958 Likes: 6
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 37,958 Likes: 6 |
What I am wondering is whether Texas law authorizes a home occupant to point a firearm at a verbally irate person who does not leave his property upon the home occupant's request, because the issue of who is the aggressor could be determined based on that point rather than at the point where dad goes after the shooter. If home occupant was legally justified to point the gun, dad was the aggressor. As indicated in the Texas Laws video posted, AFAIK it is legal for the property owner to point a firearm at a trespasser.
"...if the gentlemen of Virginia shall send us a dozen of their sons, we would take great care in their education, instruct them in all we know, and make men of them." Canasatego 1744
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,120
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,120 |
Is the child custody arrangement going to play a role here. The dead man had a legal right to his child, and it was past time. He went to where the custodial parent of the house was, to pick up his child. He was in an argument over his child with the costodial parent. Could he have a right to be there under those circumstances? Could the shooter and the ex wife both be determined to escalate the situation? The ex wife was playing games and you can bet this has been long documented. The dead man was absolutely right, the child needs to be available at the said time. So he is there for the best interest of the child, outside of the home where the custodial parent lives / was at. They would not provide the child as ordered by the court. The little shooter guy escalated a non-violent situation into a violent situation with his gun. I am 100% for self defense, but this didnt have to happen and shouldnt have happened. I bet this does go to trial and he gets strung up on a lesser charge.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,086 Likes: 4
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,086 Likes: 4 |
Texas law is pretty clear on these issues and dad clearly advanced on the little guy.
Dad also verbalized that he would take the weapon from little guy and fugk him with it. Which would easily be interpreted as a threat of deadly force by most people.
Dad made two overt motions to grab the weapon. He was shot the second time.
Even if arrested and charged, Texas jury isnât going to convict based on that video. I don't know Texas law, and I certainly agree that dad clearly advanced on the shooter, threatened to take the weapon away from the shooter, and even attempted to take it. What I am wondering is whether Texas law authorizes a home occupant to point a firearm at a verbally irate person who does not leave his property upon the home occupant's request, because the issue of who is the aggressor could be determined based on that point rather than at the point where dad goes after the shooter. If home occupant was legally justified to point the gun, dad was the aggressor. If not, home occupant may be considered the initial aggressor for pointing the gun (ordinarily considered aggravated assault unless justifiable) and dad may have a right of self-defense which could include taking the gun away. (Dad did not step on the porch until after home occupant swung the rifle past dad.) I also agree that, at least around here, these cases are hard to get a conviction on an intentional homicide charge. Thatâs exactly where he fuqked up. You canât point a gun at someone over verbal argument. Like I mentioned in my above post, he became the Aggressor at that point. And thatâs gonna come back and bite him in the ass. The verbal argument was over the minute the guy told him to leave his property. Watch the video, the gun was not pointed at "Dad" until he was shot. I watched it. Thereâs no audio to the clip I watched. He still fuqked up by retrieving his rifle. TX Law has no justification for that. He brought a rifle to a verbal dispute, and at that point became the Aggressor. You canât threaten someone with Deadly Force unless the Justification For Deadly Force has been Met. You canât use Deadly Force or threaten Deadly Force for Trespassing in TX. His only Justification would have been if he was in fear for his life, or he life of another. As CHL says, the guy is lucky he is in Lubbock, and not Austin. Dad âtrespassingâ is not enough to justify the gun, doesnât matter what some of you guys think, thatâs the LAW. His only âjustificationâ for leaving a VERBAL argument, going BACK in the house to get a gun, and bring it OUTSIDE, is IF he can prove his girlfriend was about to get killed/beat. Boyfriend would NOT have been in the situation if he hadnât come BACK outside with the gun. He was SAFE inside the house, and ESCALATED the situation when he came back out. Yet if the dead guy had followed the property owners legal command to leave the property he wouldn't be dead would he? Funny how the dead guy pushing the smaller guy across his porch to you is nothing more than trespassing. I saw a guy doing nothing but trespassing and running his mouth, UNTIL boyfriend went inside and brought a gun OUT. Trespassing and yelling is not grounds for deadly force in Texas. He didnât âpush him across the porchâ until he came back out with a gun.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,316 Likes: 3
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,316 Likes: 3 |
Is the child custody arrangement going to play a role here. The dead man had a legal right to his child, and it was past time. He went to where the custodial parent of the house was, to pick up his child. He was in an argument over his child with the costodial parent. Could he have a right to be there under those circumstances? Could the shooter and the ex wife both be determined to escalate the situation? The ex wife was playing games and you can bet this has been long documented. The dead man was absolutely right, the child needs to be available at the said time. So he is there for the best interest of the child, outside of the home where the custodial parent lives / was at. They would not provide the child as ordered by the court. The little shooter guy escalated a non-violent situation into a violent situation with his gun. I am 100% for self defense, but this didnt have to happen and shouldnt have happened. I bet this does go to trial and he gets strung up on a lesser charge. Do we really know if anyone, and who exactly, was playing games?????
"...A man's rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box..." Frederick Douglass, 1867
( . Y . )
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 69,420 Likes: 23
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 69,420 Likes: 23 |
Texas law is pretty clear on these issues and dad clearly advanced on the little guy.
Dad also verbalized that he would take the weapon from little guy and fugk him with it. Which would easily be interpreted as a threat of deadly force by most people.
Dad made two overt motions to grab the weapon. He was shot the second time.
Even if arrested and charged, Texas jury isnât going to convict based on that video. I don't know Texas law, and I certainly agree that dad clearly advanced on the shooter, threatened to take the weapon away from the shooter, and even attempted to take it. What I am wondering is whether Texas law authorizes a home occupant to point a firearm at a verbally irate person who does not leave his property upon the home occupant's request, because the issue of who is the aggressor could be determined based on that point rather than at the point where dad goes after the shooter. If home occupant was legally justified to point the gun, dad was the aggressor. If not, home occupant may be considered the initial aggressor for pointing the gun (ordinarily considered aggravated assault unless justifiable) and dad may have a right of self-defense which could include taking the gun away. (Dad did not step on the porch until after home occupant swung the rifle past dad.) I also agree that, at least around here, these cases are hard to get a conviction on an intentional homicide charge. Thatâs exactly where he fuqked up. You canât point a gun at someone over verbal argument. Like I mentioned in my above post, he became the Aggressor at that point. And thatâs gonna come back and bite him in the ass. The verbal argument was over the minute the guy told him to leave his property. Watch the video, the gun was not pointed at "Dad" until he was shot. I watched it. Thereâs no audio to the clip I watched. He still fuqked up by retrieving his rifle. TX Law has no justification for that. He brought a rifle to a verbal dispute, and at that point became the Aggressor. You canât threaten someone with Deadly Force unless the Justification For Deadly Force has been Met. You canât use Deadly Force or threaten Deadly Force for Trespassing in TX. His only Justification would have been if he was in fear for his life, or he life of another. As CHL says, the guy is lucky he is in Lubbock, and not Austin. Dad âtrespassingâ is not enough to justify the gun, doesnât matter what some of you guys think, thatâs the LAW. His only âjustificationâ for leaving a VERBAL argument, going BACK in the house to get a gun, and bring it OUTSIDE, is IF he can prove his girlfriend was about to get killed/beat. Boyfriend would NOT have been in the situation if he hadnât come BACK outside with the gun. He was SAFE inside the house, and ESCALATED the situation when he came back out. Yep.
"Allways speak the truth and you will never have to remember what you said before..." Sam Houston
Texans, "We say Grace, We Say Mam, If You Don't Like it, We Don't Give a Damn!"
~MolÉĚËn LabĂŠ SkĂ˝la~
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,105
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,105 |
- Rogue
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,985 Likes: 7
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,985 Likes: 7 |
You're assuming the shooter was the legal property owner, it's not clear that he is. You're assuming the shooter was the legal property owner, it's not clear that he is. That doesn't have any bearing what so ever
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,086 Likes: 4
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,086 Likes: 4 |
What I am wondering is whether Texas law authorizes a home occupant to point a firearm at a verbally irate person who does not leave his property upon the home occupant's request, because the issue of who is the aggressor could be determined based on that point rather than at the point where dad goes after the shooter. If home occupant was legally justified to point the gun, dad was the aggressor. As indicated in the Texas Laws video posted, AFAIK it is legal for the property owner to point a firearm at a trespasser. Ummm. Not unless that trespasser is a threat to your (or someone elseâs) safety or life, or has your property in his hands. Simple trespassing is NOT grounds for pointing a gun or going to get a gun. A case could be made, possibly, in a rural area, with an unknown stranger, but this guy was coming to get his kids.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,496 Likes: 4
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,496 Likes: 4 |
Texas law is pretty clear on these issues and dad clearly advanced on the little guy.
Dad also verbalized that he would take the weapon from little guy and fugk him with it. Which would easily be interpreted as a threat of deadly force by most people.
Dad made two overt motions to grab the weapon. He was shot the second time.
Even if arrested and charged, Texas jury isnât going to convict based on that video. I don't know Texas law, and I certainly agree that dad clearly advanced on the shooter, threatened to take the weapon away from the shooter, and even attempted to take it. What I am wondering is whether Texas law authorizes a home occupant to point a firearm at a verbally irate person who does not leave his property upon the home occupant's request, because the issue of who is the aggressor could be determined based on that point rather than at the point where dad goes after the shooter. If home occupant was legally justified to point the gun, dad was the aggressor. If not, home occupant may be considered the initial aggressor for pointing the gun (ordinarily considered aggravated assault unless justifiable) and dad may have a right of self-defense which could include taking the gun away. (Dad did not step on the porch until after home occupant swung the rifle past dad.) I also agree that, at least around here, these cases are hard to get a conviction on an intentional homicide charge. Thatâs exactly where he fuqked up. You canât point a gun at someone over verbal argument. Like I mentioned in my above post, he became the Aggressor at that point. And thatâs gonna come back and bite him in the ass. The verbal argument was over the minute the guy told him to leave his property. Watch the video, the gun was not pointed at "Dad" until he was shot. I watched it. Thereâs no audio to the clip I watched. He still fuqked up by retrieving his rifle. TX Law has no justification for that. He brought a rifle to a verbal dispute, and at that point became the Aggressor. You canât threaten someone with Deadly Force unless the Justification For Deadly Force has been Met. You canât use Deadly Force or threaten Deadly Force for Trespassing in TX. His only Justification would have been if he was in fear for his life, or he life of another. As CHL says, the guy is lucky he is in Lubbock, and not Austin. Dad âtrespassingâ is not enough to justify the gun, doesnât matter what some of you guys think, thatâs the LAW. His only âjustificationâ for leaving a VERBAL argument, going BACK in the house to get a gun, and bring it OUTSIDE, is IF he can prove his girlfriend was about to get killed/beat. Boyfriend would NOT have been in the situation if he hadnât come BACK outside with the gun. He was SAFE inside the house, and ESCALATED the situation when he came back out. Yet if the dead guy had followed the property owners legal command to leave the property he wouldn't be dead would he? Funny how the dead guy pushing the smaller guy across his porch to you is nothing more than trespassing. I saw a guy doing nothing but trespassing and running his mouth, UNTIL boyfriend went inside and brought a gun OUT. Trespassing and yelling is not grounds for deadly force in Texas. He didnât âpush him across the porchâ until he came back out with a gun. So pushing a guy with a gun across his own porch makes it OK with you? Nothing but trespassing? Running his mouth? Once you have been told to leave the property and refuse you are past mere trespassing. The obvious thing here is you refuse to see the obvious, typical Hillary/Biden voter.
Dog I rescued in January
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 18,481 Likes: 2
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 18,481 Likes: 2 |
Serves as a good reminder that there's fuggn idiots all around us. Then there's the video of a guy getting shot...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,086 Likes: 4
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,086 Likes: 4 |
Good article, and in my opinion, good summation of why it wasnât âself defenseâ.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 69,420 Likes: 23
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 69,420 Likes: 23 |
Texas law is pretty clear on these issues and dad clearly advanced on the little guy.
Dad also verbalized that he would take the weapon from little guy and fugk him with it. Which would easily be interpreted as a threat of deadly force by most people.
Dad made two overt motions to grab the weapon. He was shot the second time.
Even if arrested and charged, Texas jury isnât going to convict based on that video. I don't know Texas law, and I certainly agree that dad clearly advanced on the shooter, threatened to take the weapon away from the shooter, and even attempted to take it. What I am wondering is whether Texas law authorizes a home occupant to point a firearm at a verbally irate person who does not leave his property upon the home occupant's request, because the issue of who is the aggressor could be determined based on that point rather than at the point where dad goes after the shooter. If home occupant was legally justified to point the gun, dad was the aggressor. If not, home occupant may be considered the initial aggressor for pointing the gun (ordinarily considered aggravated assault unless justifiable) and dad may have a right of self-defense which could include taking the gun away. (Dad did not step on the porch until after home occupant swung the rifle past dad.) I also agree that, at least around here, these cases are hard to get a conviction on an intentional homicide charge. Thatâs exactly where he fuqked up. You canât point a gun at someone over verbal argument. Like I mentioned in my above post, he became the Aggressor at that point. And thatâs gonna come back and bite him in the ass. The verbal argument was over the minute the guy told him to leave his property. Watch the video, the gun was not pointed at "Dad" until he was shot. I watched it. Thereâs no audio to the clip I watched. He still fuqked up by retrieving his rifle. TX Law has no justification for that. He brought a rifle to a verbal dispute, and at that point became the Aggressor. You canât threaten someone with Deadly Force unless the Justification For Deadly Force has been Met. You canât use Deadly Force or threaten Deadly Force for Trespassing in TX. His only Justification would have been if he was in fear for his life, or he life of another. As CHL says, the guy is lucky he is in Lubbock, and not Austin. Dad âtrespassingâ is not enough to justify the gun, doesnât matter what some of you guys think, thatâs the LAW. His only âjustificationâ for leaving a VERBAL argument, going BACK in the house to get a gun, and bring it OUTSIDE, is IF he can prove his girlfriend was about to get killed/beat. Boyfriend would NOT have been in the situation if he hadnât come BACK outside with the gun. He was SAFE inside the house, and ESCALATED the situation when he came back out. Yet if the dead guy had followed the property owners legal command to leave the property he wouldn't be dead would he? Funny how the dead guy pushing the smaller guy across his porch to you is nothing more than trespassing. I saw a guy doing nothing but trespassing and running his mouth, UNTIL boyfriend went inside and brought a gun OUT. Trespassing and yelling is not grounds for deadly force in Texas. He didnât âpush him across the porchâ until he came back out with a gun. PREZACTLY. TX law has no justification for using Deadly Force for Trespassing. Or Verbal Threats. Like I said, when he went inside, got a gun, and came back out with it, he became the Aggressor. And thatâs whatâs gonna come back and bite him in the ass. Period. He may luck out with a Conservative West TX Jury, but Iâm betting heâs charged and tried. We shall see. At the very least, heâs gonna be bankrupt and broke after a Criminal Trial. And possibly a Civil Suit. Sure hope that dumb C U N T that wouldnât let the Dad see his kids was worth it. đ
"Allways speak the truth and you will never have to remember what you said before..." Sam Houston
Texans, "We say Grace, We Say Mam, If You Don't Like it, We Don't Give a Damn!"
~MolÉĚËn LabĂŠ SkĂ˝la~
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,496 Likes: 4
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,496 Likes: 4 |
Totally biased article. Too funny. Misrepresentation big time.
Dog I rescued in January
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 3,447
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 3,447 |
Obvious how jwp got his post count up by saying nothing.
Don't ask me about my military service or heroic acts...most of it is untrue.
Pronoun: Yes, SIR !
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,186
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,186 |
Being "right" or "wrong" means little when you are bleeding out.
Have folks today simply lost all common sense? Or is substance use/abuse taking people's decision-making apparatus away?
What does dying prove?
|
|
|
|
|
121 members (7mm_Loco, AB2506, 673, 264mag, 44automag, 450yukon, 18 invisible),
1,010
guests, and
996
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,193,977
Posts18,519,888
Members74,020
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
