|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,522
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,522 |
ElkSlayer91- “You’re all Commies!”
Take it down a notch.
We’re trying to have a reasonable legal discussion, while YOU are trying to get all personal and paint our houses “red”.... I don't know if that is possible on this site. Seems when some people disagree there has to be insults.
futuaris nisi irrisus ridebis
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,859
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,859 |
SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS
Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
"reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary"
Seems like a lot of reasonable people here don't think it was immediately necessary.
Was there any provocation?
I guess the sawed off twit is now asking himself if getting the gun and then using it was a good course of action. You no comprehend INGlish? He didn't have a right to defend himself with deadly force after physically being thrown off the porch? A person is being physically assaulted, and according to this commie, a citizen has no right to defend them self. You took the Covid-19 shot didn't you, or no, your brain has been screwed up for quite some time, hasn't it?
Last edited by ElkSlayer91; 11/29/21.
"He is far from Stupid"
”person, who happens to have an above-average level of intelligence”
– DocRocket (In reference to ElkSlayer91)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 2,755
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 2,755 |
Due to the increased price of ammo, don't expect a warning shot...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,499
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,499 |
SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS
Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
"reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary"
Seems like a lot of reasonable people here don't think it was immediately necessary.
Was there any provocation?
I guess the sawed off twit is now asking himself if getting the gun and then using it was a good course of action. You no comprehend INGlish? He didn't have a right to defend himself with deadly force after physically being thrown off the porch? A person is being physically assaulted, and according to this commie, a citizen has no right to defend them self. You took the Covid-19 shot didn't you, or no, your brain has been screwed up for quite some time, hasn't it? reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary did not provoke the person against whom the force was used
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 1,405
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 1,405 |
Of course he has the right to grab a gun (although God has nothing to do with this conversation, so kindly stick to the facts and leave out the bearded space alien for the moment), but he's also liable to face the consequences for his decision. He grabbed the gun hoping it was a deterrent. It escalated the situation, and then he made the decision to shoot the dude dead. If Read had escalated first (and don't give me any of the bullshit about how a chest bump is in any way similar to picking up a rifle) and pulled a pistol, Carruth would have been easily, 100% in his right to shoot Read immediately. But, Carruth escalated the force involved in the situation, which was his first mistake (just cause you have the right to do it doesn't make it a good decision). Even then, that specific part would not have gotten him in trouble if it had worked to scare Read away. But, Read didn't leave, and Carruth made the decision to shoot Read when there were plenty of other options available for dealing with the situation. If Carruth had shot when Read reached for the gun, odds are good this wouldn't even be debatable. But after space has been cleared and Read is just standing on the porch 8 feet away? That's an unjustified homocide. Your mind is that of a commie being you state the "gun" escalated the event. That's the same as stating the "gun" killed the individual. Blame it on the gun, like the good closet commie you are. You lie after being called to the carpet about you thinking Carruth didn't have a right to bear arms, and state he does now, and then blame the gun for escalating. So according to you now, he still can't Bear Arms, because the "gun" can escalate the situation as you stated above. You're doing a heck of a job Brownie. Holy christ in a cracker. Are you capable of having a civil discussion? Or are we just gonna regress to 3rd grade name calling and screaming? The gun didn't escalate the situation. The man getting the gun escalated the situation, by introducing a deadly weapon where there previously had not been one. I don't know why that distinction needs made here, but apparently it does. There's no blame being given to the gun; i know it's a tool just like everyone else here does. But, introducing a weapon into an otherwise unarmed altercation is called escalation. Simple notion to grasp. The 2nd amendment doesn't grant you the right to kill whomever you want to. The man has the right to bear arms, absolutely. Nowhere did I say he did not (go back and tell me where I said he wasn't allowed to have a gun). As the bearer of a firearm, you have responsibility for what you do with that firearm. In this situation, from all evidence shown, it seems pretty clear that the bearer of the firearm shot when there was not legal nor logical need to do so. Scream communism all you want, as that seems to be a favorite of yours, but none of this conversation is regarding his right to the gun. Just his responsibility for his actions.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,793
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,793 |
Even in Texas you don’t have the right to use deadly force in a simple trespassing situation. Of course, this whole deal is a lot more complicated than that. I would say there is plenty of grist for the mill as either a defense attorney or as a prosecutor.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 23,506
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 23,506 |
NoElk,
Just stfu....You’re being an idiot, again, with you accusations of commie labels on anyone who sees the shooting differently.
We all know you’re a small tike and would have done the same thing as the shooter did. Far, far be it, that you could use your fists to fight anyone bigger than a 4 year old.
Pussy’s like you, only understand how a pussy should react....Congratulations!
🦫
Curiosity Killed the Cat & The Prairie Dog
“Molon Labe”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 7,511
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 7,511 |
Yeah, this clearly looks like justifiable homicide. I mean, who wouldn't shoot someone center mass over a chest bump!? ![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/ktLbSzD.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 7,511
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 7,511 |
Put the guy on ignore, he's a moron.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,499
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,499 |
Yeah, this clearly looks like justifiable homicide. I mean, who wouldn't shoot someone center mass over a chest bump!? That certainly has immediately necessary written all over it to most reasonable people right?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 46,022
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 46,022 |
Of course he has the right to grab a gun (although God has nothing to do with this conversation, so kindly stick to the facts and leave out the bearded space alien for the moment), but he's also liable to face the consequences for his decision. He grabbed the gun hoping it was a deterrent. It escalated the situation, and then he made the decision to shoot the dude dead. If Read had escalated first (and don't give me any of the bullshit about how a chest bump is in any way similar to picking up a rifle) and pulled a pistol, Carruth would have been easily, 100% in his right to shoot Read immediately. But, Carruth escalated the force involved in the situation, which was his first mistake (just cause you have the right to do it doesn't make it a good decision). Even then, that specific part would not have gotten him in trouble if it had worked to scare Read away. But, Read didn't leave, and Carruth made the decision to shoot Read when there were plenty of other options available for dealing with the situation. If Carruth had shot when Read reached for the gun, odds are good this wouldn't even be debatable. But after space has been cleared and Read is just standing on the porch 8 feet away? That's an unjustified homocide. Your mind is that of a commie being you state the "gun" escalated the event. That's the same as stating the "gun" killed the individual. Blame it on the gun, like the good closet commie you are. You lie after being called to the carpet about you thinking Carruth didn't have a right to bear arms, and state he does now, and then blame the gun for escalating. So according to you now, he still can't Bear Arms, because the "gun" can escalate the situation as you stated above. You're doing a heck of a job Brownie. Holy christ in a cracker. Are you capable of having a civil discussion? Or are we just gonna regress to 3rd grade name calling and screaming? - He'll be OK once lithium becomes affordable again.
A wise man is frequently humbled.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,580
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,580 |
Yeah, this clearly looks like justifiable homicide. I mean, who wouldn't shoot someone center mass over a chest bump!? That certainly has immediately necessary written all over it to most reasonable people right? I don't care either way, but that pic, the full size one, shows what appears to be dead guys foot up likes he's stepping off towards the little guy. This whole cluster is a lotta gray area
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 21,767
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 21,767 |
A pissed off black woman wouldn't have a chance against
some of these hens.
It pretty easy to see this is a mess.
Everyone can have an opinion,
But this will hinge on the politics of the Prosecutor, and the jury.
With possible judicial influence.
Parents who say they have good kids..Usually don't!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,339
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,339 |
Ultimately the Texas legal system will adjudicate whether or not this shooting was a legitimate act of self defense or something else, stay tuned...
Remember why, specifically, the Bill of Rights was written...remember its purpose. It was written to limit the power of government over the individual.
There is no believing a liar, even when he speaks the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,499
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,499 |
Yeah, this clearly looks like justifiable homicide. I mean, who wouldn't shoot someone center mass over a chest bump!? That certainly has immediately necessary written all over it to most reasonable people right? I don't care either way, but that pic, the full size one, shows what appears to be dead guys foot up likes he's stepping off towards the little guy. This whole cluster is a lotta gray area Easily avoidable gray area for the gunner. It was a verbal confrontation until the gun came out. It should not come as a surprise to anyone that a person who is having custody games played with them would be a bit emotional.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 46,022
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 46,022 |
Ultimately the Texas legal system will adjudicate whether or not this shooting was legitimate act of self defense, stay tuned... No doubt they'll cut and paste this thread as Exhibit A. The legal acumen here is off the.charts.
A wise man is frequently humbled.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,580
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,580 |
I think it's so cute that so many of you think that what is "legal" means anything anymore in regards to being charged, tried, and acquitted........
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 1,405
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 1,405 |
Yeah, this clearly looks like justifiable homicide. I mean, who wouldn't shoot someone center mass over a chest bump!? That certainly has immediately necessary written all over it to most reasonable people right? I don't care either way, but that pic, the full size one, shows what appears to be dead guys foot up likes he's stepping off towards the little guy. This whole cluster is a lotta gray area I don't think so. Watching the video of that, the black part that looks like a foot stepping forward is just a shadow in the bushes. The guys weight doesn't shift, his shoulders don't move forward, nothing. Generally speaking, if someone is going to advance, the first thing is a forward weight shift followed closely by the foot moving forward. That doesn't happen in the video. He most likely was going to advance again, but when the shots were fired it doesn't seem like he was actually advancing yet.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 86,168
Campfire Oracle
|
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 86,168 |
Yeah, this clearly looks like justifiable homicide. I mean, who wouldn't shoot someone center mass over a chest bump!? That’s the pic that’s gonna get him indicted at a minimum.
If you take the time it takes, it takes less time.
--Pat Parelli
American by birth; Alaskan by choice.
--ironbender
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,859
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,859 |
1 - The man getting the gun escalated the situation, by introducing a deadly weapon where there previously had not been one.......
2 - But, introducing a weapon into an otherwise unarmed altercation is called escalation.
3 - The 2nd amendment doesn't grant you the right to kill whomever you want to.
4 - The man has the right to bear arms, absolutely. Nowhere did I say he did not (go back and tell me where I said he wasn't allowed to have a gun).
5 - As the bearer of a firearm, you have responsibility for what you do with that firearm. In this situation, from all evidence shown, it seems pretty clear that the bearer of the firearm shot when there was not legal nor logical need to do so.
6 - none of this conversation is regarding his right to the gun. Just his responsibility for his actions.
1) You are stating a citizen can never bring a gun into any situation where they feel the need to defend them self, because that action alone is escalation, which means he does not have a right to bear arms in your eyes. 2) See answer to #1 3) Attacking the second amendment like the good commie you are, just like you attacked God previously you commie atheist. 4)Your statements in 1 & 2 prove you're a liar. 5) You lie again. Carruth had just been assaulted and physically thrown off his porch, and had every legal right to use deadly force. Thanks for making it very visible for everyone to see you are lying. You commie biatches don't get to decide when, how, and where a citizen has a right to bear arms when they feel threatened. It is not even listed in the Texas statute as to "when" a gun may be retrieved, reason being, a citizen has the right to bring a gun into a situation any time they feel in danger. You commie 2A hating biatches can go take your shots and die. Keep throwing the strawman arguments out here, you commie freedom hating biatches.
"He is far from Stupid"
”person, who happens to have an above-average level of intelligence”
– DocRocket (In reference to ElkSlayer91)
|
|
|
|
|
598 members (1beaver_shooter, 17CalFan, 10gaugeman, 12344mag, 10ring1, 1337Fungi, 53 invisible),
2,721
guests, and
1,087
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,312
Posts18,468,262
Members73,928
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
