Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Texas home shoot video

You lose the debate when you refuse to provide one simple number requested, and continue with your obfuscation of the facts.

I notated the cold hard facts as they happened, and not one single commie has successfully quoted, and proven any of the facts I posted wrong, from my CASE FACTS posting a few pages back.

Nothing but steady lies, and ignoring the actual truths from you commie clowns working hard to destroy gun rights.

She was also there Roger.

So, did shooter set this up?

yes but not by the judge his now ex wife.

no, the dead guy's ex-wife, he was arguing with, and his new wife who took the video.

I haven't seen anything about who shot the video from inside the house.

You lost it long ago and continually refuse to address what I said, and still continue to avoid it. Keep up the good work with baseless insults. Little tip: in order for insults and accusations to be effective there has to be at least some truth to them.

believe it was the shooter's sister in law, brothers wife if I remember correctly

LOL
Everyone already knew that fact, Dumbass. No need to mention it again. But you’re too stupid to realize that. You just now figuring that out ???
I bet you hear that big “pop” several times a day. When your head comes out of your stupid lying ass.

Still waiting for your Lying Ass to post up those Elk photos.
But it’ll never happen. Liar.

Obstruction of facts? You are the one ignoring all the facts. First and foremost. Why did little man stick his nose into someone else's business. This was between the kids parents. People do not stop being parents when they get divorced. This is just mistake number one. Why did the sniveling little runt go get a gun? He should have stayed in the house. Not his business. There was no threat of harm when he shot the kids dad. This was murder and you cant make it anything else. Little man is up to his neck in trouble just because he could not mind his own business. The whore did not do what the judge told her to do. She deserved an ass eating. Then drug thru court. State AG is going to crucify the runt.

Roger:

I believe there were 3 vidoes.

1 - Reid's new wife taken video from the truck in the street.
2 - Video from inside house looking onto the front porch through an open door with "no" screen.
3 - Video from inside the house looking onto the front porch through windows with covering.

Sec. 9.31. SELF-Previous HitDEFENSENext Hit. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using Previous HitforceNext Hit against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the Previous HitforceNext Hit is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful Previous HitforceNext Hit. The actor's belief that the Previous HitforceNext Hit 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 Previous HitforceNext Hit was used:

(A) unlawfully and with Previous HitforceNext Hit entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with Previous HitforceNext Hit, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with Previous HitforceNext Hit removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with Previous HitforceNext Hit, 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 Previous HitforceNext Hit 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 Previous HitforceNext Hit was used.

(b) The use of Previous HitforceNext Hit against another is not justified:

(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

(3) if the actor consented to the exact Previous HitforceNext Hit used or attempted by the other;

(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful Previous HitforceNext Hit, unless:

(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and

(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful Previous HitforceNext Hit against the actor; or

(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:

(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or

(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.

(c) The use of Previous HitforceNext Hit to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater Previous HitforceNext Hit than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the Previous HitforceNext Hit is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater Previous HitforceNext Hit than necessary.

(d) The use of Previous HitdeadlyNext Hit Previous HitforceNext Hit is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the Previous HitforceNext Hit is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the Previous HitforceNext Hit is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the Previous HitforceNext Hit is used is not required to retreat before using Previous HitforceNext Hit as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of Previous HitforceNext Hit was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Amended by:

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1 (S.B. 378), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2007.

LMAO.
Wonder what color the sky is in ELKTURDBURGLAR’s little world ? 🤪

Keep backtracking to cover your lying. It's beautiful watching you attempt to fill the gaps.

Still waiting Liar. Post them up. Liar. Doubt you’ve ever seen an Elk. Much less own a gun. And I’m guessing your also a Convicted Felon who can’t own a gun.

Keep posting your false negative lies. The intelligent people are enjoying your ignorance, while they also enjoy and appreciate my posting of the pure facts.

You accuse me of refusing to answer a question when you refuse to answer how many times does a person have to be physically assaulted before it is OK for the property owner to use deadly force to defend himself from physical assault.

Enter Number:________

Correct. That’s what’ll git him.

Elky sure is spun up.

Too bad he's not only wrong (as usual) but he's still posted less killed critter pics than my niece.

🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂

LMAO

We’re damn sure enjoying you making a fool of yourself.
It’s always extremely entertaining when your off your psych meds.
You win the Campfire Participation Trophy For Chief Liar And Idiot once again.

QUOTE:

Sec. 9.31. SELF-Previous HitDEFENSENext Hit. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using Previous HitforceNext Hit against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the Previous HitforceNext Hit is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful Previous HitforceNext Hit. The actor's belief that the Previous HitforceNext Hit 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 Previous HitforceNext Hit was used:

(B) unlawfully and with Previous HitforceNext Hit removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with Previous HitforceNext Hit, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

END QUOTE

The LAW states Carruth didn't have to wait or give the criminal trespasser assaulting him a third chance, thereby justifying the use of deadly force.