Show us where the victim entered the little guy’s “domicile”….”burglary” and unlawfully entering little guy’s “domicile” are your words! You’re the one that claims that the victim entered the “domicile” and was committing burglary….since you have been extremely VOCAL about how right you are and how much you hate “Brownshirt commies” that lie and twist the truth to fit their agenda but yet it’s YOU lying and twisting the truth to fit your convoluted beliefs.
Simply post the link that affirms burglary or unlawfully entering a “domicile”….if you can’t (and we know that you can’t) post the link affirming burglary or unlawful entry of a “domicile” then STFU, quit lying like the commie bastard you are and find somewhere else to pollute with your stupidity.
Post the burglary/entering a domicile link or STFU……quit lying and quit acting like lonely faqqot. 😉
Wasting your breath dude, I think he/she/it gets off on it.
Yep. Part of his mental illness. Not to mention Batschitt Crazy 🤪🤪🤪
"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!"
That’s when he gets his Psych Meds. They have to slip it in the Pudding.
"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!"
Now you’ve done it. He’s researching YOUR Post History. 🤪🤪🤪🤪
"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!"
I’ve posted the appropriate TX Penal Code Statues multiple times.
Pathological liar.
No posting has been made anywhere in this thread showing a Texas statute that brandishing a firearm on a Habitation meets the element of "PROVOCATION".
Stop lying, and post the TX statute you claim that proves the firearm meets the element of PROVOCATION.
Real simple if your I.Q. is above 80.
ROFLMAO.
2 "FULL" days, and NADA.
No TX Statute Law against brandishing a Gun = No Murder = NO BILLED.
"He is far from Stupid"
”person, who happens to have an above-average level of intelligence”
Yep. He became the Aggressor when he went inside, got the gun, and brought it back out. You bring out a gun during a verbal argument, you provoked the encounter.
Post the TX statute that PROVES brandishing a firearm meets the element for "PROVOCATION".
No one has......
"He is far from Stupid"
”person, who happens to have an above-average level of intelligence”
The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men. In it is contentment In it is death and all you seek (Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)
LOL. The Campfire Retard is off his Psych Meds again and just escaped the State Hospital.
Bless his little Lying Window Licking Retarded Pea Brain. 🤪🤪🤪
Wind him up and watch him Go
#ElkTurrdBurglar @BatschittCrazy.Com
"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!"
I’ve posted the appropriate TX Penal Code Statues multiple times.
Pathological liar.
No posting has been made anywhere in this thread showing a Texas statute that brandishing a firearm on a Habitation meets the element of "PROVOCATION".
Stop lying, and post the TX statute you claim that proves the firearm meets the element of PROVOCATION.
Real simple if your I.Q. is above 80.
ROFLMAO.
2 "FULL" days, and NADA.
No TX Statute Law against brandishing a Gun = No Murder = NO BILLED.
"He is far from Stupid"
”person, who happens to have an above-average level of intelligence”
I’ve posted the appropriate TX Penal Code Statues multiple times.
Pathological liar.
No posting has been made anywhere in this thread showing a Texas statute that brandishing a firearm on a Habitation meets the element of "PROVOCATION".
Stop lying, and post the TX statute you claim that proves the firearm meets the element of PROVOCATION.
Real simple if your I.Q. is above 80.
ROFLMAO.
2 "FULL" days, and NADA.
No TX Statute Law against brandishing a Gun = No Murder = NO BILLED.
LMAO ! Carry on Liar. Everyone here’s laughing at your Retarded Ass. The jokes on you, Scooter. You are just too stupid and eat up with Dumbass Disease to realize it. I’ll leave you to debate yourself. Shouldn’t be a problem with those 1000’s of voices in your Paranoid Schizophrenic riddled brain. Now run a long and do some more post history research.
ElkTurdBurglar running along:
"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!"
(a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.
(b) A person commits an offense if he knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of:
(1) one or more individuals; or
(2) a habitation, building, or vehicle and is reckless as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied.
(c) Recklessness and danger are presumed if the actor knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded.
And as has been said, post the statute that proves "BRANDISHING" meets the element of "PROVOCATION".
No where in the above is PROVOCATION discussed, nor brandishing a firearm meets the element of "PROVOCATOON"
And (a) above does not fit either, because just the act of walking out a door with a gun held down at your side does not "recklessly endanger" anyone.
You have to prove the act of brandishing a firearm meets the element of Provocation.
Guess what? You can't, because their is no statute, because brandishing a firearm in TX does NOT meet the element of Provocation, and without that you can't have a Murder charge.
Next attempt.
"He is far from Stupid"
”person, who happens to have an above-average level of intelligence”
(a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.
(b) A person commits an offense if he knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of:
(1) one or more individuals; or
(2) a habitation, building, or vehicle and is reckless as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied.
(c) Recklessness and danger are presumed if the actor knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded.
And as has been said, post the statute that proves "BRANDISHING" meets the element of "PROVOCATION".
No where in the above is PROVOCATION discussed, nor brandishing a firearm meets the element of "PROVOCATOON"
And (a) above does not fit either, because just the act of walking out a door with a gun held down at your side does not "recklessly endanger" anyone.
You have to prove the act of brandishing a firearm meets the element of Provocation.
Guess what? You can't, because their is no statute, because brandishing a firearm in TX does NOT meet the element of Provocation, and without that you can't have a Murder charge.
Colossians 3:17 (New King James Version) "And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him."
Doesn't apply, because Carruth didn't point or shoot the gun until after the above Felony crimes were committed against him, which then gave Carruth a green light to use deadly force.
Doesn't apply, because Carruth didn't point or shoot the gun until after the above Felony crimes were committed against him, which then gave Carruth a green light to use deadly force.
Oh, you mean “crimes committed” AFTER Carruth Spent 30 seconds going inside and getting a gun to bring to a trespassing and verbal altercation??? Ummm.... “provocation”
Oh, you mean “crimes committed” AFTER Carruth Spent 30 seconds going inside and getting a gun to bring to a trespassing and verbal altercation??? Ummm.... “provocation”
Not in Texas. I just specifically explained and proved in detail 22.05 does not apply. You keep trying to insist provocation happened when there is "no" law stating bringing a gun to an argument meets the element of provocation.
Hadn't read the article yet, but doesn't matter, because there is no law. I've already specifically shot down the law that could've possibly applied, but I proved the elements were not met.
I'll give you a little crumb...the very second Read "stepped" onto the porch he no longer had a defense, none, nada.
"He is far from Stupid"
”person, who happens to have an above-average level of intelligence”
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/T3sN1kFf/IMG-20211204-140358993.jpg)
