Texas home shoot video - 24hourcampfire

What is your opinion?

https://nypost.com/2021/11/26/texas-man-shoots-partners-ex-amid-child-custody-battle-video/

When idiots collide.

And your title is a bit misleading, wasn't much of a "shootout".

I think you’re spot on. Dead guy should have left when gun came out. And much less tried to take the rifle from shooter.

But I think it also falls under, just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.

The guy was in no danger when he fired on the guy. This time next year he will be eating penis with a side of cock in prison for thanksgiving.

And just think, all he had to do was step away and take a deep breath but nope.

Gotta be a tough situation, your two sons spending much time in some other guy’s house and nothing you can legally do about it. Child support payments being salt in an open wound.

But that’s a common situation today. The guy trespassed, refused to leave, initiated hostile physical contact. By the numbers a legal shoot. But as stated, just because you can doesn’t mean you should.

In so many incidents it seems like a good dog could have helped, getting in the aggressor’s face, changing the flow of events.

All that aside, is that a Ruger 9mm carbine? Whatever it was it sure dropped the dead guy DRT.

What the family court system has systematically and by design done to this country is probably the worst thing that has ever been done to the people of this country.

Originally Posted by Moose_HNTR

The guy was in no danger when he fired on the guy. This time next year he will be eating penis with a side of cock in prison for thanksgiving.

And just think, all he had to do was step away and take a deep breath but nope.

You're definitely no legal scholar

Awesome job by everyone involved. Hopefully those kids can gtf away from all of them when they turn 18.

White trash imbeciles.

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by Moose_HNTR

The guy was in no danger when he fired on the guy. This time next year he will be eating penis with a side of cock in prison for thanksgiving.

And just think, all he had to do was step away and take a deep breath but nope.

You're definitely no legal scholar

'Nother dumbass sockpuppet troll.

The guy who got shot died by dumbassery himself.

When has it ever been a good idea to not leave private property when told to, or to assault & try and take a gun away from someone expelling you from said property?

Originally Posted by rockinbbar

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by Moose_HNTR

The guy was in no danger when he fired on the guy. This time next year he will be eating penis with a side of cock in prison for thanksgiving.

And just think, all he had to do was step away and take a deep breath but nope.

You're definitely no legal scholar

'Nother dumbass sockpuppet troll.

The guy who got shot died by dumbassery himself.

When has it ever been a good idea to not leave private property when told to, or to assault & try and take a gun away from someone expelling you from said property?

I agree with a major case of dumbass for all the players in that event. But I don't think the event had risen to the point that deadly force was warranted. I suspect a jury will agree.

Originally Posted by gsganzer

Originally Posted by rockinbbar

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by Moose_HNTR

The guy was in no danger when he fired on the guy. This time next year he will be eating penis with a side of cock in prison for thanksgiving.

And just think, all he had to do was step away and take a deep breath but nope.

You're definitely no legal scholar

'Nother dumbass sockpuppet troll.

The guy who got shot died by dumbassery himself.

When has it ever been a good idea to not leave private property when told to, or to assault & try and take a gun away from someone expelling you from said property?

I agree with a major case of dumbass for all the players in that event. But I don't think the event had risen to the point that deadly force was warranted. I suspect a jury will agree.

I suspect you’re no legal scholar either.

God forbid someone ever gets between me and my kid. That’s all I have on this.

What does TX statutory law say about a situation such as this?

Basically, what does TX law say about use of deadly force against an unarmed but dangerous violent trespasser that refused to leave?

Originally Posted by steve4102

What does TX statutory law say about a situation such as this?

Basically, what does TX law say about use of deadly force against an unarmed but dangerous violent trespasser that refused to leave?

Texas law allows the use of deadly force to stop a thief

Originally Posted by JeffP

What is your opinion?

https://nypost.com/2021/11/26/texas-man-shoots-partners-ex-amid-child-custody-battle-video/

Wow! Complex. Why do people run up to someone holding a firearm with an aggressive posture? Testosterone overwhelm their higher thinking?

More here.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...custody-confrontation-front-porch-video/

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by steve4102

What does TX statutory law say about a situation such as this?

Basically, what does TX law say about use of deadly force against an unarmed but dangerous violent trespasser that refused to leave?

Texas law allows the use of deadly force to stop a thief

No thief here, just a trespasser.

Texas White Trash

Guessing the shooter is going to jail for this one. He escalated the situation bringing the firearm out, and pointed it at dead guy.there was no reason for deadly force before the firearm was brought out. It was the game changer and escalator. Of course tx law could allow for that??

If the DA is even slightly anti gun or liberal it’s going to be prosecuted, and most are. Jury is going to sympathize with the dad who died, especially if parenting plan says he gets kid at 3:15 and was in the right.

Both dumb azzes. Never should have escalated to that point. Gotta feel bad for the kid who just lost his dad

Nope. I’m not a legal scholar, odds are you aren’t either. Just my opinion.

Steve4102, I never said he was a thief, just making an unrelated point

Originally Posted by steve4102

What does TX statutory law say about a situation such as this?

Basically, what does TX law say about use of deadly force against an unarmed but dangerous violent trespasser that refused to leave?

I don't know about Texas, but most states allow all non-lethal force needed to expel a reluctant-to-leave trespasser, but not lethal. Of course this situation went beyond trespass when the trespasser got right into the armed man's face after told to back off. He also threatened to take his gun from him, which is a verbal threat combined with aggressive body language up in his face. Seems like a good shoot, though tragic all around.

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by steve4102

What does TX statutory law say about a situation such as this?

Basically, what does TX law say about use of deadly force against an unarmed but dangerous violent trespasser that refused to leave?

Texas law allows the use of deadly force to stop a thief

Daytime can be a little different. If he's running away, you have to call the cops. Night time...it's game on.

IDK Texas law but according to some reports, the shooters lawyer is citing “castle doctrine”.

As a side, it might be a good idea to refresh on your own state laws. Here, the shooter is going to jail.

There were many mistakes that lead to that guy's death.

He should have left when told to.

Gun should have been left in the house, and the police called.

Never fire a warning shot.

When someone has a gun and tells you to leave their property... Leave. Don't assault the gun guy and try to get the gun away from him.

I'm pretty sure the grand jury will true bill the shooter, depending on the DA's recommendation.

Originally Posted by Chisos

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by steve4102

What does TX statutory law say about a situation such as this?

Basically, what does TX law say about use of deadly force against an unarmed but dangerous violent trespasser that refused to leave?

Texas law allows the use of deadly force to stop a thief

Daytime can be a little different. If he's running away, you have to call the cops. Night time...it's game on.

Time of day is irrelevant

June 30, 2008— -- A Texas man who shot and killed two men he believed to be burglarizing his neighbor's home won't be going to trial. A grand jury today failed to indict Joe Horn, a 61-year-old computer technician who lives in an affluent subdivision in Pasadena, Texas.

In the Lone Star state, where the six-gun tamed the frontier, shooting bad guys is a time-honored tradition, and Horn's case centered on a Texas state law based on the old idea that "a man's home is his castle." The "castle law" gives Texans unprecedented legal authority to use deadly force in their homes, vehicles and workplaces. And no longer do they have an obligation to retreat, if possible, before they shoot.

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/TheLaw/story?id=5278638&page=1#aoh=16380228200582&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s

Originally Posted by rockinbbar

There were many mistakes that lead to that guy's death.

He should have left when told to.

Gun should have been left in the house, and the police called.

Never fire a warning shot.

When someone has a gun and tells you to leave their property... Leave. Don't assault the gun guy and try to get the gun away from him.

I'm pretty sure the grand jury will true bill the shooter, depending on the DA's recommendation.

I doubt he even goes before a gran jury and if he does he walks

Does “in the home” include outside on the porch or in the yard?

Originally Posted by steve4102

Does “in the home” include outside on the porch or in the yard?

Yes

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by Chisos

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by steve4102

What does TX statutory law say about a situation such as this?

Basically, what does TX law say about use of deadly force against an unarmed but dangerous violent trespasser that refused to leave?

Texas law allows the use of deadly force to stop a thief

Daytime can be a little different. If he's running away, you have to call the cops. Night time...it's game on.

Time of day is irrelevant

June 30, 2008— -- A Texas man who shot and killed two men he believed to be burglarizing his neighbor's home won't be going to trial. A grand jury today failed to indict Joe Horn, a 61-year-old computer technician who lives in an affluent subdivision in Pasadena, Texas.

In the Lone Star state, where the six-gun tamed the frontier, shooting bad guys is a time-honored tradition, and Horn's case centered on a Texas state law based on the old idea that "a man's home is his castle." The "castle law" gives Texans unprecedented legal authority to use deadly force in their homes, vehicles and workplaces. And no longer do they have an obligation to retreat, if possible, before they shoot.

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/TheLaw/story?id=5278638&page=1#aoh=16380228200582&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s

That ABC News story is a full crock of BS.

The MSM is villianizing the Castle Doctrine.

Time of day is completely relevant in Texas. As are a few other details. As in being in fear for your life. The shot guy may have done that when he tried to wrestle the gun from the other guy.

Quote

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41 ; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Originally Posted by gsganzer

Originally Posted by rockinbbar

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by Moose_HNTR

The guy was in no danger when he fired on the guy. This time next year he will be eating penis with a side of cock in prison for thanksgiving.

And just think, all he had to do was step away and take a deep breath but nope.

You're definitely no legal scholar

'Nother dumbass sockpuppet troll.

The guy who got shot died by dumbassery himself.

When has it ever been a good idea to not leave private property when told to, or to assault & try and take a gun away from someone expelling you from said property?

I agree with a major case of dumbass for all the players in that event. But I don't think the event had risen to the point that deadly force was warranted. I suspect a jury will agree.

It's Texas. Don't bet your wad on it.

I'm betting the 'outcome' will hinge on the point when dead guy stepped up onto the porch.............. It went from trespass to trespass of an occupied dwelling....

Originally Posted by GreatWaputi

When idiots collide.

I'm going with this.

Originally Posted by antlers

What the family court system has systematically and by design done to this country is probably the worst thing that has ever been done to the people of this country.

This isn't about the court system. This is about adults failing to act responsibly in the best interest of their children. Lawyers, cops and courts can't fix that, although lawyers and cops get a lot of calls about these incidents.

I can't speak to Texas self-defense law. Around here, the castle doctrine would not apply because it took place outside. Also, it would not appear that the person shot would be covered by our "stand your ground" law because he did not appear to be lawfully present. But, it does not mean that general self-defense law would not be applicable. It may turn on whether it is reasonable to point a firearm at someone to persuade him to "get off your lawn."

I hope it was worth it for the shooter and mom. If the shooter gets jammed up bad in criminal proceedings, mom can simply move on and daddy is now dead. Of course, the "res" or objects in dispute, the children, lose big time because of 3 (or 4, stepmom wasn't helping) idiot adults.

Originally Posted by Cheyenne

Originally Posted by GreatWaputi

When idiots collide.

I'm going with this.

Originally Posted by antlers

What the family court system has systematically and by design done to this country is probably the worst thing that has ever been done to the people of this country.

This isn't about the court system. This about adults failing to act responsibly in the best interest of their children. Lawyers, cops and courts can't fix that, although lawyers and cops get a lot of calls about these incidents.

I can't speak to Texas self-defense law. Around here, the castle doctrine would not apply because it took place outside. Also, it would not appear that the person shot would be covered by our "stand your ground" law because he did not appear to be lawfully present. But, it does not mean that general self-defense law would not be applicable. It may turn on whether it is reasonable to point a firearm at someone to persuade him to "get off your lawn."

I hope it was worth it for the shooter and mom. If the shooter gets jammed up bad in criminal proceedings, mom can simply move on and daddy is now dead. Of course, the "res" or objects in dispute, the children, lose big time because of 3 (or 4, stepmom wasn't helping) idiot adults.

Except the guy is dead ON THE PORCH..................

Just glad to see that none of my cousins were involved in this escapade.

Just an observation......... After dead guy is laying on the porch... No one seems overly distraught!!!!

NO 'Oh my God'

NO 'Wailing uncontrollably'

Just an 'I got this on video'

????

Originally Posted by antlers

What the family court system has systematically and by design done to this country is probably the worst thing that has ever been done to the people of this country.

Originally Posted by Cheyenne

This isn't about the court system. This is about adults failing to act responsibly in the best interest of their children. Lawyers, cops and courts can't fix that, although lawyers and cops get a lot of calls about these incidents.

I disagree wholeheartedly. The family court system and the powers that be have purposely created a system in this country that promotes the destruction of families. And they’ve been absolutely successful in doing so

Originally Posted by kaywoodie

Just glad to see that none of my cousins were involved in this escapade.

Originally Posted by JeffP

IDK Texas law but according to some reports, the shooters lawyer is citing “castle doctrine”.

As a side, it might be a good idea to refresh on your own state laws. Here, the shooter is going to jail.

As a side, it might be a good idea for you read our laws before you start throwing out suggestions. I cited one part of our law pertaining to when deadly force is NOT acceptable concerning theft. This situation is pure castle doctrine, which by the way in Texas, not only applies to your property but also to your car. Dude should have left after repeated warnings. Unfortunately, he got stupid and decided to walk up and go nose to nose on the porch with a home owner holding a gun. Since Lubbock does not have a Soros DA, I can't see this even getting past the grand jury.

Pretty sure in TX all homocides go before a grand jury?

Originally Posted by Chisos

Originally Posted by JeffP

IDK Texas law but according to some reports, the shooters lawyer is citing “castle doctrine”.

As a side, it might be a good idea to refresh on your own state laws. Here, the shooter is going to jail.

As a side, it might be a good idea for you read our laws before you start throwing out suggestions. I cited one part of our law pertaining to when deadly force is NOT acceptable concerning theft. This situation is pure castle doctrine, which by the way in Texas, not only applies to your property but also to your car. Dude should have left after repeated warnings. Unfortunately, he got stupid and decided to walk up and go nose to nose on the porch with a home owner holding a gun. Since Lubbock does not have a Soros DA, I can't see this even getting past the grand jury.

No where did I say it wasn’t legal as castle doctrine. And even said that’s what his attorney cited. Further I said “just because you can doesn’t mean you should “.

And I also said the guy should had left, much less gone after the gun.

Originally Posted by Muffin

Just an observation......... After dead guy is laying on the porch... No one seems overly distraught!!!!

NO 'Oh my God'

NO 'Wailing uncontrollably'

Just an 'I got this on video'

????

I noticed that, too. The folks who drove there with him are far more concerned with assigning blame in a petty argument with the shooter than the condition of their friend/relative laying there, most likely dead or dying.

Originally Posted by antlers

[quote=antlers] I disagree wholeheartedly. The family court system and the powers that be have purposely created a system in this country that promotes the destruction of families. And they’ve been absolutely successful in doing so

I agree wholeheartedly. Destroy family, destroy society.

Quote

The family court system and the powers that be have purposely created a system in this country that promotes the destruction of families. And they’ve been absolutely successful in doing so

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by JeffP

Originally Posted by Chisos

Originally Posted by JeffP

IDK Texas law but according to some reports, the shooters lawyer is citing “castle doctrine”.

As a side, it might be a good idea to refresh on your own state laws. Here, the shooter is going to jail.

As a side, it might be a good idea for you read our laws before you start throwing out suggestions. I cited one part of our law pertaining to when deadly force is NOT acceptable concerning theft. This situation is pure castle doctrine, which by the way in Texas, not only applies to your property but also to your car. Dude should have left after repeated warnings. Unfortunately, he got stupid and decided to walk up and go nose to nose on the porch with a home owner holding a gun. Since Lubbock does not have a Soros DA, I can't see this even getting past the grand jury.

No where did I say it wasn’t legal as castle doctrine. And even said that’s what his attorney cited. Further I said “just because you can doesn’t mean you should “.

And I also said the guy should had left, much less gone after the gun.

I'll agree with you there, this whole thing is full of colossal stupidity, but Texas law is is going to side with the homeowner.

Originally Posted by Chisos

Originally Posted by JeffP

Originally Posted by Chisos

Originally Posted by JeffP

IDK Texas law but according to some reports, the shooters lawyer is citing “castle doctrine”.

As a side, it might be a good idea to refresh on your own state laws. Here, the shooter is going to jail.

As a side, it might be a good idea for you read our laws before you start throwing out suggestions. I cited one part of our law pertaining to when deadly force is NOT acceptable concerning theft. This situation is pure castle doctrine, which by the way in Texas, not only applies to your property but also to your car. Dude should have left after repeated warnings. Unfortunately, he got stupid and decided to walk up and go nose to nose on the porch with a home owner holding a gun. Since Lubbock does not have a Soros DA, I can't see this even getting past the grand jury.

No where did I say it wasn’t legal as castle doctrine. And even said that’s what his attorney cited. Further I said “just because you can doesn’t mean you should “.

And I also said the guy should had left, much less gone after the gun.

I'll agree with you there, this whole thing is full of colossal stupidity, but Texas law is is going to side with the homeowner.

Agree home owner walks

I agree , the dead guy even threatened to take the gun from him and then tried.... colossal stupidity.

What caliber rifle was that? Was it 9mm? .45 ACP? Whatever it was, it was pretty damned effective. The dead man was dead right there from one shot, or so it appeared.

Originally Posted by JeffP

I agree , the dead guy even threatened to take the gun from him and then tried.... colossal stupidity.

Yep. That's what's going to keep the shooter out of prison.

Was that one of the new Ruger PC carbines?

Originally Posted by BillyGoatGruff

Was that one of the new Ruger PC carbines?

I believe it was. Just don't know the caliber.

Originally Posted by JeffP

And I also said the guy should had left, much less gone after the gun.

Some might find it difficult to take a deep breath and walk away when their children are involved.

If what was being said was true, he/she had a court order that dictated the days and time of exchange involved in their shared custody agreement.
Such agreements can also dictate where it's allowable to change custody if the X-Wife had reason to fill uncomfortable having her X-Husband coming to their home.

Could be since she had custody of their son she might have also gotten their home in the divorce settlement.
Guy might of been standing on the deck he built on the home he paid for looking to legally pick up his son.
That would mean he had full, court ordered rights to be there.

The shooter may have just been the current dude screwing his X and sleeping in his X bed.

Too much unknow to really have much of a opinion, the X husband may have had a known violent history and the shooter knew it was going to escalate to a situation the need of a gun was inevitable or it could be completely the other way around.

Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye

Originally Posted by BillyGoatGruff

Was that one of the new Ruger PC carbines?

I believe it was. Just don't know the caliber.

Well, whatever caliber it was it sure worked.

Murder, absolutely, 100% murder.

He should be in jail for a long time.

Originally Posted by GreenHead

Murder, absolutely, 100% murder.

He should be in jail for a long time.

Nope, justifiable

Once the homeowner shot into the ground the dad didn't have much choice. Would you walk away knowing he wouldn't shoot you in the back? The little fella came out with a gun and planned to use it, seems obvious given his demeanor after the shoot. No first aid rendered, etc.

Originally Posted by BillyGoatGruff

Once the homeowner shot into the ground the dad didn't have much choice. Would you walk away knowing he wouldn't shoot you in the back? The little fella came out with a gun and planned to use it, seems obvious given his demeanor after the shoot. No first aid rendered, etc.

First aid has nothing to do with this. Yeah I would have left. Little to no legal ground being at someone else's residence.

Little fella stood there all puffed up next to his kill.

Kinda sad and funny all at once.

Lot of stupid on display there.

Originally Posted by MadMooner

Little fella stood there all puffed up next to his kill.

Kinda sad and funny all at once.

Lot of stupid on display there.

Yup.

Banty rooster crowing within seconds of killing the dad of kids' whose mom he's banging.

Lots of stupid there all around, but I don't see why the little fella brought the gun out, unless he wanted to impress his whore.

Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye

What caliber rifle was that? Was it 9mm? .45 ACP? Whatever it was, it was pretty damned effective. The dead man was dead right there from one shot, or so it appeared.

Some are reporting Two shots , not including the warning shot.

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by BillyGoatGruff

Once the homeowner shot into the ground the dad didn't have much choice. Would you walk away knowing he wouldn't shoot you in the back? The little fella came out with a gun and planned to use it, seems obvious given his demeanor after the shoot. No first aid rendered, etc.

First aid has nothing to do with this. Yeah I would have left. Little to no legal ground being at someone else's residence.

Dude comes at me with a gun and shoots into the ground at my feet I'm not letting him shoot me in the back. YMMV

I didn't mean he had a duty to render first aid necessarily, but his casual demeanor and the fact NO ONE went over to check vitals is creepy as [bleep].

Originally Posted by antlers

What the family court system has systematically and by design done to this country is probably the worst thing that has ever been done to the people of this country.

And nobody ever wants to talk about fixing it.

Originally Posted by steve4102

Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye

What caliber rifle was that? Was it 9mm? .45 ACP? Whatever it was, it was pretty damned effective. The dead man was dead right there from one shot, or so it appeared.

Some are reporting Two shots , not including the warning shot.

Steve one time I watched the video on another site I thought I heard a double tap. But on the link video it sounds like 1. IDK

Well it’s a good Got Damn thing the dead guy wasn’t black.

The retail outlets in Portland, Seattle and Chicago just got done replacing their glass and restocking the shelves with Nikes and TVs

Maybe tomorrow will bring them a justifiable excuse.

Originally Posted by MadMooner

Little fella stood there all puffed up next to his kill.

Kinda sad and funny all at once.

Lot of stupid on display there.

Big guy got all 'Puffed Up' BEFORE the shot.....................

Originally Posted by deflave

Originally Posted by antlers

What the family court system has systematically and by design done to this country is probably the worst thing that has ever been done to the people of this country.

And nobody ever wants to talk about fixing it.

Love your wife, stay at home, make it work. Like millions of families do.

What a mess,

The father was pissed at her and the delay of seeing his Son,

Tempers and emotions were off the charts,

The Son lost his father at the front step of the house he lives in..

I don't care about any laws that may apply,

The Father was unnecessarily murdered.

Originally Posted by JeffP

What is your opinion?

https://nypost.com/2021/11/26/texas-man-shoots-partners-ex-amid-child-custody-battle-video/

Play stupid games - Win stupid prizes.

As soon as the victim got muzzled - he has two choices.

1. Leave and file charges.
2. Cold-cock the MF.

GR

Is it me or does say these things usually turn out bad for you?

“Kill me nicca, better kill me nicca”

“Pull a gun on me you better use it pussy”

What did Aubrey say lol

Originally Posted by Kenneth

What a mess,

The father was pissed at her and the delay of seeing his Son,

Tempers and emotions were off the charts,

The Son lost his father at the front step of the house he lives in..

I don't care about any laws that may apply,

The Father was unnecessarily murdered.

I think it was a preplanned murder and that's why the kids aren't there.

Wait, were the two boys in the house when their father was getting himself killed on the front porch?

That's gotta suck for them.

Hmmm,

Wife deliberately withholds children from father past court mandated pick-up time.

At boyfriends house.

Augment ensues , predictable argument.

Boyfriend jumps into a preplanned domestic dispute.

Ex- husband already triggered, tells weasel boyfriend to buzz off,

Boyfriend goes into house , comes out with a firearm in order to deescalate this preplanned domestic argument

Ex husband dies at the hands of boyfriend.

Ex-wife’s custody problems solved.

Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye

What caliber rifle was that? Was it 9mm? .45 ACP? Whatever it was, it was pretty damned effective. The dead man was dead right there from one shot, or so it appeared.

Unless it is a cns (which is not the case he went to his knees hunched over with his own power), dude just gave up. Humans can go just like a whitetail if they have it in their mind. Cns, or lose of blood causing the brain to shut down. That’s it, we’ll with the exception of the duck shot, breaking the pelvis. I’d give up after that too.

I learnt all my shut from watching movies. You know Eli’s from platoon takes a [bleep] load of 7.62 and keeps running to the chopper.

Originally Posted by 19352012

Originally Posted by Kenneth

What a mess,

The father was pissed at her and the delay of seeing his Son,

Tempers and emotions were off the charts,

The Son lost his father at the front step of the house he lives in..

I don't care about any laws that may apply,

The Father was unnecessarily murdered.

I think it was a preplanned murder and that's why the kids aren't there.

I agree. Nothing there seemed accidental, and the little banty rooster didn't seem worked up before or after the shooting.

Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye

What caliber rifle was that? Was it 9mm? .45 ACP? Whatever it was, it was pretty damned effective. The dead man was dead right there from one shot, or so it appeared.

Looks like a Ruger PC 9mm carbine.

Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye

Originally Posted by BillyGoatGruff

Was that one of the new Ruger PC carbines?

I believe it was. Just don't know the caliber.

I believe it was too, Ruger makes a silly (IMHO) version of the PC carbine with a tubular aluminum barrel shroud instead of a regular forearm. Looks like all the current shrouded barrel options are in 9mm. The regular-foreend model also comes in .40 S&W.

https://ruger.com/products/pcCarbine/models.html

Regardless of caliber, the way the shot guy was DRT was reminscent of the recent videos of athletes dropping from heart failure, I'm wondering if it was a heart shot.

IMHO it was a good shoot according to the letter (if not the intent) of the law.

I believe the County DA recused themselves and it has been referred to the State, political pressure and publicity may lead to charges filed.

It doesn't matter if it is a cop, drug dealer, crack head or an 8 year old child, you don't charge anyone who has a gun. See the Rittenhouse, Arberry and various other videos. It never ends well. The universal law is that if someone points a gun at you, you immediately cease whatever it was that you were doing and become very passive very quickly until the odds become in your favor.

Life is about choices.

1. Don't dump a load into a biatch you don't want to spend the rest of your life with (or a whore)
2. Don't go over to someone else's house and threaten them
3. Check the ego when a gun comes out
4. After you blast someone, exercise your 5th amendment rights.

So on and so forth...

Terrible deal, no matter. Everyone is dealing with "feelings", doesn't matter. What does the "Law" say? I personally "feel" it could have been de-escalated, but that's just how "I feel", I wasn't 'there". Sad.

Originally Posted by MontanaMarine

Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye

What caliber rifle was that? Was it 9mm? .45 ACP? Whatever it was, it was pretty damned effective. The dead man was dead right there from one shot, or so it appeared.

Looks like a Ruger PC 9mm carbine.

Is there a reason why mom and “new guy” are outside?? If they didn’t have the kids, and didn’t want him there, THEY should have stayed inside, and asked him to leave, followed by a call to the cops. WHY go outside with him?? It’s ONE thing if he was trying to get in the house, but WHY go outside, to escalate the argument??

This is a tough one, but again, a guy shouting on your porch doesn’t quite rise to the level of going OUTSIDE with him, and adding a gun to the equation. You HAD a “physical barrier” between yourself and him, he WASN’T a threat to you or stealing property UNTIL you opened the door and went out there and escalated the argument FURTHER.

If a drunk homeless guy is on your porch (but NOT busting through the front door), should you go out there with a gun, or do you stay inside/tell him to leave/call cops??

(At least before he was told to leave) did Dad have a legal right to get his kids there at 315??? If they weren’t there, why wasn’t he told earlier (phone) or through the door??

Dad was stupid for not leaving, but the same could be said of Arbery, and look where those defendants who shot him are going....

This say the incident occurred at the ex-wife's house, does that make a difference?

https://www.lubbockonline.com/story...ock-judge-case-investigation/8765295002/

Quote

Chad Read, a 54-year-old Lubbock father, was fatally shot in South Lubbock outside his ex-wife's house after a confrontation between the former couple and the woman's boyfriend on Nov. 5.

The PC carbine can take double stack Ruger or Glock magazines and comes with a separate magazine well for each, Looks like that guy was packing a thirty-round (or more??) magazine, not that that makes any difference to the law.

Was the shooter in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm?

I don't see it.

Originally Posted by tjm10025

Wait, were the two boys in the house when their father was getting himself killed on the front porch?

That's gotta suck for them.

No, the kids weren't there. It looks like this entire incident stems from the kids being somewhere else, going by the discussion on the video

Originally Posted by Squidge

This say the incident occurred at the ex-wife's house, does that make a difference?

https://www.lubbockonline.com/story...ock-judge-case-investigation/8765295002/

Quote

Chad Read, a 54-year-old Lubbock father, was fatally shot in South Lubbock outside his ex-wife's house after a confrontation between the former couple and the woman's boyfriend on Nov. 5.

House belongs to the ex-wife's boyfriend, she was living there with him.

Originally Posted by Squidge

This say the incident occurred at the ex-wife's house, does that make a difference?

https://www.lubbockonline.com/story...ock-judge-case-investigation/8765295002/

Quote

Chad Read, a 54-year-old Lubbock father, was fatally shot in South Lubbock outside his ex-wife's house after a confrontation between the former couple and the woman's boyfriend on Nov. 5.

Yes, but did Dad have legal right to be there on the porch to pick up kids??

Castle Doctrine in Texas says you DON’T have to retreat, but then again, it doesn’t really give you the right to ADVANCE (ie: OPEN a locked door/physical barrier, go OUTSIDE, ESCALATE the argument, THEN shoot a guy when argument goes south). There WAS physical separation. Call the cops and wait for them to remove him.

Little man is a huge vagina, plain and simple.

Originally Posted by MontanaMarine

Was the shooter in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm?

I don't see it.

It's reasonable to fear for your life if an angry man is in your face, saying things suggestive of violence towards you, to include that he's going to take the gun from you, and making moves suggesting he's intent on doing so.

When the little guy introduced a firearm to an argument, I would have to say it was the big guy who was suddenly in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm.

Either way, when two hot-heads collide, Darwin is likely to win.

Originally Posted by Squidge

This say the incident occurred at the ex-wife's house, does that make a difference?

https://www.lubbockonline.com/story...ock-judge-case-investigation/8765295002/

Quote

Chad Read, a 54-year-old Lubbock father, was fatally shot in South Lubbock outside his ex-wife's house after a confrontation between the former couple and the woman's boyfriend on Nov. 5.

Adds a whole 'nother wrinkle to the situation, it'll be interesting to see the ouutcome of this case.

Big guy was really stupid, and now dead.

Little guy was also stupid, but slightly less, he is alive.

Win to the little guy.

Originally Posted by MontanaMarine

When the little guy introduced a firearm to an argument, I would have to say it was the big guy who was suddenly in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm.

Either way, when two hot-heads collide, Darwin is likely to win.

Yes, but the shooter was at his home, after commanding the trespasser to leave, and the dead guy was a trespasser. So, they weren't standing on the same legal ground at the point the gun was brought into the picture.

Unlikely this is the first run in between these two guys.

Looked to me like the guy who got shot had partial custody of his kid, showed up at the appointed time to pick him up, and his wife would not produce the kid.

If that's true, I don't blame the "trespasser" for getting pissed and not leaving. And I wonder how that would change the culpability of the wife. If she was denying him his visitation, she had to know that would set him off.

Originally Posted by steve4102

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by steve4102

What does TX statutory law say about a situation such as this?

Basically, what does TX law say about use of deadly force against an unarmed but dangerous violent trespasser that refused to leave?

Texas law allows the use of deadly force to stop a thief

No thief here, just a trespasser.

I may be wrong but I think the Texas law specifies deadly force after dark.

Originally Posted by smokepole

Looked to me like the guy who got shot had partial custody of his kid, showed up at the appointed time to pick him up, and his wife would not produce the kid.

If that's true, I don't blame the "trespasser" for getting pissed and not leaving. And I wonder how that would change the culpability of the wife. If she was denying him his visitation, she had to know that would set him off.

If all that's true, and it may well be, then his solution was to report it to the courts and arrange to have Sheriff's Deputies with him every time he comes to pick up his kid till his wife starts cooperating with the court orders. Getting in the face of a guy who comes out of his home with a gun and demands you leave isn't the right move.

Originally Posted by WYcoyote

Big guy was really stupid, and now dead.

Little guy was also stupid, but slightly less, he is alive.

Win to the little guy.

A whole lot of stupid all the way around.

Originally Posted by 12344mag

Originally Posted by WYcoyote

Big guy was really stupid, and now dead.

Little guy was also stupid, but slightly less, he is alive.

Win to the little guy.

A whole lot of stupid all the way around.

Yep, as is usually the case in these situations.

Curious what the near future holds for the remaining players,

The X still be with the current flavor of the month?

Kids all messed up from this?

The shooter regretting ever dicking that chic?

Relationships with kids are hard,

Relationships with step kids are a whole nother level of difficulty,

Now add in courts and lawyer fees, loss of child support,

Way too much baggage here,

I'd say all of their lives took a huge down stoke from this.

If she’s living with him then it’s her home too. That’s a BS argument.

Originally Posted by Kenneth

Curious what the near future holds for the remaining players,

The X still be with the current flavor of the month?

Kids all messed up from this?

The shooter regretting ever dicking that chic?

Relationships with kids are hard,

Relationships with step kids are a whole nother level of difficulty,

Now add in courts and lawyer fees, loss of child support,

Way too much baggage here,

I'd say all of their lives took a huge down stoke from this.

Not to mention, relationships with step kids, whose father you just killed.

Originally Posted by SandBilly

If she’s living with him then it’s her home too. That’s a BS argument.

From what I gather, it's the woman's house, new dude moved in.

Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye

Originally Posted by smokepole

Looked to me like the guy who got shot had partial custody of his kid, showed up at the appointed time to pick him up, and his wife would not produce the kid.

If that's true, I don't blame the "trespasser" for getting pissed and not leaving. And I wonder how that would change the culpability of the wife. If she was denying him his visitation, she had to know that would set him off.

If all that's true, and it may well be, then his solution was to report it to the courts and arrange to have Sheriff's Deputies with him every time he comes to pick up his kid till his wife starts cooperating with the court orders. Getting in the face of a guy who comes out of his home with a gun and demands you leave isn't the right move.

Quite obviously, at this point in time.

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Originally Posted by Squidge

This say the incident occurred at the ex-wife's house, does that make a difference?

https://www.lubbockonline.com/story...ock-judge-case-investigation/8765295002/

Quote

Chad Read, a 54-year-old Lubbock father, was fatally shot in South Lubbock outside his ex-wife's house after a confrontation between the former couple and the woman's boyfriend on Nov. 5.

Yes, but did Dad have legal right to be there on the porch to pick up kids??

Castle Doctrine in Texas says you DON’T have to retreat, but then again, it doesn’t really give you the right to ADVANCE (ie: OPEN a locked door/physical barrier, go OUTSIDE, ESCALATE the argument, THEN shoot a guy when argument goes south). There WAS physical separation. Call the cops and wait for them to remove him.

https://www.texasobserver.org/joe-horn-and-castle-doctrine-shootings-in-texas/

Joe Horn shot both in the back in broad daylight because they were stealing from his neighbor and he walked

This is in Texad and Texas law

Hope she has a marketable skill. Alimony gone, man of the house potentially headed to prison. Kids to care for.

Feel for the children.

i hope the shooter walks.

Originally Posted by MontanaMarine

Originally Posted by SandBilly

If she’s living with him then it’s her home too. That’s a BS argument.

From what I gather, it's the woman's house, new dude moved in.

She moved in with him but it’s still her residence.

I hope little man gets it broke off in his ass.

Originally Posted by visalia6mm

Unless it is a cns (which is not the case he went to his knees hunched over with his own power)...

Where are you seeing that? I've watched the video in the OP and the other one posted and all you see is the shooter firing, then a second later the other guy lying on the porch. I haven't seen anything that shows the shootee's immediate reaction to the shot, just standing one second, lying down a couple of seconds later.

Not arguing over your post, just curious if there is another video on the web that shows the whole scene.

Originally Posted by nyrifleman

Hope she has a marketable skill. Alimony gone, man of the house potentially headed to prison. Kids to care for.

Feel for the children.

This. Even if they'd de-escalated the situation, I would feel sorry for those kids.

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by MontanaMarine

Originally Posted by SandBilly

If she’s living with him then it’s her home too. That’s a BS argument.

From what I gather, it's the woman's house, new dude moved in.

She moved in with him but it’s still her residence.

I hope little man gets it broke off in his ass.

The little guy walks

Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye

Originally Posted by smokepole

Looked to me like the guy who got shot had partial custody of his kid, showed up at the appointed time to pick him up, and his wife would not produce the kid.

If that's true, I don't blame the "trespasser" for getting pissed and not leaving. And I wonder how that would change the culpability of the wife. If she was denying him his visitation, she had to know that would set him off.

If all that's true, and it may well be, then his solution was to report it to the courts and arrange to have Sheriff's Deputies with him every time he comes to pick up his kid till his wife starts cooperating with the court orders. Getting in the face of a guy who comes out of his home with a gun and demands you leave isn't the right move.

Yeah, but did the boyfriend ever really have the “right” to go on the lawn with a gun, in the FIRST PLACE. Unless the Dad was threatening to physically harm the ex-wife, or stealing something, “deadly force” wasn’t an option.

Did Dad have right to be there to get his kids? Likely yes.

Did Mom have legal obligation to have kids there, ready to go? Yes

Was Mom violating court order/breaking law/ “kidnapping” kids? Possibly

Was there a REASON for mom and ex-boyfriend to go OUTSIDE and “escalate” argument?? No

Does boyfriend have “right” to take gun outside to chase off trespasser (when there was INITIALLY a physical barrier between them)?? No

Should Dad have walked back to his car, called cops, and had them sort it out?? Yes

Sad situation all around. But like others stated, the victim was refusing to leave and was verbally confrontational, then became physically confrontational after the gun was introduced going so far as to grabbing for the gun.

Bottom line, IMHO and not being a legal scholar, all of this could have been prevented simply by not letting emotion to override common sense:

1. If you are unarmed and an armed person tells you to leave their property then LEAVE!
2. If you are having a custody situation then it's a matter for the COURTS.
3. Never ever ever use hostility to confront a person on their property.
4. The victim was hostile sure, but not being physical so the property owner should probably have had his wife/girlfriend wait in the house until police arrive.

With all that said and done, I'm hot headed and probably would have done the same thing as the home owner. I would not have put up with that loudmouth POS on my property either!

Originally Posted by MontanaMarine

When the little guy introduced a firearm to an argument, I would have to say it was the big guy who was suddenly in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm.

He should have been if he wasn't... (and should have immediately left the premises.)

The other guy wasn't fuggin' around.

The lady taking the video has an interesting reaction. Instead of reacting in horror or fear at seeing another person shot, apparently someone she came with and has a personal interest in, she just starts throwing blame. "I have it on video, Kyle, you did it, not him." Perhaps I'm misunderstanding her level of compassion for a dying man?

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by MontanaMarine

Originally Posted by SandBilly

If she’s living with him then it’s her home too. That’s a BS argument.

From what I gather, it's the woman's house, new dude moved in.

She moved in with him but it’s still her residence.

I hope little man gets it broke off in his ass.

The little guy walks

I’m sure he will.

His ex-wife is a judge. He probably knows a thing or two about Texas law.

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Originally Posted by Squidge

This say the incident occurred at the ex-wife's house, does that make a difference?

https://www.lubbockonline.com/story...ock-judge-case-investigation/8765295002/

Quote

Chad Read, a 54-year-old Lubbock father, was fatally shot in South Lubbock outside his ex-wife's house after a confrontation between the former couple and the woman's boyfriend on Nov. 5.

Yes, but did Dad have legal right to be there on the porch to pick up kids??

Castle Doctrine in Texas says you DON’T have to retreat, but then again, it doesn’t really give you the right to ADVANCE (ie: OPEN a locked door/physical barrier, go OUTSIDE, ESCALATE the argument, THEN shoot a guy when argument goes south). There WAS physical separation. Call the cops and wait for them to remove him.

https://www.texasobserver.org/joe-horn-and-castle-doctrine-shootings-in-texas/

Joe Horn shot both in the back in broad daylight because they were stealing from his neighbor and he walked

This is in Texad and Texas law

STEALING. All the Dad was doing, initially, after being asked to leave, was TRESPASSING. The Mom and boyfriend had a right to “defend their castle” (home), but do they have a right to go OUTSIDE (around physical barrier) to ESCALATE the situation??

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye

Originally Posted by smokepole

Looked to me like the guy who got shot had partial custody of his kid, showed up at the appointed time to pick him up, and his wife would not produce the kid.

If that's true, I don't blame the "trespasser" for getting pissed and not leaving. And I wonder how that would change the culpability of the wife. If she was denying him his visitation, she had to know that would set him off.

If all that's true, and it may well be, then his solution was to report it to the courts and arrange to have Sheriff's Deputies with him every time he comes to pick up his kid till his wife starts cooperating with the court orders. Getting in the face of a guy who comes out of his home with a gun and demands you leave isn't the right move.

Yeah, but did the boyfriend ever really have the “right” to go on the lawn with a gun, in the FIRST PLACE. Unless the Dad was threatening to physically harm the ex-wife, or stealing something, “deadly force” wasn’t an option.

Did Dad have right to be there to get his kids? Likely yes.

Did Mom have legal obligation to have kids there, ready to go? Yes

Was Mom violating court order/breaking law/ “kidnapping” kids? Possibly

Was there a REASON for mom and ex-boyfriend to go OUTSIDE and “escalate” argument?? No

Does boyfriend have “right” to take gun outside to chase off trespasser (when there was INITIALLY a physical barrier between them)?? No

Should Dad have walked back to his car, called cops, and had them sort it out?? Yes

Boyfriend was on the porch until deceased slung him into the yards and then he was shot

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Little man is a huge vagina, plain and simple.

I’m sticking with that.

Originally Posted by fburgtx

do they have a right to go OUTSIDE (around physical barrier) to ESCALATE the situation??

Who the eyes of the law sees as the "aggressor" is the real question.

Even in Texas. Even with the Castle Doctrine.

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Originally Posted by Squidge

This say the incident occurred at the ex-wife's house, does that make a difference?

https://www.lubbockonline.com/story...ock-judge-case-investigation/8765295002/

Quote

Chad Read, a 54-year-old Lubbock father, was fatally shot in South Lubbock outside his ex-wife's house after a confrontation between the former couple and the woman's boyfriend on Nov. 5.

Yes, but did Dad have legal right to be there on the porch to pick up kids??

Castle Doctrine in Texas says you DON’T have to retreat, but then again, it doesn’t really give you the right to ADVANCE (ie: OPEN a locked door/physical barrier, go OUTSIDE, ESCALATE the argument, THEN shoot a guy when argument goes south). There WAS physical separation. Call the cops and wait for them to remove him.

https://www.texasobserver.org/joe-horn-and-castle-doctrine-shootings-in-texas/

Joe Horn shot both in the back in broad daylight because they were stealing from his neighbor and he walked

This is in Texad and Texas law

STEALING. All the Dad was doing, initially, after being asked to leave, was TRESPASSING. The Mom and boyfriend had a right to “defend their castle” (home), but do they have a right to go OUTSIDE (around physical barrier) to ESCALATE the situation??

Woman was outside deceased was agitated and escalating in anger boyfriend came onto the porch to protect girlfriend and his property

Originally Posted by steve4102

Hmmm,

Wife deliberately withholds children from father past court mandated pick-up time.

At boyfriends house.

Augment ensues , predictable argument.

Boyfriend jumps into a preplanned domestic dispute.

Ex- husband already triggered, tells weasel boyfriend to buzz off,

Boyfriend goes into house , comes out with a firearm in order to deescalate this preplanned domestic argument

Ex husband dies at the hands of boyfriend.

Ex-wife’s custody problems solved.

Bingo, it probably happened before and gave them the idea to end their problems in one swoop. They'll get away with it because the dad was a hot head.

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by MontanaMarine

Originally Posted by SandBilly

If she’s living with him then it’s her home too. That’s a BS argument.

From what I gather, it's the woman's house, new dude moved in.

She moved in with him but it’s still her residence.

I hope little man gets it broke off in his ass.

The little guy walks

I’m sure he will.

His ex-wife is a judge. He probably knows a thing or two about Texas law.

Current wife. Little fella is just shacking up with the whore.

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Originally Posted by Squidge

This say the incident occurred at the ex-wife's house, does that make a difference?

https://www.lubbockonline.com/story...ock-judge-case-investigation/8765295002/

Quote

Chad Read, a 54-year-old Lubbock father, was fatally shot in South Lubbock outside his ex-wife's house after a confrontation between the former couple and the woman's boyfriend on Nov. 5.

Yes, but did Dad have legal right to be there on the porch to pick up kids??

Castle Doctrine in Texas says you DON’T have to retreat, but then again, it doesn’t really give you the right to ADVANCE (ie: OPEN a locked door/physical barrier, go OUTSIDE, ESCALATE the argument, THEN shoot a guy when argument goes south). There WAS physical separation. Call the cops and wait for them to remove him.

https://www.texasobserver.org/joe-horn-and-castle-doctrine-shootings-in-texas/

Joe Horn shot both in the back in broad daylight because they were stealing from his neighbor and he walked

This is in Texad and Texas law

STEALING. All the Dad was doing, initially, after being asked to leave, was TRESPASSING. The Mom and boyfriend had a right to “defend their castle” (home), but do they have a right to go OUTSIDE (around physical barrier) to ESCALATE the situation??

Woman was outside deceased was agitated and escalating in anger boyfriend came onto the porch to protect girlfriend and his property

She was calmly smoking a cig and deceased was nowhere near her. Banty rooster murdered him.

We’ll see what the courts say.

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Originally Posted by Squidge

This say the incident occurred at the ex-wife's house, does that make a difference?

https://www.lubbockonline.com/story...ock-judge-case-investigation/8765295002/

Quote

Chad Read, a 54-year-old Lubbock father, was fatally shot in South Lubbock outside his ex-wife's house after a confrontation between the former couple and the woman's boyfriend on Nov. 5.

Yes, but did Dad have legal right to be there on the porch to pick up kids??

Castle Doctrine in Texas says you DON’T have to retreat, but then again, it doesn’t really give you the right to ADVANCE (ie: OPEN a locked door/physical barrier, go OUTSIDE, ESCALATE the argument, THEN shoot a guy when argument goes south). There WAS physical separation. Call the cops and wait for them to remove him.

https://www.texasobserver.org/joe-horn-and-castle-doctrine-shootings-in-texas/

Joe Horn shot both in the back in broad daylight because they were stealing from his neighbor and he walked

This is in Texad and Texas law

STEALING. All the Dad was doing, initially, after being asked to leave, was TRESPASSING. The Mom and boyfriend had a right to “defend their castle” (home), but do they have a right to go OUTSIDE (around physical barrier) to ESCALATE the situation??

Woman was outside deceased was agitated and escalating in anger boyfriend came onto the porch to protect girlfriend and his property

Dad never laid a hand on ex-wife. Boyfriend was inside and retrieved gun (safe behind a physical barrier and could have called cops). The only legal leg they’ve got is trying to say that Mom was in fear of her life or serious physical harm. I didn’t see her running or acting like she was in fear of anything but a tongue-lashing. They baited this guy(or at least, she did), and he fell for it.

I agree. Legal or not. Little guy is a puffed up puzzy.

Gonna be an awkward Christmas regardless.

Originally Posted by steve4102

What does TX statutory law say about a situation such as this?

Basically, what does TX law say about use of deadly force against an unarmed but dangerous violent trespasser that refused to leave?

Shoot the bastard. You have the right to tell anyone to leave your property. Plus if some stupid bastard tries to and does disarm you are you really going to trust them not to shoot you?

Two idiots. One dead. One going to prison.

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by steve4102

What does TX statutory law say about a situation such as this?

Basically, what does TX law say about use of deadly force against an unarmed but dangerous violent trespasser that refused to leave?

Shoot the bastard. You have the right to tell anyone to leave your property. Plus if some stupid bastard tries to and does disarm you are you really going to trust them not to shoot you?

I don’t know if you have the legal right to tell someone to leave your property when he is there legally to pickup his kids, at a court ordered time at their mothers residence.

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Originally Posted by Squidge

This say the incident occurred at the ex-wife's house, does that make a difference?

https://www.lubbockonline.com/story...ock-judge-case-investigation/8765295002/

Quote

Chad Read, a 54-year-old Lubbock father, was fatally shot in South Lubbock outside his ex-wife's house after a confrontation between the former couple and the woman's boyfriend on Nov. 5.

Yes, but did Dad have legal right to be there on the porch to pick up kids??

Castle Doctrine in Texas says you DON’T have to retreat, but then again, it doesn’t really give you the right to ADVANCE (ie: OPEN a locked door/physical barrier, go OUTSIDE, ESCALATE the argument, THEN shoot a guy when argument goes south). There WAS physical separation. Call the cops and wait for them to remove him.

https://www.texasobserver.org/joe-horn-and-castle-doctrine-shootings-in-texas/

Joe Horn shot both in the back in broad daylight because they were stealing from his neighbor and he walked

This is in Texad and Texas law

STEALING. All the Dad was doing, initially, after being asked to leave, was TRESPASSING. The Mom and boyfriend had a right to “defend their castle” (home), but do they have a right to go OUTSIDE (around physical barrier) to ESCALATE the situation??

Woman was outside deceased was agitated and escalating in anger boyfriend came onto the porch to protect girlfriend and his property

Dad never laid a hand on ex-wife. Boyfriend was inside and retrieved gun (safe behind a physical barrier and could have called cops). The only legal leg they’ve got is trying to say that Mom was in fear of her life or serious physical harm. I didn’t see her running or acting like she was in fear of anything but a tongue-lashing. They baited this guy(or at least, she did), and he fell for it.

Can you quote the statue of Texas law that you are basing your opinion on?

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by steve4102

What does TX statutory law say about a situation such as this?

Basically, what does TX law say about use of deadly force against an unarmed but dangerous violent trespasser that refused to leave?

Shoot the bastard. You have the right to tell anyone to leave your property. Plus if some stupid bastard tries to and does disarm you are you really going to trust them not to shoot you?

I don’t know if you have the legal right to tell someone to leave your property when he is there legally to pickup his kids, at a court ordered time at their mothers residence.

Yes he had the right to tell him to leave

Originally Posted by gsganzer

I agree with a major case of dumbass for all the players in that event. But I don't think the event had risen to the point that deadly force was warranted. I suspect a jury will agree.

Unbelievable stupidity, shooters in for a ten-twenty year a$s-reaming. Well-deserved too.

Will follow this one, it won't end well for anyone.

Originally Posted by broomd

Originally Posted by gsganzer

I agree with a major case of dumbass for all the players in that event. But I don't think the event had risen to the point that deadly force was warranted. I suspect a jury will agree.

Unbelievable stupidity, shooters in for a ten-twenty year a$s-reaming. Well-deserved too.

Will follow this one, it won't end well for anyone.

Shooter walks, book it

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by steve4102

What does TX statutory law say about a situation such as this?

Basically, what does TX law say about use of deadly force against an unarmed but dangerous violent trespasser that refused to leave?

Shoot the bastard. You have the right to tell anyone to leave your property. Plus if some stupid bastard tries to and does disarm you are you really going to trust them not to shoot you?

I don’t know if you have the legal right to tell someone to leave your property when he is there legally to pickup his kids, at a court ordered time at their mothers residence.

Yes he had the right to tell him to leave

He had the right to be there.

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by steve4102

What does TX statutory law say about a situation such as this?

Basically, what does TX law say about use of deadly force against an unarmed but dangerous violent trespasser that refused to leave?

Shoot the bastard. You have the right to tell anyone to leave your property. Plus if some stupid bastard tries to and does disarm you are you really going to trust them not to shoot you?

I don’t know if you have the legal right to tell someone to leave your property when he is there legally to pickup his kids, at a court ordered time at their mothers residence.

Yes he had the right to tell him to leave

He had the right to be there.

According to you

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by steve4102

What does TX statutory law say about a situation such as this?

Basically, what does TX law say about use of deadly force against an unarmed but dangerous violent trespasser that refused to leave?

Shoot the bastard. You have the right to tell anyone to leave your property. Plus if some stupid bastard tries to and does disarm you are you really going to trust them not to shoot you?

I don’t know if you have the legal right to tell someone to leave your property when he is there legally to pickup his kids, at a court ordered time at their mothers residence.

Yes he had the right to tell him to leave

He had the right to be there.

According to you

You must be 5’4” too.

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by steve4102

What does TX statutory law say about a situation such as this?

Basically, what does TX law say about use of deadly force against an unarmed but dangerous violent trespasser that refused to leave?

Shoot the bastard. You have the right to tell anyone to leave your property. Plus if some stupid bastard tries to and does disarm you are you really going to trust them not to shoot you?

I don’t know if you have the legal right to tell someone to leave your property when he is there legally to pickup his kids, at a court ordered time at their mothers residence.

Yes he had the right to tell him to leave

He had the right to be there.

According to you

You must be 5’4” too.

No I'm just not an idiot like you.

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by steve4102

What does TX statutory law say about a situation such as this?

Basically, what does TX law say about use of deadly force against an unarmed but dangerous violent trespasser that refused to leave?

Shoot the bastard. You have the right to tell anyone to leave your property. Plus if some stupid bastard tries to and does disarm you are you really going to trust them not to shoot you?

I don’t know if you have the legal right to tell someone to leave your property when he is there legally to pickup his kids, at a court ordered time at their mothers residence.

Yes he had the right to tell him to leave

He had the right to be there.

According to you

You must be 5’4” too.

No I'm just not an idiot like you.

Sure thing, you’re a pussy like him.

Pussy. 😂

Originally Posted by JeffP

IDK Texas law but according to some reports, the shooters lawyer is citing “castle doctrine”.

As a side, it might be a good idea to refresh on your own state laws. Here, the shooter is going to jail.

Funny he was not charged or arrested.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm

Read Subchapter C, section 9.31

And

Section 9.33 c

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by JeffP

IDK Texas law but according to some reports, the shooters lawyer is citing “castle doctrine”.

As a side, it might be a good idea to refresh on your own state laws. Here, the shooter is going to jail.

Funny he was not charged or arrested.

No he wasn't but all of the SandBilly's think that he is guilty.

LMAO at them

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by JeffP

IDK Texas law but according to some reports, the shooters lawyer is citing “castle doctrine”.

As a side, it might be a good idea to refresh on your own state laws. Here, the shooter is going to jail.

Funny he was not charged or arrested.

No he wasn't but all of the SandBilly's think that he is guilty.

LMAO at them

He is guilty, of being a pussy. Like you. 🤣

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by broomd

Originally Posted by gsganzer

I agree with a major case of dumbass for all the players in that event. But I don't think the event had risen to the point that deadly force was warranted. I suspect a jury will agree.

Unbelievable stupidity, shooters in for a ten-twenty year a$s-reaming. Well-deserved too.

Will follow this one, it won't end well for anyone.

Shooter walks, book it

Meh, no chance. Homeowner could (should) have have resolved that issue without violence or at least shot the guy in the leg. No jury will call this 'good.'

Man dead for nothing.

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by JeffP

IDK Texas law but according to some reports, the shooters lawyer is citing “castle doctrine”.

As a side, it might be a good idea to refresh on your own state laws. Here, the shooter is going to jail.

Funny he was not charged or arrested.

No he wasn't but all of the SandBilly's think that he is guilty.

LMAO at them

He is guilty, of being a pussy. Like you. 🤣

I live at 470 Williams Rd.
Columbia, La

Come on over big boy

You dead wrong on this issue so you turn personal I'd say you are the pussy that is a Democrat/Marxist ploy to accuse the other of what you are guilty of.

Curious to hear the clear audio and if any threats were made by the deceased and curious if the deceased was ever arrested for DV of the ex.

Lucky it happened in Texas. Might have a shot to beat it. Obviously he should have just grabbed any family members and went in the house , lock the doors. call the police to report

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by JeffP

IDK Texas law but according to some reports, the shooters lawyer is citing “castle doctrine”.

As a side, it might be a good idea to refresh on your own state laws. Here, the shooter is going to jail.

Funny he was not charged or arrested.

No he wasn't but all of the SandBilly's think that he is guilty.

LMAO at them

He is guilty, of being a pussy. Like you. 🤣

I live at 470 Williams Rd.
Columbia, La

Come on over big boy

You dead wrong on this issue so you turn personal I'd say you are the pussy that is a Democrat/Marxist ploy to accuse the other of what you are guilty of.

Struck a nerve.

That happened to that pussy in that video too.

Pussy 😆

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by JeffP

IDK Texas law but according to some reports, the shooters lawyer is citing “castle doctrine”.

As a side, it might be a good idea to refresh on your own state laws. Here, the shooter is going to jail.

Funny he was not charged or arrested.

No he wasn't but all of the SandBilly's think that he is guilty.

LMAO at them

He is guilty, of being a pussy. Like you. 🤣

I live at 470 Williams Rd.
Columbia, La

Come on over big boy

You dead wrong on this issue so you turn personal I'd say you are the pussy that is a Democrat/Marxist ploy to accuse the other of what you are guilty of.

Struck a nerve.

That happened to that pussy in that video too.

Pussy 😆

No just showing that you are the pussy
Not only that but you are stupid

Do I need to define the word for you

Originally Posted by GreenHead

Murder, absolutely, 100% murder.

He should be in jail for a long time.

So you would have let the guy kick your @ss, take your gun and shoot you on your own porch? You are one total fuqtard.

Originally Posted by Kenneth

What a mess,

The father was pissed at her and the delay of seeing his Son,

Tempers and emotions were off the charts,

The Son lost his father at the front step of the house he lives in..

I don't care about any laws that may apply,

The Father was unnecessarily murdered.

The "father" killed himself. He did not listen to the shooter, on his property and acted aggressively to the point of grabbing for the gun. Suicide by stupid.

Uncensored video from Reddit

https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/r2qtyo/video_of_kyle_carruth_defending_himself_from_chad/

Click on the NSFW video.

Ex-wife is a POS for playing “keep away” with their kids when the ex-husband has a court ordered visitation time frame. 3:15PM not 6PM

Little dude, is a cûnt.

Enjoy the video

🦫

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by Kenneth

What a mess,

The father was pissed at her and the delay of seeing his Son,

Tempers and emotions were off the charts,

The Son lost his father at the front step of the house he lives in..

I don't care about any laws that may apply,

The Father was unnecessarily murdered.

The "father" killed himself. He did not listen to the shooter, on his property and acted aggressively to the point of grabbing for the gun. Suicide by stupid.

Exactly

Originally Posted by Garandimal

Originally Posted by JeffP

What is your opinion?

https://nypost.com/2021/11/26/texas-man-shoots-partners-ex-amid-child-custody-battle-video/

Play stupid games - Win stupid prizes.

As soon as the victim got muzzled - he has two choices.

1. Leave and file charges.
2. Cold-cock the MF.

GR

If the "victim" had struck the homeowner then the shoot was even more justifiable. Why is it you leftrats always feel you have no right to defend what is yours?

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Originally Posted by Squidge

This say the incident occurred at the ex-wife's house, does that make a difference?

https://www.lubbockonline.com/story...ock-judge-case-investigation/8765295002/

Quote

Chad Read, a 54-year-old Lubbock father, was fatally shot in South Lubbock outside his ex-wife's house after a confrontation between the former couple and the woman's boyfriend on Nov. 5.

Yes, but did Dad have legal right to be there on the porch to pick up kids??

Castle Doctrine in Texas says you DON’T have to retreat, but then again, it doesn’t really give you the right to ADVANCE (ie: OPEN a locked door/physical barrier, go OUTSIDE, ESCALATE the argument, THEN shoot a guy when argument goes south). There WAS physical separation. Call the cops and wait for them to remove him.

https://www.texasobserver.org/joe-horn-and-castle-doctrine-shootings-in-texas/

Joe Horn shot both in the back in broad daylight because they were stealing from his neighbor and he walked

This is in Texad and Texas law

STEALING. All the Dad was doing, initially, after being asked to leave, was TRESPASSING. The Mom and boyfriend had a right to “defend their castle” (home), but do they have a right to go OUTSIDE (around physical barrier) to ESCALATE the situation??

Woman was outside deceased was agitated and escalating in anger boyfriend came onto the porch to protect girlfriend and his property

In Texas, it’s “movable” property being stolen (stuff that can be carried off), that is defensible. Since Dad was not trying to enter home (at least not on video), that is not “defensible”. Mom didn’t look scared of death/harm as a “third person”. That leaves boyfriend, who only got in a physical altercation AFTER he stepped OUTSIDE. Again, you don’t have to “retreat” in Texas, but retrieving a gun from inside, then going OUTSIDE and ESCALATING the situation, is NOT allowed (escalation).

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Originally Posted by Squidge

This say the incident occurred at the ex-wife's house, does that make a difference?

https://www.lubbockonline.com/story...ock-judge-case-investigation/8765295002/

Quote

Chad Read, a 54-year-old Lubbock father, was fatally shot in South Lubbock outside his ex-wife's house after a confrontation between the former couple and the woman's boyfriend on Nov. 5.

Yes, but did Dad have legal right to be there on the porch to pick up kids??

Castle Doctrine in Texas says you DON’T have to retreat, but then again, it doesn’t really give you the right to ADVANCE (ie: OPEN a locked door/physical barrier, go OUTSIDE, ESCALATE the argument, THEN shoot a guy when argument goes south). There WAS physical separation. Call the cops and wait for them to remove him.

https://www.texasobserver.org/joe-horn-and-castle-doctrine-shootings-in-texas/

Joe Horn shot both in the back in broad daylight because they were stealing from his neighbor and he walked

This is in Texad and Texas law

STEALING. All the Dad was doing, initially, after being asked to leave, was TRESPASSING. The Mom and boyfriend had a right to “defend their castle” (home), but do they have a right to go OUTSIDE (around physical barrier) to ESCALATE the situation??

Woman was outside deceased was agitated and escalating in anger boyfriend came onto the porch to protect girlfriend and his property

In Texas, it’s “movable” property being stolen (stuff that can be carried off), that is defensible. Since Dad was not trying to enter home (at least not on video), that is not “defensible”. Mom didn’t look scared of death/harm as a “third person”. That leaves boyfriend, who only got in a physical altercation AFTER he stepped OUTSIDE. Again, you don’t have to “retreat” in Texas, but retrieving a gun from inside, then going OUTSIDE and ESCALATING the situation, is NOT allowed (escalation).

Don't see it that way he was asked to leave and did not. When boyfriend came onto the porch he got more aggressive.

Apparently not as cut and dried as you think, shooter hasn't been arrested or charged

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Originally Posted by Squidge

This say the incident occurred at the ex-wife's house, does that make a difference?

https://www.lubbockonline.com/story...ock-judge-case-investigation/8765295002/

Quote

Chad Read, a 54-year-old Lubbock father, was fatally shot in South Lubbock outside his ex-wife's house after a confrontation between the former couple and the woman's boyfriend on Nov. 5.

Yes, but did Dad have legal right to be there on the porch to pick up kids??

Castle Doctrine in Texas says you DON’T have to retreat, but then again, it doesn’t really give you the right to ADVANCE (ie: OPEN a locked door/physical barrier, go OUTSIDE, ESCALATE the argument, THEN shoot a guy when argument goes south). There WAS physical separation. Call the cops and wait for them to remove him.

https://www.texasobserver.org/joe-horn-and-castle-doctrine-shootings-in-texas/

Joe Horn shot both in the back in broad daylight because they were stealing from his neighbor and he walked

This is in Texad and Texas law

STEALING. All the Dad was doing, initially, after being asked to leave, was TRESPASSING. The Mom and boyfriend had a right to “defend their castle” (home), but do they have a right to go OUTSIDE (around physical barrier) to ESCALATE the situation??

Woman was outside deceased was agitated and escalating in anger boyfriend came onto the porch to protect girlfriend and his property

In Texas, it’s “movable” property being stolen (stuff that can be carried off), that is defensible. Since Dad was not trying to enter home (at least not on video), that is not “defensible”. Mom didn’t look scared of death/harm as a “third person”. That leaves boyfriend, who only got in a physical altercation AFTER he stepped OUTSIDE. Again, you don’t have to “retreat” in Texas, but retrieving a gun from inside, then going OUTSIDE and ESCALATING the situation, is NOT allowed (escalation).

How did the guy with the gun "escalate" the situation? The idiot who refused to leave and pushed the other guy around, on his own property escalated the situation. Would you actually let someone push you around on your own porch?

As mentioned previously, a whole lot of stupid going on with both sides...

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Originally Posted by Squidge

This say the incident occurred at the ex-wife's house, does that make a difference?

https://www.lubbockonline.com/story...ock-judge-case-investigation/8765295002/

Quote

Chad Read, a 54-year-old Lubbock father, was fatally shot in South Lubbock outside his ex-wife's house after a confrontation between the former couple and the woman's boyfriend on Nov. 5.

Yes, but did Dad have legal right to be there on the porch to pick up kids??

Castle Doctrine in Texas says you DON’T have to retreat, but then again, it doesn’t really give you the right to ADVANCE (ie: OPEN a locked door/physical barrier, go OUTSIDE, ESCALATE the argument, THEN shoot a guy when argument goes south). There WAS physical separation. Call the cops and wait for them to remove him.

https://www.texasobserver.org/joe-horn-and-castle-doctrine-shootings-in-texas/

Joe Horn shot both in the back in broad daylight because they were stealing from his neighbor and he walked

This is in Texad and Texas law

STEALING. All the Dad was doing, initially, after being asked to leave, was TRESPASSING. The Mom and boyfriend had a right to “defend their castle” (home), but do they have a right to go OUTSIDE (around physical barrier) to ESCALATE the situation??

Woman was outside deceased was agitated and escalating in anger boyfriend came onto the porch to protect girlfriend and his property

In Texas, it’s “movable” property being stolen (stuff that can be carried off), that is defensible. Since Dad was not trying to enter home (at least not on video), that is not “defensible”. Mom didn’t look scared of death/harm as a “third person”. That leaves boyfriend, who only got in a physical altercation AFTER he stepped OUTSIDE. Again, you don’t have to “retreat” in Texas, but retrieving a gun from inside, then going OUTSIDE and ESCALATING the situation, is NOT allowed (escalation).

How did the guy with the gun "escalate" the situation? The idiot who refused to leave and pushed the other guy around, on his own property escalated the situation. Would you actually let someone push you around on your own porch?

Exactly

Originally Posted by MontanaMarine

Was the shooter in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm?

I don't see it.

^^^this is the essential issue in use of deadly force. It did not appear that any innocent person was in imminent jeopardy...until the firearm was introduced into the situation. There did not appear to be enough disparity between the mutual combatants to justify use of a deadly weapon. The shooter left and returned w/ the weapon which may justify premeditation and a charge of capital murder.

There was lot of ignorance on display in the video and some on this thread. Texas differs from most jurisdictions in this area of the law so who knows?

mike r

“Don't see it that way he was asked to leave and did not. When boyfriend came onto the porch he got more aggressive.

Apparently not as cut and dried as you think, shooter hasn't been arrested or charged”

Nothing about this will be “cut and dried”. The questions will be:

1) Did boyfriend have right to introduce a gun (it wasn’t already in his hands/on his person)and bring it outside, for “trespassing”???

2) Did boyfriend have a legitimate reason to think ex-wife feared for her life or was about to get beaten, out there??

Trespassing is not a justification of legitimate use of deadly force.

Wife didn’t look that scared.

Watch first 5 seconds. Dad arguing with boyfriend. Then, boyfriend goes inside (not prevented by Dad) then COMES BACK OUTSIDE with gun he has retrieved.

Boyfriend was already in his “castle” (indoors), and took it upon himself to go outside to confront Dad about trespassing. Does the DOOR mark the line between “castle defense” and “escalation”??

We’ll see...

All over some SLUT !

Does double tapping the guy have any bearing on this scenario?

Some relevant statutes....

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm#C

If I was gonna try and convict the shooter I'd go with the "did not provoke the encounter" and "the actor reasonably believed that deadly force was necessary" provisions.

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;

(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 force used or attempted by the other;

(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, 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 force 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 force 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 force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

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

(d) The use of deadly force 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 force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force 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 force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

[b](2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly 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 an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(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.

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

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

I still think the guy is gonna walk, but if it goes to trial the legal costs count ruin him.

thanks Jimmy Olsen

the wife bears some responsibility.He shoot him in the back? Hard to tell if he just spun and fell back facing him. Was the deceased trying to enter his house when shot? Was anyone else in the residence? Dumb to shoot the ground first. Heard no threats from the deceased and he did not strike the shooter or have a weapon. Ex wife not concerned she's just talking on her phone standing next to the ex.

Again lucky it's Texas. Most states he would have been arrested.

Originally Posted by Beaver10

Uncensored video from Reddit

https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/r2qtyo/video_of_kyle_carruth_defending_himself_from_chad/

Click on the NSFW video.

Ex-wife is a POS for playing “keep away” with their kids when the ex-husband has a court ordered visitation time frame. 3:15PM not 6PM

Little dude, is a cûnt.

Enjoy the video

🦫

I read that this woman (ex) is a Lubbock judge?

The other issue was shooting at the man's feet to start the escalation. Gun should have never been produced.
It was almost as if the gun holder was goading the already-angry dad just wanting his kid.

Originally Posted by fburgtx

“Don't see it that way he was asked to leave and did not. When boyfriend came onto the porch he got more aggressive.

Apparently not as cut and dried as you think, shooter hasn't been arrested or charged”

Nothing about this will be “cut and dried”. The questions will be:

1) Did boyfriend have right to introduce a gun (it wasn’t already in his hands/on his person)and bring it outside, for “trespassing”???

2) Did boyfriend have a legitimate reason to think ex-wife feared for her life or was about to get beaten, out there??

Trespassing is not a justification of legitimate use of deadly force.

Wife didn’t look that scared.

Watch first 5 seconds. Dad arguing with boyfriend. Then, boyfriend goes inside (not prevented by Dad) then COMES BACK OUTSIDE with gun he has retrieved.

Boyfriend was already in his “castle” (indoors), and took it upon himself to go outside to confront Dad about trespassing. Does the DOOR mark the line between “castle defense” and “escalation”??

We’ll see...

You're assuming that "castle" means inside the house...

Originally Posted by broomd

I read that this woman (ex) is a Lubbock judge?

The other issue was shooting at the man's feet to start the escalation. Gun should have never been produced.
It was almost as if the gun holder was goading the already-angry dad just wanting his kid.

Shooters ex is a judge. One reason there aren’t charges yet. The DA recused themself, it just hit the attorney generals office.

Originally Posted by smokepole

Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye

Originally Posted by smokepole

Looked to me like the guy who got shot had partial custody of his kid, showed up at the appointed time to pick him up, and his wife would not produce the kid.

If that's true, I don't blame the "trespasser" for getting pissed and not leaving. And I wonder how that would change the culpability of the wife. If she was denying him his visitation, she had to know that would set him off.

If all that's true, and it may well be, then his solution was to report it to the courts and arrange to have Sheriff's Deputies with him every time he comes to pick up his kid till his wife starts cooperating with the court orders. Getting in the face of a guy who comes out of his home with a gun and demands you leave isn't the right move.

Quite obviously, at this point in time.

My father used to warn me about being "dead right" as he called it. Sometimes "making a business decision" is the way to go, to borrow a phrase from Neon Deion.

Originally Posted by ribka

thanks Jimmy Olsen

the wife bears some responsibility.He shoot him in the back? Hard to tell if he just spun and fell back facing him. Was the deceased trying to enter his house when shot? Was anyone else in the residence? Dumb to shoot the ground first. Heard no threats from the deceased and he did not strike the shooter or have a weapon.

Again lucky it's Texas. Most states he would have been arrested.

Originally Posted by Beaver10

Uncensored video from Reddit

https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/r2qtyo/video_of_kyle_carruth_defending_himself_from_chad/

Click on the NSFW video.

Ex-wife is a POS for playing “keep away” with their kids when the ex-husband has a court ordered visitation time frame. 3:15PM not 6PM

Little dude, is a cûnt.

Enjoy the video

🦫

You didn't notice the deceased grabbed the rifle and tried to take it from the shooter and slung him into the yard. After the aggressive action is when he was shot

These threads are hilarious

Originally Posted by AJ300MAG

Originally Posted by fburgtx

“Don't see it that way he was asked to leave and did not. When boyfriend came onto the porch he got more aggressive.

Apparently not as cut and dried as you think, shooter hasn't been arrested or charged”

Nothing about this will be “cut and dried”. The questions will be:

1) Did boyfriend have right to introduce a gun (it wasn’t already in his hands/on his person)and bring it outside, for “trespassing”???

2) Did boyfriend have a legitimate reason to think ex-wife feared for her life or was about to get beaten, out there??

Trespassing is not a justification of legitimate use of deadly force.

Wife didn’t look that scared.

Watch first 5 seconds. Dad arguing with boyfriend. Then, boyfriend goes inside (not prevented by Dad) then COMES BACK OUTSIDE with gun he has retrieved.

Boyfriend was already in his “castle” (indoors), and took it upon himself to go outside to confront Dad about trespassing. Does the DOOR mark the line between “castle defense” and “escalation”??

We’ll see...

You're assuming that "castle" means inside the house...

Well, boyfriend had to go INSIDE, through a door WITH A LOCK, to retrieve his gun, then came back out, through the same door.

If a drunk is beating on your door at night, in an easily accessible residential neighborhood, do you open the door, go OUTSIDE, and shoot him??

I’m not trying to make a point, I’m asking??

Originally Posted by ribka

thanks Jimmy Olsen

the wife bears some responsibility.He shoot him in the back? Hard to tell if he just spun and fell back facing him. Was the deceased trying to enter his house when shot? Was anyone else in the residence? Dumb to shoot the ground first. Heard no threats from the deceased and he did not strike the shooter or have a weapon. Ex wife not concerned she's just talking on her phone standing next to the ex.

Again lucky it's Texas. Most states he would have been arrested.

The deceased threatened to take the gun and then he grabbed the gun.

I'm not sure how much this plays into this tragedy.

Originally Posted by BillyGoatGruff

These threads are hilarious

I won a Jimmy Olsen Award....So, there is that.

LOL

🤦‍♀️
🦫

Originally Posted by Beaver10

Originally Posted by BillyGoatGruff

These threads are hilarious

I won a Jimmy Olsen Award....So, there is that.

LOL

🤦‍♀️
🦫

I crack me up..

Whites being whites

I’m liking that little Ruger Carbine. Get one sized for the wife. Throw a red dot on it, and let her roam the castle looking for intruders while I sleep.

👍🏼🦫

Originally Posted by rte

Originally Posted by ribka

thanks Jimmy Olsen

the wife bears some responsibility.He shoot him in the back? Hard to tell if he just spun and fell back facing him. Was the deceased trying to enter his house when shot? Was anyone else in the residence? Dumb to shoot the ground first. Heard no threats from the deceased and he did not strike the shooter or have a weapon. Ex wife not concerned she's just talking on her phone standing next to the ex.

Again lucky it's Texas. Most states he would have been arrested.

The deceased threatened to take the gun and then he grabbed the gun.

I'm not sure how much this plays into this tragedy.

The question will be “Why was the gun retrieved and brought into the situation?”.

If a case can be made that Mom’s life/safety was in danger, then fine...

If it was brought out solely to run off a trespasser, well, that’s NOT allowed in Texas deadly force statutes, and could possibly be “escalation”...

A lot of times, self defense is just walking away or going back inside the house.

Sometimes people are clueless about proportional response.

He did shoot at his feet before this. The shooter just escalated the situation for no reason but going in and retrieving the firearm and then shooting at his feet did escalate. The deceased made no attempt to enter house. The ex not obeying a court visitation order and not having the son there and not telling the ex this escalated the situation too. Yeh the deceased should have left and called local police for violation of order. Again curious if any prior documented DV /violent issues.

Shooter and wife had many opportunities to leave. All three phugged up. I think good chance he'll be charged with at least manslaughter.

You can tell from the shooter and his girlfriends ( some of the posters on here) nonchalant response to the death that they had no clue what their rights and reponsibilities are as a firearms owner in Texas.

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by ribka

thanks Jimmy Olsen

the wife bears some responsibility.He shoot him in the back? Hard to tell if he just spun and fell back facing him. Was the deceased trying to enter his house when shot? Was anyone else in the residence? Dumb to shoot the ground first. Heard no threats from the deceased and he did not strike the shooter or have a weapon.

Again lucky it's Texas. Most states he would have been arrested.

Originally Posted by Beaver10

Uncensored video from Reddit

https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/r2qtyo/video_of_kyle_carruth_defending_himself_from_chad/

Click on the NSFW video.

Ex-wife is a POS for playing “keep away” with their kids when the ex-husband has a court ordered visitation time frame. 3:15PM not 6PM

Little dude, is a cûnt.

Enjoy the video

🦫

You didn't notice the deceased grabbed the rifle and tried to take it from the shooter and slung him into the yard. After the aggressive action is when he was shot

How much will it cost to defend against a manslaughter charge?

P

OP asked for an opinion. I am no lawyer so IMO the shooter f'd up big time. The father wanted his kid. All parties did stupid actions. I didn't see justification of use of deadly force. Boyfriend escalated the killing, should have just went inside with girlfriend and called police. I imagine him and ex argued a lot, thus being an ex. Either way, sad when a father gets killed when he comes to pick up his kid when the court says he has the right to have the kid.

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Originally Posted by AJ300MAG

Originally Posted by fburgtx

“Don't see it that way he was asked to leave and did not. When boyfriend came onto the porch he got more aggressive.

Apparently not as cut and dried as you think, shooter hasn't been arrested or charged”

Nothing about this will be “cut and dried”. The questions will be:

1) Did boyfriend have right to introduce a gun (it wasn’t already in his hands/on his person)and bring it outside, for “trespassing”???

2) Did boyfriend have a legitimate reason to think ex-wife feared for her life or was about to get beaten, out there??

Trespassing is not a justification of legitimate use of deadly force.

Wife didn’t look that scared.

Watch first 5 seconds. Dad arguing with boyfriend. Then, boyfriend goes inside (not prevented by Dad) then COMES BACK OUTSIDE with gun he has retrieved.

Boyfriend was already in his “castle” (indoors), and took it upon himself to go outside to confront Dad about trespassing. Does the DOOR mark the line between “castle defense” and “escalation”??

We’ll see...

You're assuming that "castle" means inside the house...

Well, boyfriend had to go INSIDE, through a door WITH A LOCK, to retrieve his gun, then came back out, through the same door.

If a drunk is beating on your door at night, in an easily accessible residential neighborhood, do you open the door, go OUTSIDE, and shoot him??

I’m not trying to make a point, I’m asking??

He has a legal right to be anywhere he want's to be on his property.

Sounds like the rooster and chickens were talking trash to one of them also.

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Yeah, but did the boyfriend ever really have the “right” to go on the lawn with a gun, in the FIRST PLACE.

Folks always have a right to bear arms. It's in the Second Amendment.

Originally Posted by AJ300MAG

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Originally Posted by AJ300MAG

Originally Posted by fburgtx

“Don't see it that way he was asked to leave and did not. When boyfriend came onto the porch he got more aggressive.

Apparently not as cut and dried as you think, shooter hasn't been arrested or charged”

Nothing about this will be “cut and dried”. The questions will be:

1) Did boyfriend have right to introduce a gun (it wasn’t already in his hands/on his person)and bring it outside, for “trespassing”???

2) Did boyfriend have a legitimate reason to think ex-wife feared for her life or was about to get beaten, out there??

Trespassing is not a justification of legitimate use of deadly force.

Wife didn’t look that scared.

Watch first 5 seconds. Dad arguing with boyfriend. Then, boyfriend goes inside (not prevented by Dad) then COMES BACK OUTSIDE with gun he has retrieved.

Boyfriend was already in his “castle” (indoors), and took it upon himself to go outside to confront Dad about trespassing. Does the DOOR mark the line between “castle defense” and “escalation”??

We’ll see...

You're assuming that "castle" means inside the house...

Well, boyfriend had to go INSIDE, through a door WITH A LOCK, to retrieve his gun, then came back out, through the same door.

If a drunk is beating on your door at night, in an easily accessible residential neighborhood, do you open the door, go OUTSIDE, and shoot him??

I’m not trying to make a point, I’m asking??

He has a legal right to be anywhere he want's to be on his property.

Exactly

Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Yeah, but did the boyfriend ever really have the “right” to go on the lawn with a gun, in the FIRST PLACE.

Folks always have a right to bear arms. It's in the Second Amendment.

Seems a lot of people think that firearms gives them magic powers like an amulet. Those court cases can get expensive. Good attorneys dont work for free ya know.

Some of the posters should up their home owner's policies.

Originally Posted by AJ300MAG

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Originally Posted by AJ300MAG

Originally Posted by fburgtx

“Don't see it that way he was asked to leave and did not. When boyfriend came onto the porch he got more aggressive.

Apparently not as cut and dried as you think, shooter hasn't been arrested or charged”

Nothing about this will be “cut and dried”. The questions will be:

1) Did boyfriend have right to introduce a gun (it wasn’t already in his hands/on his person)and bring it outside, for “trespassing”???

2) Did boyfriend have a legitimate reason to think ex-wife feared for her life or was about to get beaten, out there??

Trespassing is not a justification of legitimate use of deadly force.

Wife didn’t look that scared.

Watch first 5 seconds. Dad arguing with boyfriend. Then, boyfriend goes inside (not prevented by Dad) then COMES BACK OUTSIDE with gun he has retrieved.

Boyfriend was already in his “castle” (indoors), and took it upon himself to go outside to confront Dad about trespassing. Does the DOOR mark the line between “castle defense” and “escalation”??

We’ll see...

You're assuming that "castle" means inside the house...

Well, boyfriend had to go INSIDE, through a door WITH A LOCK, to retrieve his gun, then came back out, through the same door.

If a drunk is beating on your door at night, in an easily accessible residential neighborhood, do you open the door, go OUTSIDE, and shoot him??

I’m not trying to make a point, I’m asking??

He has a legal right to be anywhere he want's to be on his property.

He didn’t carry the gun on his “property” (at that moment), he retrieved and carried it to a VERBAL argument. I’ve got a right to have a firearm on my property, but do I have a right to pull it out and point it at someone for only trespassing/verbal argument, especially when they were there for a legal reason?

He wasn’t standing there with the gun at the START of the argument. He went to another area (behind a closed door) to retrieve it.

Originally Posted by ribka

Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Yeah, but did the boyfriend ever really have the “right” to go on the lawn with a gun, in the FIRST PLACE.

Folks always have a right to bear arms. It's in the Second Amendment.

Seems a lot of people think that firearms gives them magic powers like an amulet. Those court cases can get expensive. Good attorneys dont work for free ya know.

Some of the posters should up their home owner's policies.

Doubt a grand jury will find a true bill against shooter

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Originally Posted by AJ300MAG

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Originally Posted by AJ300MAG

Originally Posted by fburgtx

“Don't see it that way he was asked to leave and did not. When boyfriend came onto the porch he got more aggressive.

Apparently not as cut and dried as you think, shooter hasn't been arrested or charged”

Nothing about this will be “cut and dried”. The questions will be:

1) Did boyfriend have right to introduce a gun (it wasn’t already in his hands/on his person)and bring it outside, for “trespassing”???

2) Did boyfriend have a legitimate reason to think ex-wife feared for her life or was about to get beaten, out there??

Trespassing is not a justification of legitimate use of deadly force.

Wife didn’t look that scared.

Watch first 5 seconds. Dad arguing with boyfriend. Then, boyfriend goes inside (not prevented by Dad) then COMES BACK OUTSIDE with gun he has retrieved.

Boyfriend was already in his “castle” (indoors), and took it upon himself to go outside to confront Dad about trespassing. Does the DOOR mark the line between “castle defense” and “escalation”??

We’ll see...

You're assuming that "castle" means inside the house...

Well, boyfriend had to go INSIDE, through a door WITH A LOCK, to retrieve his gun, then came back out, through the same door.

If a drunk is beating on your door at night, in an easily accessible residential neighborhood, do you open the door, go OUTSIDE, and shoot him??

I’m not trying to make a point, I’m asking??

He has a legal right to be anywhere he want's to be on his property.

He didn’t carry the gun on his “property” (at that moment), he retrieved and carried it to a VERBAL argument. I’ve got a right to have a firearm on my property, but do I have a right to pull it out and point it at someone for only trespassing/verbal argument, especially when they were there for a legal reason?

He wasn’t standing there with the gun at the START of the argument. He went to another area (behind a closed door) to retrieve it.

He didn't point the gun at the deceased until after the deceased grabbed the gun and slung the shooting onto the lawn from the porch.

yep someone who stands with their arms locked to the sides of their body purposefully demonstrating a non threat posture definitely justifies shooting at their feet. Shooter felt threatened for his life Ill bet. lol

Also how many times has the deceased picked up his son for visitation at this residence? What did the visitation order instruct? How many times did the ex violate the court visitation order? I did nt hear the ex state that she had to meet him elsewhere to turn over the son.

Might be no trespass issues based on the order; not that trespassing justifies deadly force which of course it doesn't

Originally Posted by jwp475

Can you quote the statue of Texas law that you are basing your opinion on?

Originally Posted by ribka

Some of the posters should up their home owner's policies.

Their just keyboard warriors, all bark, no bite.

99.9% of the posters here would have ran scared schitless into the house and called the cops as soon as the guy raised his voice.

Yet they'll reply back as if they are Rambo or which ever other movie hero they base their wannabee tuff guy fantasies on.

The mother should have just had the son there as the court ordered.

It almost seems like a setup.

Like all of these shooting videos we dont have all of the information. Im only guessing based on the behavior of the shooter and the crazy ex. Still a lot of important info to take into consideration after a thorough investigation.

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by ribka

Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Yeah, but did the boyfriend ever really have the “right” to go on the lawn with a gun, in the FIRST PLACE.

Folks always have a right to bear arms. It's in the Second Amendment.

Seems a lot of people think that firearms gives them magic powers like an amulet. Those court cases can get expensive. Good attorneys dont work for free ya know.

Some of the posters should up their home owner's policies.

Doubt a grand jury will find a true bill against shooter

Who posted that they pistol whipped some doode at the gun range?
Lol

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by Beaver10

Originally Posted by BillyGoatGruff

These threads are hilarious

I won a Jimmy Olsen Award....So, there is that.

LOL

🤦‍♀️
🦫

I crack me up..

I can’t decide which is funnier, posters chiming in with bad info that contradicts the article and that had been clarified earlier, or posters that either watched a different video or willfully omit actions that don’t fit their narrative. Either way it’s always funny to read. Especially when the hormones start flowing.

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Originally Posted by AJ300MAG

Originally Posted by fburgtx

“Don't see it that way he was asked to leave and did not. When boyfriend came onto the porch he got more aggressive.

Apparently not as cut and dried as you think, shooter hasn't been arrested or charged”

Nothing about this will be “cut and dried”. The questions will be:

1) Did boyfriend have right to introduce a gun (it wasn’t already in his hands/on his person)and bring it outside, for “trespassing”???

2) Did boyfriend have a legitimate reason to think ex-wife feared for her life or was about to get beaten, out there??

Trespassing is not a justification of legitimate use of deadly force.

Wife didn’t look that scared.

Watch first 5 seconds. Dad arguing with boyfriend. Then, boyfriend goes inside (not prevented by Dad) then COMES BACK OUTSIDE with gun he has retrieved.

Boyfriend was already in his “castle” (indoors), and took it upon himself to go outside to confront Dad about trespassing. Does the DOOR mark the line between “castle defense” and “escalation”??

We’ll see...

You're assuming that "castle" means inside the house...

Well, boyfriend had to go INSIDE, through a door WITH A LOCK, to retrieve his gun, then came back out, through the same door.

If a drunk is beating on your door at night, in an easily accessible residential neighborhood, do you open the door, go OUTSIDE, and shoot him??

I’m not trying to make a point, I’m asking??

If anyone is beating on my door and I tell them to get off my property my response is going to be go outside and remove him from my property if they don't voluntarily leave. In your mind I am supposed to do it with my hands? I am no longer in top physical condition regularly working out so I am going to do it by pointing a weapon at the individual. If he lunges at me and tries to take my 1911 in your mind I am supposed to let him grab it and fight him for it? No I am going to shoot him.

"Well, boyfriend had to go INSIDE, through a door WITH A LOCK, to retrieve his gun, then came back out, through the same door". What difference does that make? The man armed himself against an intruder.

I doubt this will be sent to court after the Grand Jury looks at it.

Originally Posted by JeffA

Originally Posted by ribka

Some of the posters should up their home owner's policies.

Their just keyboard warriors, all bark, no bite.

99.9% of the posters here would have ran scared schitless into the house and called the cops as soon as the guy raised his voice.

Yet they'll reply back as if they are Rambo or which ever other movie hero they base their wannabee tuff guy fantasies on.

You must be speaking for yourself.

Originally Posted by Beaver10

Originally Posted by BillyGoatGruff

These threads are hilarious

I won a Jimmy Olsen Award....So, there is that.
LOL
🤦‍♀️
🦫

are others than slum certified to award one?
😉

Intruders aren’t suppose to be there, this guy was, apparently.

He should have let those two handle their business and kept his big vajayjay in the house, unless it got physical.

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Originally Posted by AJ300MAG

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Originally Posted by AJ300MAG

Originally Posted by fburgtx

“Don't see it that way he was asked to leave and did not. When boyfriend came onto the porch he got more aggressive.

Apparently not as cut and dried as you think, shooter hasn't been arrested or charged”

Nothing about this will be “cut and dried”. The questions will be:

1) Did boyfriend have right to introduce a gun (it wasn’t already in his hands/on his person)and bring it outside, for “trespassing”???

2) Did boyfriend have a legitimate reason to think ex-wife feared for her life or was about to get beaten, out there??

Trespassing is not a justification of legitimate use of deadly force.

Wife didn’t look that scared.

Watch first 5 seconds. Dad arguing with boyfriend. Then, boyfriend goes inside (not prevented by Dad) then COMES BACK OUTSIDE with gun he has retrieved.

Boyfriend was already in his “castle” (indoors), and took it upon himself to go outside to confront Dad about trespassing. Does the DOOR mark the line between “castle defense” and “escalation”??

We’ll see...

You're assuming that "castle" means inside the house...

Well, boyfriend had to go INSIDE, through a door WITH A LOCK, to retrieve his gun, then came back out, through the same door.

If a drunk is beating on your door at night, in an easily accessible residential neighborhood, do you open the door, go OUTSIDE, and shoot him??

I’m not trying to make a point, I’m asking??

He has a legal right to be anywhere he want's to be on his property.

He didn’t carry the gun on his “property” (at that moment), he retrieved and carried it to a VERBAL argument. I’ve got a right to have a firearm on my property, but do I have a right to pull it out and point it at someone for only trespassing/verbal argument, especially when they were there for a legal reason?

He wasn’t standing there with the gun at the START of the argument. He went to another area (behind a closed door) to retrieve it.

Not a verbal argument at all, he told the guy to get off his property. There is no argument after that. Once you are told to leave, even for trespassing (which you seem to not understand the implication of) if you don't leave you are the aggressor. It is true that you cannot just shoot someone you see across your pasture trespassing. If you confront the intruder and he does not leave the situation has changed to the trespasser being the aggressor. Wait for the Game Warden? Suppose he starts pushing you around and grabs your gun? I agree the incident should not have happened and it would not have if the trespasser had left when asked.

Originally Posted by rockinbbar

Originally Posted by kaywoodie

Just glad to see that none of my cousins were involved in this escapade.

Yep, when I read headlines like this one in my area the first thing I think is "oh chit soandso has gone an done it".

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Originally Posted by AJ300MAG

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Originally Posted by AJ300MAG

Originally Posted by fburgtx

“Don't see it that way he was asked to leave and did not. When boyfriend came onto the porch he got more aggressive.

Apparently not as cut and dried as you think, shooter hasn't been arrested or charged”

Nothing about this will be “cut and dried”. The questions will be:

1) Did boyfriend have right to introduce a gun (it wasn’t already in his hands/on his person)and bring it outside, for “trespassing”???

2) Did boyfriend have a legitimate reason to think ex-wife feared for her life or was about to get beaten, out there??

Trespassing is not a justification of legitimate use of deadly force.

Wife didn’t look that scared.

Watch first 5 seconds. Dad arguing with boyfriend. Then, boyfriend goes inside (not prevented by Dad) then COMES BACK OUTSIDE with gun he has retrieved.

Boyfriend was already in his “castle” (indoors), and took it upon himself to go outside to confront Dad about trespassing. Does the DOOR mark the line between “castle defense” and “escalation”??

We’ll see...

You're assuming that "castle" means inside the house...

Well, boyfriend had to go INSIDE, through a door WITH A LOCK, to retrieve his gun, then came back out, through the same door.

If a drunk is beating on your door at night, in an easily accessible residential neighborhood, do you open the door, go OUTSIDE, and shoot him??

I’m not trying to make a point, I’m asking??

He has a legal right to be anywhere he want's to be on his property.

He didn’t carry the gun on his “property” (at that moment), he retrieved and carried it to a VERBAL argument. I’ve got a right to have a firearm on my property, but do I have a right to pull it out and point it at someone for only trespassing/verbal argument, especially when they were there for a legal reason?

He wasn’t standing there with the gun at the START of the argument. He went to another area (behind a closed door) to retrieve it.

Not a verbal argument at all, he told the guy to get off his property. There is no argument after that. Once you are told to leave, even for trespassing (which you seem to not understand the implication of) if you don't leave you are the aggressor. It is true that you cannot just shoot someone you see across your pasture trespassing. If you confront the intruder and he does not leave the situation has changed to the trespasser being the aggressor. Wait for the Game Warden? Suppose he starts pushing you around and grabs your gun? I agree the incident should not have happened and it would not have if the trespasser had left when asked.

Here it is called staying when forbidden and is illegal

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Intruders aren’t suppose to be there, this guy was, apparently.

He should have let those two handle their business and kept his big vajayjay in the house, unless it got physical.

So you didn't watch the videos? How was the guy supposed to "be there"? Especially after being told to leave? If my dogs sound off and I go check what is going on armed on my property and the trespassers refuse to leave are you saying I should go back inside and let them continue wandering around my house setting the dogs off? Wait for the Sheriff? That could take a while out here in the sticks. You do you. Be confronted and then go hide. Sounds about right.

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Intruders aren’t suppose to be there, this guy was, apparently.

He should have let those two handle their business and kept his big vajayjay in the house, unless it got physical.

So you didn't watch the videos? How was the guy supposed to "be there"? Especially after being told to leave? If my dogs sound off and I go check what is going on armed on my property and the trespassers refuse to leave are you saying I should go back inside and let them continue wandering around my house setting the dogs off? Wait for the Sheriff? That could take a while out here in the sticks. You do you. Be confronted and then go hide. Sounds about right.

Exactly

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Originally Posted by AJ300MAG

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Originally Posted by AJ300MAG

Originally Posted by fburgtx

“Don't see it that way he was asked to leave and did not. When boyfriend came onto the porch he got more aggressive.

Apparently not as cut and dried as you think, shooter hasn't been arrested or charged”

Nothing about this will be “cut and dried”. The questions will be:

1) Did boyfriend have right to introduce a gun (it wasn’t already in his hands/on his person)and bring it outside, for “trespassing”???

2) Did boyfriend have a legitimate reason to think ex-wife feared for her life or was about to get beaten, out there??

Trespassing is not a justification of legitimate use of deadly force.

Wife didn’t look that scared.

Watch first 5 seconds. Dad arguing with boyfriend. Then, boyfriend goes inside (not prevented by Dad) then COMES BACK OUTSIDE with gun he has retrieved.

Boyfriend was already in his “castle” (indoors), and took it upon himself to go outside to confront Dad about trespassing. Does the DOOR mark the line between “castle defense” and “escalation”??

We’ll see...

You're assuming that "castle" means inside the house...

Well, boyfriend had to go INSIDE, through a door WITH A LOCK, to retrieve his gun, then came back out, through the same door.

If a drunk is beating on your door at night, in an easily accessible residential neighborhood, do you open the door, go OUTSIDE, and shoot him??

I’m not trying to make a point, I’m asking??

He has a legal right to be anywhere he want's to be on his property.

He didn’t carry the gun on his “property” (at that moment), he retrieved and carried it to a VERBAL argument. I’ve got a right to have a firearm on my property, but do I have a right to pull it out and point it at someone for only trespassing/verbal argument, especially when they were there for a legal reason?

He wasn’t standing there with the gun at the START of the argument. He went to another area (behind a closed door) to retrieve it.

Not a verbal argument at all, he told the guy to get off his property. There is no argument after that. Once you are told to leave, even for trespassing (which you seem to not understand the implication of) if you don't leave you are the aggressor. It is true that you cannot just shoot someone you see across your pasture trespassing. If you confront the intruder and he does not leave the situation has changed to the trespasser being the aggressor. Wait for the Game Warden? Suppose he starts pushing you around and grabs your gun? I agree the incident should not have happened and it would not have if the trespasser had left when asked.

Still don’t think “not leaving” gives you the right to introduce a deadly weapon (that wasn’t there, previously) to the situation, by state law. The Dad wasn’t trying to get in the house (at least, not in the video). The only LEGAL reason for introducing the gun was “fear for life/safety”. Dad hadn’t hit ex, at that point. Had he made threats of violence, or was he just pizzed they wouldn’t produce the kids?? Watch the video. The boyfriend didn’t start out with the gun in his hands. He went inside and got it.

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Intruders aren’t suppose to be there, this guy was, apparently.

He should have let those two handle their business and kept his big vajayjay in the house, unless it got physical.

So you didn't watch the videos? How was the guy supposed to "be there"? Especially after being told to leave? If my dogs sound off and I go check what is going on armed on my property and the trespassers refuse to leave are you saying I should go back inside and let them continue wandering around my house setting the dogs off? Wait for the Sheriff? That could take a while out here in the sticks. You do you. Be confronted and then go hide. Sounds about right.

He didn’t live there alone, his whore GF lived there too. That man’s business was with her and their sons. It was none of his business.

This was HER home too.

"
"Tresspasser aggressor"

Couldnt find that definition in the Texas penal code

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/

Id bump home owners to at least 2 million

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Originally Posted by AJ300MAG

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Originally Posted by AJ300MAG

Originally Posted by fburgtx

“Don't see it that way he was asked to leave and did not. When boyfriend came onto the porch he got more aggressive.

Apparently not as cut and dried as you think, shooter hasn't been arrested or charged”

Nothing about this will be “cut and dried”. The questions will be:

1) Did boyfriend have right to introduce a gun (it wasn’t already in his hands/on his person)and bring it outside, for “trespassing”???

2) Did boyfriend have a legitimate reason to think ex-wife feared for her life or was about to get beaten, out there??

Trespassing is not a justification of legitimate use of deadly force.

Wife didn’t look that scared.

Watch first 5 seconds. Dad arguing with boyfriend. Then, boyfriend goes inside (not prevented by Dad) then COMES BACK OUTSIDE with gun he has retrieved.

Boyfriend was already in his “castle” (indoors), and took it upon himself to go outside to confront Dad about trespassing. Does the DOOR mark the line between “castle defense” and “escalation”??

We’ll see...

You're assuming that "castle" means inside the house...

Well, boyfriend had to go INSIDE, through a door WITH A LOCK, to retrieve his gun, then came back out, through the same door.

If a drunk is beating on your door at night, in an easily accessible residential neighborhood, do you open the door, go OUTSIDE, and shoot him??

I’m not trying to make a point, I’m asking??

He has a legal right to be anywhere he want's to be on his property.

He didn’t carry the gun on his “property” (at that moment), he retrieved and carried it to a VERBAL argument. I’ve got a right to have a firearm on my property, but do I have a right to pull it out and point it at someone for only trespassing/verbal argument, especially when they were there for a legal reason?

He wasn’t standing there with the gun at the START of the argument. He went to another area (behind a closed door) to retrieve it.

Not a verbal argument at all, he told the guy to get off his property. There is no argument after that. Once you are told to leave, even for trespassing (which you seem to not understand the implication of) if you don't leave you are the aggressor. It is true that you cannot just shoot someone you see across your pasture trespassing. If you confront the intruder and he does not leave the situation has changed to the trespasser being the aggressor. Wait for the Game Warden? Suppose he starts pushing you around and grabs your gun? I agree the incident should not have happened and it would not have if the trespasser had left when asked.

Originally Posted by ironbender

The mother should have just had the son there as the court ordered.

It almost seems like a setup.

Yep. Having someone there to video the whole thing makes it seem like they all knew something was gonna happen.

Originally Posted by rickt300

Not a verbal argument at all, he told the guy to get off his property. There is no argument after that. Once you are told to leave, even for trespassing (which you seem to not understand the implication of) if you don't leave you are the aggressor. It is true that you cannot just shoot someone you see across your pasture trespassing. If you confront the intruder and he does not leave the situation has changed to the trespasser being the aggressor. Wait for the Game Warden? Suppose he starts pushing you around and grabs your gun? I agree the incident should not have happened and it would not have if the trespasser had left when asked.

This man was picking up his son, where else was he supposed to go? He had to be at this place at this given time to retrieve his son.

Good lord.
Some of you guys and your logic are baffling.

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Intruders aren’t suppose to be there, this guy was, apparently.

He should have let those two handle their business and kept his big vajayjay in the house, unless it got physical.

So you didn't watch the videos? How was the guy supposed to "be there"? Especially after being told to leave? If my dogs sound off and I go check what is going on armed on my property and the trespassers refuse to leave are you saying I should go back inside and let them continue wandering around my house setting the dogs off? Wait for the Sheriff? That could take a while out here in the sticks. You do you. Be confronted and then go hide. Sounds about right.

He didn’t live there alone, his whore GF lived there too. That man’s business was with her and their sons. It was none of his business.

This was HER home too.

Funny post so they are supposed to take a vote on whether or not the guy can push the guy around in his own yard? You are pitiful. If as you say the mans business was with her and her sons he should have left and she could have met with him elsewhere. Suppose the woman was not with her ex because in the past he had been violent with her? He certainly exhibited aggressive behavior.

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Intruders aren’t suppose to be there, this guy was, apparently.

He should have let those two handle their business and kept his big vajayjay in the house, unless it got physical.

So you didn't watch the videos? How was the guy supposed to "be there"? Especially after being told to leave? If my dogs sound off and I go check what is going on armed on my property and the trespassers refuse to leave are you saying I should go back inside and let them continue wandering around my house setting the dogs off? Wait for the Sheriff? That could take a while out here in the sticks. You do you. Be confronted and then go hide. Sounds about right.

I’m certain, SB wouldn’t be running and hiding if the situation warranted force in any shape or form. The ex-husband was there, legally “initially” to pick up his kids @ 3:15PM ex-wife was playing BS games of hide the kids, and piss off the ex-husband.

Police were supposedly already called and coming - per one of the individuals taking the video. Cops usually don’t roll on civil matters unless they’re escalating to violence - IME

Sure, the ex-husband should have left the property and waited for the police. And, I’m not going to dispute you or anyone else on what Texas law allows for self defense.

I’m just saying the little man was a cûnt.

🦫

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Intruders aren’t suppose to be there, this guy was, apparently.

He should have let those two handle their business and kept his big vajayjay in the house, unless it got physical.

So you didn't watch the videos? How was the guy supposed to "be there"? Especially after being told to leave? If my dogs sound off and I go check what is going on armed on my property and the trespassers refuse to leave are you saying I should go back inside and let them continue wandering around my house setting the dogs off? Wait for the Sheriff? That could take a while out here in the sticks. You do you. Be confronted and then go hide. Sounds about right.

Exactly

3 million.

I think I saw you at the Cabelas gun counter yesterday practicing your quick draw with a kel tec to see if you were were going to buy it.

Hate to see trick or treaters trespass on your property on Halloween

Originally Posted by smokepole

Originally Posted by ironbender

The mother should have just had the son there as the court ordered.

It almost seems like a setup.

Yep. Having someone there to video the whole thing makes it seem like they all knew something was gonna happen.

Who ran video from inside? Dead dude’s ex-MIL?

That don’t pass the smell test.

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Intruders aren’t suppose to be there, this guy was, apparently.

He should have let those two handle their business and kept his big vajayjay in the house, unless it got physical.

So you didn't watch the videos? How was the guy supposed to "be there"? Especially after being told to leave? If my dogs sound off and I go check what is going on armed on my property and the trespassers refuse to leave are you saying I should go back inside and let them continue wandering around my house setting the dogs off? Wait for the Sheriff? That could take a while out here in the sticks. You do you. Be confronted and then go hide. Sounds about right.

He didn’t live there alone, his whore GF lived there too. That man’s business was with her and their sons. It was none of his business.

This was HER home too.

Funny post so they are supposed to take a vote on whether or not the guy can push the guy around in his own yard? You are pitiful. If as you say the mans business was with her and her sons he should have left and she could have met with him elsewhere. Suppose the woman was not with her ex because in the past he had been violent with her? He certainly exhibited aggressive behavior.

Violent past? You’re doing SWAG now.

Keep my kids from me and I’d be really pissed too.

Originally Posted by broomd

Originally Posted by rickt300

Not a verbal argument at all, he told the guy to get off his property. There is no argument after that. Once you are told to leave, even for trespassing (which you seem to not understand the implication of) if you don't leave you are the aggressor. It is true that you cannot just shoot someone you see across your pasture trespassing. If you confront the intruder and he does not leave the situation has changed to the trespasser being the aggressor. Wait for the Game Warden? Suppose he starts pushing you around and grabs your gun? I agree the incident should not have happened and it would not have if the trespasser had left when asked.

This man was picking up his son, where else was he supposed to go? He had to be at this place at this given time to retrieve his son.

Good lord.
Some of you guys and your logic are baffling.

Sure but once he was told the boy was not there he should have left and called the Sheriff or just gone to where he was told the boy was. 3:15 is an odd time of day to pick up a kid. Are you saying the guy had every right to push the other guy around?

That was really smart to shoot at the non aggressive guy's feet before he killed him. Really smart.

Is a warning shots deadly force in Texas and is it a felony?

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

Already looking at 2 felonies now

Not a verbal argument at all, he told the guy to get off his property. There is no argument after that. Once you are told to leave, even for trespassing (which you seem to not understand the implication of) if you don't leave you are the aggressor. It is true that you cannot just shoot someone you see across your pasture trespassing. If you confront the intruder and he does not leave the situation has changed to the trespasser being the aggressor. Wait for the Game Warden? Suppose he starts pushing you around and grabs your gun? I agree the incident should not have happened and it would not have if the trespasser had left when asked.
[/quote]

This man was picking up his son, where else was he supposed to go? He had to be at this place at this given time to retrieve his son.

Good lord.
Some of you guys and your logic are baffling. [/quote]

Sure but once he was told the boy was not there he should have left and called the Sheriff or just gone to where he was told the boy was. 3:15 is an odd time of day to pick up a kid. Are you saying the guy had every right to push the other guy around?[/quote]

Next time one of my wife’s friends come over, that I don’t like I’m gonna tell her to leave. She don’t? I’ll shoot that bitch.

This is my [bleep] house. 😆

Originally Posted by ribka

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Intruders aren’t suppose to be there, this guy was, apparently.

He should have let those two handle their business and kept his big vajayjay in the house, unless it got physical.

So you didn't watch the videos? How was the guy supposed to "be there"? Especially after being told to leave? If my dogs sound off and I go check what is going on armed on my property and the trespassers refuse to leave are you saying I should go back inside and let them continue wandering around my house setting the dogs off? Wait for the Sheriff? That could take a while out here in the sticks. You do you. Be confronted and then go hide. Sounds about right.

Exactly

3 million.

I think I saw you at the Cabelas gun counter yesterday practicing your quick draw with a kel tec to see if you were were going to buy it.

Hate to see trick or treaters trespass on your property on Halloween

Good lord you didn't see me at cabela's or anywhere else.

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Intruders aren’t suppose to be there, this guy was, apparently.

He should have let those two handle their business and kept his big vajayjay in the house, unless it got physical.

So you didn't watch the videos? How was the guy supposed to "be there"? Especially after being told to leave? If my dogs sound off and I go check what is going on armed on my property and the trespassers refuse to leave are you saying I should go back inside and let them continue wandering around my house setting the dogs off? Wait for the Sheriff? That could take a while out here in the sticks. You do you. Be confronted and then go hide. Sounds about right.

He didn’t live there alone, his whore GF lived there too. That man’s business was with her and their sons. It was none of his business.

This was HER home too.

Funny post so they are supposed to take a vote on whether or not the guy can push the guy around in his own yard? You are pitiful. If as you say the mans business was with her and her sons he should have left and she could have met with him elsewhere. Suppose the woman was not with her ex because in the past he had been violent with her? He certainly exhibited aggressive behavior.

Violent past? You’re doing SWAG now.

Keep my kids from me and I’d be really pissed too.

So why do you think the two were no longer married? Obviously the courts felt there was a reason for limited visitation. Are you sure he had no violent past? If the situation was that you were in the "boyfriends" shoes would you let the guy push you around in front of your woman? On your front porch? Do you think a physical fight in the front yard would have been a better idea? You would be all for gettin your @ss kicked in your own front yard?

[quote=ribka]That was really smart to shoot at the non aggressive guy's feet before he killed him. Really smart.

Non aggressive? Watch the video.

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Intruders aren’t suppose to be there, this guy was, apparently.

He should have let those two handle their business and kept his big vajayjay in the house, unless it got physical.

So you didn't watch the videos? How was the guy supposed to "be there"? Especially after being told to leave? If my dogs sound off and I go check what is going on armed on my property and the trespassers refuse to leave are you saying I should go back inside and let them continue wandering around my house setting the dogs off? Wait for the Sheriff? That could take a while out here in the sticks. You do you. Be confronted and then go hide. Sounds about right.

He didn’t live there alone, his whore GF lived there too. That man’s business was with her and their sons. It was none of his business.

This was HER home too.

Funny post so they are supposed to take a vote on whether or not the guy can push the guy around in his own yard? You are pitiful. If as you say the mans business was with her and her sons he should have left and she could have met with him elsewhere. Suppose the woman was not with her ex because in the past he had been violent with her? He certainly exhibited aggressive behavior.

Violent past? You’re doing SWAG now.

Keep my kids from me and I’d be really pissed too.

So why do you think the two were no longer married? Obviously the courts felt there was a reason for limited visitation. Are you sure he had no violent past? If the situation was that you were in the "boyfriends" shoes would you let the guy push you around in front of your woman? On your front porch? Do you think a physical fight in the front yard would have been a better idea? You would be all for gettin your @ss kicked in your own front yard?

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Intruders aren’t suppose to be there, this guy was, apparently.

He should have let those two handle their business and kept his big vajayjay in the house, unless it got physical.

So you didn't watch the videos? How was the guy supposed to "be there"? Especially after being told to leave? If my dogs sound off and I go check what is going on armed on my property and the trespassers refuse to leave are you saying I should go back inside and let them continue wandering around my house setting the dogs off? Wait for the Sheriff? That could take a while out here in the sticks. You do you. Be confronted and then go hide. Sounds about right.

He didn’t live there alone, his whore GF lived there too. That man’s business was with her and their sons. It was none of his business.

This was HER home too.

Funny post so they are supposed to take a vote on whether or not the guy can push the guy around in his own yard? You are pitiful. If as you say the mans business was with her and her sons he should have left and she could have met with him elsewhere. Suppose the woman was not with her ex because in the past he had been violent with her? He certainly exhibited aggressive behavior.

Violent past? You’re doing SWAG now.

Keep my kids from me and I’d be really pissed too.

So why do you think the two were no longer married? Obviously the courts felt there was a reason for limited visitation. Are you sure he had no violent past? If the situation was that you were in the "boyfriends" shoes would you let the guy push you around in front of your woman? On your front porch? Do you think a physical fight in the front yard would have been a better idea? You would be all for gettin your @ss kicked in your own front yard?

I think if he had a violent past it would be in that article, or at least one article. If it was very violent he might not have had visitation at all. Most dads get screwed on visitation, you should know that.

But to answer your other question, I wouldn’t be with a skank that screwed her kids daddy out of his time with his boys. Little man is a double jay jay for condoning it.

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Next time one of my wife’s friends come over, that I don’t like I’m gonna tell her to leave. She don’t? I’ll shoot that bitch.

This is my [bleep] house. 😆

Well if he/she is bigger than you and pushing you around maybe you should cowboy up and tell him to leave. Or take the @sswhipping. You choose.

Legally speaking Its always smart to initiate physical confrontation and immediately escalate the situation to physical violence and eventually deadly force when you could have just simply walked away.

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Intruders aren’t suppose to be there, this guy was, apparently.

He should have let those two handle their business and kept his big vajayjay in the house, unless it got physical.

So you didn't watch the videos? How was the guy supposed to "be there"? Especially after being told to leave? If my dogs sound off and I go check what is going on armed on my property and the trespassers refuse to leave are you saying I should go back inside and let them continue wandering around my house setting the dogs off? Wait for the Sheriff? That could take a while out here in the sticks. You do you. Be confronted and then go hide. Sounds about right.

He didn’t live there alone, his whore GF lived there too. That man’s business was with her and their sons. It was none of his business.

This was HER home too.

Funny post so they are supposed to take a vote on whether or not the guy can push the guy around in his own yard? You are pitiful. If as you say the mans business was with her and her sons he should have left and she could have met with him elsewhere. Suppose the woman was not with her ex because in the past he had been violent with her? He certainly exhibited aggressive behavior.

Violent past? You’re doing SWAG now.

Keep my kids from me and I’d be really pissed too.

So why do you think the two were no longer married? Obviously the courts felt there was a reason for limited visitation. Are you sure he had no violent past? If the situation was that you were in the "boyfriends" shoes would you let the guy push you around in front of your woman? On your front porch? Do you think a physical fight in the front yard would have been a better idea? You would be all for gettin your @ss kicked in your own front yard?

I think if he had a violent past it would be in that article, or at least one article. If it was very violent he might not have had visitation at all. Most dads get screwed on visitation, you should know that.

But to answer your other question, I wouldn’t be with a skank that screwed her kids daddy out of his time with his boys. Little man is a double jay jay for condoning it.

The circumstances of the Skank thing are not clear. Still I am not letting anyone push me around on my own porch. As for the violent past thing being in the article typically the deceased gets a bit of leeway since he is deceased. Could be the newspaper feels like you do, that no one has the right to say who is on their property.

I don't read anything written by the Washington Post.

Originally Posted by victoro

I don't read anything written by the Washington Post.

It’s the New York post.

Originally Posted by ribka

Legally speaking Its always smart to initiate physical confrontation and immediately escalate the situation to physical violence and eventually deadly force when you could have just simply walked away.

Why would the "boyfriend" have to walk away, he was on his own property. Why couldn't the ex walk away? Did he have to commit suicide?

Originally Posted by broomd

Originally Posted by rickt300

Not a verbal argument at all, he told the guy to get off his property. There is no argument after that. Once you are told to leave, even for trespassing (which you seem to not understand the implication of) if you don't leave you are the aggressor. It is true that you cannot just shoot someone you see across your pasture trespassing. If you confront the intruder and he does not leave the situation has changed to the trespasser being the aggressor. Wait for the Game Warden? Suppose he starts pushing you around and grabs your gun? I agree the incident should not have happened and it would not have if the trespasser had left when asked.

This man was picking up his son, where else was he supposed to go? He had to be at this place at this given time to retrieve his son.

Good lord. His was not there.
Some of you guys and your logic are baffling.

His son was not there. He should left and picked him up at his ex's mother's house, where the son was at.

Watched the video but have not read the over 200 posts. A man on his own property has a right to arm himself at any time and in this case a hostile visitor was present and refusing to leave. When a struggle over a single firearm or knife happens both parties are considered armed. I was taught to retain possession of my weapon at all costs. The same right to defend a weapon goes with a private citizen as well as law enforcement. Did the homeowner/boyfriend have the right to arm himself? I would say yes. Did the visitor have the right to be there? I would say no. Were they both armed? I would say yes in that the visitor was angry and appeared stronger and actively tried to take possession of the weapon.

I sure hope that pu**y is really good because it sure has caused a lot of trouble.

The most remarkable thing to me about this video, is how clearly it illustrates that you can be here one minute and gone the next. What ever happens going forward, the big guy is dead forever.

Originally Posted by rockinbbar

There were many mistakes that lead to that guy's death.

He should have left when told to.

Gun should have been left in the house, and the police called.

Never fire a warning shot.

When someone has a gun and tells you to leave their property... Leave. Don't assault the gun guy and try to get the gun away from him.

I'm pretty sure the grand jury will true bill the shooter, depending on the DA's recommendation.

Yep. Lots of mistakes by both.

Dumbass # 1 should have stayed in the house. And shouldn’t have bought out his gun. And never should have fired a warning shot. That’s not legal. And bringing a gun into an argument was more stupidity. He should have called the cops.

Dumbass # 2 should have left when told to leave. And never should have tried to take the gun. And should’ve called the Cops.

Results: Dumbass # 1 will be charged with some degree of Homicide after the Grand Jury convenes.

Dumbass # 2 is Dead. He should have walked away and called the Cops.

You can’t shoot someone for Trespass in TX. Or being an asswhole. Both dumbasses lost here. One lost his life. The other is about to lose his freedom.

Little guy won the battle but will he win the war and will it be worth the cost?

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by broomd

Originally Posted by rickt300

Not a verbal argument at all, he told the guy to get off his property. There is no argument after that. Once you are told to leave, even for trespassing (which you seem to not understand the implication of) if you don't leave you are the aggressor. It is true that you cannot just shoot someone you see across your pasture trespassing. If you confront the intruder and he does not leave the situation has changed to the trespasser being the aggressor. Wait for the Game Warden? Suppose he starts pushing you around and grabs your gun? I agree the incident should not have happened and it would not have if the trespasser had left when asked.

This man was picking up his son, where else was he supposed to go? He had to be at this place at this given time to retrieve his son.

Good lord.
Some of you guys and your logic are baffling.

Sure but once he was told the boy was not there he should have left and called the Sheriff or just gone to where he was told the boy was. 3:15 is an odd time of day to pick up a kid. Are you saying the guy had every right to push the other guy around?

He hooked up with a woman who had baggage. He knew it . He knew to mind his own business. If he didnt think ex's would argue over their kids he is an idiot.

Originally Posted by BeanMan

Little guy won the battle but will he win the war and will it be worth the cost?

She'll leave him when he is in prison and broke from the legal fees.

Two men's lives ruined and the woman will walk away Scott free with no responsibility.

I think there is a lesson here to be learned.

Originally Posted by chlinstructor

Originally Posted by rockinbbar

There were many mistakes that lead to that guy's death.

He should have left when told to.

Gun should have been left in the house, and the police called.

Never fire a warning shot.

When someone has a gun and tells you to leave their property... Leave. Don't assault the gun guy and try to get the gun away from him.

I'm pretty sure the grand jury will true bill the shooter, depending on the DA's recommendation.

Yep. Lots of mistakes by both.

Dumbass # 1 should have stayed in the house. And shouldn’t have bought out his gun. And never should have fired a warning shot. That’s not legal. And bringing a gun into an argument was more stupidity. He should have called the cops.

Dumbass # 2 should have left when told to leave. And never should have tried to take the gun. And should’ve called the Cops.

Results: Dumbass # 1 will be charged with some degree of Homicide after the Grand Jury convenes.

Dumbass # 2 is Dead. He should have walked away and called the Cops.

You can’t shoot someone for Trespass in TX. Or being an asswhole. Both dumbasses lost here. One lost his life. The other is about to lose his freedom.

He wasn't shot for trespass or being an asswhole. He was shot because the other man was afraid of him. Probably thought the man was going to take away that loaded firearm. He might have done well to go inside and let those two argue it out. You can get into a lot of crap trying to take up for a woman when she ain't worth it.

Originally Posted by chlinstructor

Originally Posted by rockinbbar

There were many mistakes that lead to that guy's death.

He should have left when told to.

Gun should have been left in the house, and the police called.

Never fire a warning shot.

When someone has a gun and tells you to leave their property... Leave. Don't assault the gun guy and try to get the gun away from him.

I'm pretty sure the grand jury will true bill the shooter, depending on the DA's recommendation.

Yep. Lots of mistakes by both.

Dumbass # 1 should have stayed in the house. And shouldn’t have bought out his gun. And never should have fired a warning shot. That’s not legal. And bringing a gun into an argument was more stupidity. He should have called the cops.

Dumbass # 2 should have left when told to leave. And never should have tried to take the gun. And should’ve called the Cops.

Results: Dumbass # 1 will be charged with some degree of Homicide after the Grand Jury convenes.

Dumbass # 2 is Dead. He should have walked away and called the Cops.

You can’t shoot someone for Trespass in TX. Or being an asswhole. Both dumbasses lost here. One lost his life. The other is about to lose his freedom.

Pretty easy to see how this will go.
Despite Rambo Prosecuters and Defense lawyers here.

The prosecuted will likely ask the grand jury to indict.
They will.
And it's anybody's GUESS, how a jury will interpret the
dumphuckery both guys displayed.

It's not what I would have done, but I'm going to say that the dead guy not leaving when told to leave and becoming physical might be enough to keep the not smart guy out of prison.

There could be a LOT more to the story than what we see in a short video clip that could easily change my opinion.

Originally Posted by jdm953

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by broomd

Originally Posted by rickt300

Not a verbal argument at all, he told the guy to get off his property. There is no argument after that. Once you are told to leave, even for trespassing (which you seem to not understand the implication of) if you don't leave you are the aggressor. It is true that you cannot just shoot someone you see across your pasture trespassing. If you confront the intruder and he does not leave the situation has changed to the trespasser being the aggressor. Wait for the Game Warden? Suppose he starts pushing you around and grabs your gun? I agree the incident should not have happened and it would not have if the trespasser had left when asked.

This man was picking up his son, where else was he supposed to go? He had to be at this place at this given time to retrieve his son.

Good lord.
Some of you guys and your logic are baffling.

Sure but once he was told the boy was not there he should have left and called the Sheriff or just gone to where he was told the boy was. 3:15 is an odd time of day to pick up a kid. Are you saying the guy had every right to push the other guy around?

He hooked up with a woman who had baggage. He knew it . He knew to mind his own business. If he didnt think ex's would argue over their kids he is an idiot.

But did he feel the ex had a right to push him around on his own porch? He was actually minding his own business and property. He told the guy to leave and he did not. Would you go hide? How do you know the ex wouldn't go into the house?

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 isn’t going to convict based on that video.

Originally Posted by JeffP

Originally Posted by deflave

Originally Posted by antlers

What the family court system has systematically and by design done to this country is probably the worst thing that has ever been done to the people of this country.

And nobody ever wants to talk about fixing it.

Love your wife, stay at home, make it work. Like millions of families do.

If your mom keeps sucking my dick, should your dad make it work?

LOL

I’m sure he’ll walk, he’s still a huge vagina.

Dead man was stupid, but he wasn’t a vagina.

Originally Posted by goalie

It's not what I would have done, but I'm going to say that the dead guy not leaving when told to leave and becoming physical might be enough to keep the not smart guy out of prison.

There could be a LOT more to the story than what we see in a short video clip that could easily change my opinion.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by SandBilly

I’m sure he’ll walk, he’s still a huge vagina.

Dead man was stupid, but he wasn’t a vagina.

So you side with stupid. Stupid gets people killed every year. You are a pussy.

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by SandBilly

I’m sure he’ll walk, he’s still a huge vagina.

Dead man was stupid, but he wasn’t a vagina.

So you side with stupid. Stupid gets people killed every year. You are a pussy.

🤣 settle down Karen, you ain’t dead yet.

Originally Posted by Hastings

Originally Posted by chlinstructor

Originally Posted by rockinbbar

There were many mistakes that lead to that guy's death.

He should have left when told to.

Gun should have been left in the house, and the police called.

Never fire a warning shot.

When someone has a gun and tells you to leave their property... Leave. Don't assault the gun guy and try to get the gun away from him.

I'm pretty sure the grand jury will true bill the shooter, depending on the DA's recommendation.

Yep. Lots of mistakes by both.

Dumbass # 1 should have stayed in the house. And shouldn’t have bought out his gun. And never should have fired a warning shot. That’s not legal. And bringing a gun into an argument was more stupidity. He should have called the cops.

Dumbass # 2 should have left when told to leave. And never should have tried to take the gun. And should’ve called the Cops.

Results: Dumbass # 1 will be charged with some degree of Homicide after the Grand Jury convenes.

Dumbass # 2 is Dead. He should have walked away and called the Cops.

You can’t shoot someone for Trespass in TX. Or being an asswhole. Both dumbasses lost here. One lost his life. The other is about to lose his freedom.

He wasn't shot for trespass or being an asswhole. He was shot because the other man was afraid of him. Probably thought the man was going to take away that loaded firearm. He might have done well to go inside and let those two argue it out. You can get into a lot of crap trying to take up for a woman when she ain't worth it.

Yep. Most women aren’t worth it.

When dumbasses collide! 😬

Originally Posted by goalie

It's not what I would have done, but I'm going to say that the dead guy not leaving when told to leave and becoming physical might be enough to keep the not smart guy out of prison.

There could be a LOT more to the story than what we see in a short video clip that could easily change my opinion.

Manslaughter is a thing. When little man capped at that dudes feet, it was negligent at the very least. He will face charges and likely do some time. Most of us here believe in castle type laws, but little dude escalated this situation to death.

I can't see Governor Abbott and TX AG letting this completely slide.

Originally Posted by deflave

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 isn’t going to convict based on that video.

He’ll be charged. He fuqked up when he went and retrieved his weapon during a verbal argument. He became the aggressor at that point.
”Section 2 of Texas Penal Code 9:31 Use of Deadly Force”
“2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; “

Luckily for the little Asswhole, he’ll have to face a Lubbock Jury and not one in Dallas or Austin.

My guess is hell be charged and tried, but found Not Guilty.

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by jdm953

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by broomd

Originally Posted by rickt300

Not a verbal argument at all, he told the guy to get off his property. There is no argument after that. Once you are told to leave, even for trespassing (which you seem to not understand the implication of) if you don't leave you are the aggressor. It is true that you cannot just shoot someone you see across your pasture trespassing. If you confront the intruder and he does not leave the situation has changed to the trespasser being the aggressor. Wait for the Game Warden? Suppose he starts pushing you around and grabs your gun? I agree the incident should not have happened and it would not have if the trespasser had left when asked.

This man was picking up his son, where else was he supposed to go? He had to be at this place at this given time to retrieve his son.

Good lord.
Some of you guys and your logic are baffling.

Sure but once he was told the boy was not there he should have left and called the Sheriff or just gone to where he was told the boy was. 3:15 is an odd time of day to pick up a kid. Are you saying the guy had every right to push the other guy around?

He hooked up with a woman who had baggage. He knew it . He knew to mind his own business. If he didnt think ex's would argue over their kids he is an idiot.

But did he feel the ex had a right to push him around on his own porch? He was actually minding his own business and property. He told the guy to leave and he did not. Would you go hide? How do you know the ex wouldn't go into the house?

He should have kicked back and enjoyed the show. This was between the ex's and about their son. It was none of his business. You dont get involved in parents arguments over their children. Ever.

Originally Posted by chlinstructor

Originally Posted by deflave

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 isn’t going to convict based on that video.

He’ll be charged. He fuqked up when he went and retrieved his weapon during a verbal argument. He became the aggressor at that point.
Luckily for the little Asswhole, he’ll have to face a Lubbock Jury and not one in Dallas or Austin.

My guess is hell be charged and tried, but found Not Guilty.

He told the guy to leave his property.

When he didn't leave, the property owner armed himself.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Well, other than he should have been armed from the start. 😉

Interesting case. Dad grabbed the little guy, and threw him off of his own porch. Plus threatened to take the gun away, plus Dad was much bigger.

Texas.

I say the little guy walks.

Originally Posted by deflave

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 isn’t 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.

Originally Posted by deflave

Originally Posted by JeffP

Originally Posted by deflave

Originally Posted by antlers

What the family court system has systematically and by design done to this country is probably the worst thing that has ever been done to the people of this country.

And nobody ever wants to talk about fixing it.

Love your wife, stay at home, make it work. Like millions of families do.

If your mom keeps sucking my dick, should your dad make it work?

LOL

Never would have happened
But dad’s Should make better picks....

Originally Posted by deflave

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 isn’t going to convict based on that video.

Spot on.

Originally Posted by Cheyenne

Originally Posted by deflave

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 isn’t 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.

That’s exactly where he fuqked up. You can’t point a gun at someone over verbal argument.
Like I mentioned in my above post, he became the Aggressor at that point.
And that’s gonna come back and bite him in the ass.

Originally Posted by ironbender

Originally Posted by smokepole

Originally Posted by ironbender

The mother should have just had the son there as the court ordered.

It almost seems like a setup.

Yep. Having someone there to video the whole thing makes it seem like they all knew something was gonna happen.

Who ran video from inside? Dead dude’s ex-MIL?

I'm pretty sure it was jag. Coincidence??

Originally Posted by smokepole

Originally Posted by ironbender

Originally Posted by smokepole

Originally Posted by ironbender

The mother should have just had the son there as the court ordered.

It almost seems like a setup.

Yep. Having someone there to video the whole thing makes it seem like they all knew something was gonna happen.

Who ran video from inside? Dead dude’s ex-MIL?

I'm pretty sure it was jag. Coincidence??

😂🦫

Originally Posted by Cheyenne

Originally Posted by deflave

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 isn’t 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.

Years ago I was living in Wyoming. There was a Truck stop between Green River and Rocks Springs where a young man and his mothers boyfriend had a shoot out. Kid won and was not charged. Argument was over the man beating the young guys mother. Once you tell someone to leave your property no matter what if they do not leave they are the aggressor. None of us know what kind of man the dead guy was before his timely death.

Originally Posted by JeffP

Should have made a better pick....

That's incredibly insightful.

Thanks for contributing today.

LOL

Originally Posted by deflave

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 isn’t going to convict based on that video.

Exactly

Originally Posted by goalie

Originally Posted by chlinstructor

Originally Posted by deflave

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 isn’t going to convict based on that video.

He’ll be charged. He fuqked up when he went and retrieved his weapon during a verbal argument. He became the aggressor at that point.
Luckily for the little Asswhole, he’ll have to face a Lubbock Jury and not one in Dallas or Austin.

My guess is hell be charged and tried, but found Not Guilty.

He told the guy to leave his property.

When he didn't leave, the property owner armed himself.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Well, other than he should have been armed from the start. 😉

He’d of stood a much better chance of not being charged if he had already had the gun on his person, as in having a handgun on his hip for open carry.
Which would have been perfectly legal under the TX Constitutional Carry Law.
He fuqked up by retrieving the rifle during a verbal argument, and became the aggressor at that point.

Originally Posted by chlinstructor

Originally Posted by Cheyenne

Originally Posted by deflave

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 isn’t 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.

That’s exactly where he fuqked up. You can’t point a gun at someone over verbal argument.
Like I mentioned in my above post, he became the Aggressor at that point.
And that’s 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.

Did I hear correctly that the dead ex-husband was saying something about how he was going to expose the affair to the wifey-Judge, between pussy boy and his whore?.....Then he get’s shot?

Couldn’t that be spun into a motive to shoot him by the prosecutor?

Thinking like the mind of Kenosha ADA Thomas Binger.

LOL

🦫

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by Cheyenne

Originally Posted by deflave

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 isn’t 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.

Years ago I was living in Wyoming. There was a Truck stop between Green River and Rocks Springs where a young man and his mothers boyfriend had a shoot out. Kid won and was not charged. Argument was over the man beating the young guys mother. Once you tell someone to leave your property no matter what if they do not leave they are the aggressor. None of us know what kind of man the dead guy was before his timely death.

Dead guy was clearly the aggressor, the home owner allowed the aggressor to advance right face to face which is too close, and that is what allowed the aggressor to attempt to take the weapon.

Shooter walks

Originally Posted by JeffP

Originally Posted by deflave

Originally Posted by JeffP

Originally Posted by deflave

Originally Posted by antlers

What the family court system has systematically and by design done to this country is probably the worst thing that has ever been done to the people of this country.

And nobody ever wants to talk about fixing it.

Love your wife, stay at home, make it work. Like millions of families do.

If your mom keeps sucking my dick, should your dad make it work?

LOL

Never would have happened
But dad’s Should make better picks....

So why are we knocking the woman? There could be several good reasons the boy was not at the boyfriends house. And several very good reasons the parents were divorced and not the fault of the woman. Odd too that the father threw a fit instantly when he found the boy was not there. Temper issues?

Originally Posted by deflave

Originally Posted by JeffP

Should have made a better pick....

That's incredibly insightful.

Thanks for contributing today.

LOL

I see you left out never happened

Originally Posted by smokepole

Originally Posted by ironbender

Originally Posted by smokepole

Originally Posted by ironbender

The mother should have just had the son there as the court ordered.

It almost seems like a setup.

Yep. Having someone there to video the whole thing makes it seem like they all knew something was gonna happen.

Who ran video from inside? Dead dude’s ex-MIL?

I'm pretty sure it was jag. Coincidence??

The dead guy's current wife shot the video from inside the car, she's the one who released the video.

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by chlinstructor

Originally Posted by Cheyenne

Originally Posted by deflave

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 isn’t 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.

That’s exactly where he fuqked up. You can’t point a gun at someone over verbal argument.
Like I mentioned in my above post, he became the Aggressor at that point.
And that’s 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. There’s 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 can’t threaten someone with Deadly Force unless the Justification For Deadly Force has been Met.
You can’t 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.

Originally Posted by JeffP

Originally Posted by deflave

Originally Posted by JeffP

Should have made a better pick....

That's incredibly insightful.

Thanks for contributing today.

LOL

I see you left out never happened

Please reduce the RPM on your intellect engine.

She gonna blow.

LOL

Originally Posted by chlinstructor

Originally Posted by deflave

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 isn’t going to convict based on that video.

He’ll be charged. He fuqked up when he went and retrieved his weapon during a verbal argument. He became the aggressor at that point.
”Section 2 of Texas Penal Code 9:31 Use of Deadly Force”
“2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; “

Mmm, no.

If he''s charged it will be due to public outcry and unknown political motivations.

At that point he had every right to arm himself.

Originally Posted by deflave

Originally Posted by JeffP

Originally Posted by deflave

Originally Posted by JeffP

Should have made a better pick....

That's incredibly insightful.

Thanks for contributing today.

LOL

I see you left out never happened

Please reduce the RPM on your intellect engine.

She gonna blow.

LOL

Sure ....
beaver Mensa award for you

Originally Posted by chlinstructor

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by chlinstructor

Originally Posted by Cheyenne

Originally Posted by deflave

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 isn’t 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.

That’s exactly where he fuqked up. You can’t point a gun at someone over verbal argument.
Like I mentioned in my above post, he became the Aggressor at that point.
And that’s 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. There’s 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 can’t threaten someone with Deadly Force unless the Justification For Deadly Force has been Met.
You can’t 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.

That’s when it escalated, when he brought the gun. Guy never touched him before that.

Originally Posted by Cheyenne

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.

You must have better eyes or be watching a different video than I watched.

Originally Posted by chlinstructor

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by chlinstructor

Originally Posted by Cheyenne

Originally Posted by deflave

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 isn’t 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.

That’s exactly where he fuqked up. You can’t point a gun at someone over verbal argument.
Like I mentioned in my above post, he became the Aggressor at that point.
And that’s 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. There’s 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 can’t threaten someone with Deadly Force unless the Justification For Deadly Force has been Met.
You can’t 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.

Even on your own porch? How do you know the dead guys intentions? It may go in front of a jury but he will walk. Lubbock after all. I think the deceased went beyond mere trespassing. The dead guy made a terroristic threat and actually pushed the issue. He was stupid and it got him killed. Hopefully his stupid doesn't get the other guy prison time.

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by chlinstructor

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by chlinstructor

Originally Posted by Cheyenne

Originally Posted by deflave

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 isn’t 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.

That’s exactly where he fuqked up. You can’t point a gun at someone over verbal argument.
Like I mentioned in my above post, he became the Aggressor at that point.
And that’s 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. There’s 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 can’t threaten someone with Deadly Force unless the Justification For Deadly Force has been Met.
You can’t 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.

That’s when it escalated, when he brought the gun. Guy never touched him before that.

So you did not watch the video.

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by chlinstructor

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by chlinstructor

Originally Posted by Cheyenne

Originally Posted by deflave

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 isn’t 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.

That’s exactly where he fuqked up. You can’t point a gun at someone over verbal argument.
Like I mentioned in my above post, he became the Aggressor at that point.
And that’s 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. There’s 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 can’t threaten someone with Deadly Force unless the Justification For Deadly Force has been Met.
You can’t 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.

That’s when it escalated, when he brought the gun. Guy never touched him before that.

If he would not have touched him after he'd still be alive

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by chlinstructor

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by chlinstructor

Originally Posted by Cheyenne

Originally Posted by deflave

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 isn’t 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.

That’s exactly where he fuqked up. You can’t point a gun at someone over verbal argument.
Like I mentioned in my above post, he became the Aggressor at that point.
And that’s 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. There’s 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 can’t threaten someone with Deadly Force unless the Justification For Deadly Force has been Met.
You can’t 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.

Even on your own porch? How do you know the dead guys intentions? It may go in front of a jury but he will walk. Lubbock after all. I think the deceased went beyond mere trespassing. The dead guy made a terroristic threat and actually pushed the issue. He was stupid and it got him killed. Hopefully his stupid doesn't get the other guy prison time.

Like I mentioned before, he’ll probably walk because of a mostly Conservative West TX Jury in Lubbock.
Had it occurred in Austin or Dallas, he’d be screwed.

Originally Posted by Cheyenne

This isn't about the court system. This is about adults failing to act responsibly in the best interest of their children. Lawyers, cops and courts can't fix that, although lawyers and cops get a lot of calls about these incidents.

That is absolutely not true.

Family courts sign documents ensuring parental rights with zero recourse if they are not followed.

It causes untold amounts of death and violence in this country every day and nobody wants to fix it.

If that mom standing there casually smoking her cigarette knew that she was going to face a night in jail, $10K fine, and all associated legal fees, that kid would have been there at 3:15 like he was supposed to be, and there would have been no confrontation.

I can’t help but laugh at the little guy. Once he had a firearm he got a false sense of being a tough guy. He was able to muster a cowards courage and get all puffed up. He should get some prison time and a little rectal stretching as well as some prison tats to show what a badass he is.

Originally Posted by deflave

Originally Posted by Cheyenne

This isn't about the court system. This is about adults failing to act responsibly in the best interest of their children. Lawyers, cops and courts can't fix that, although lawyers and cops get a lot of calls about these incidents.

That is absolutely not true.

Family courts sign documents ensuring parental rights with zero recourse if they are not followed.

It causes untold amounts of death and violence in this country every day and nobody wants to fix it.

If that mom standing there casually smoking her cigarette knew that she was going to face a night in jail, $10K fine, and all associated legal fees, that kid would have been there at 3:15 like he was supposed to be, and there would have been no confrontation.

Seems stupid that the boy was to be picked up at the boyfriends house.

Originally Posted by deflave

Originally Posted by Cheyenne

This isn't about the court system. This is about adults failing to act responsibly in the best interest of their children. Lawyers, cops and courts can't fix that, although lawyers and cops get a lot of calls about these incidents.

That is absolutely not true.

Family courts sign documents ensuring parental rights with zero recourse if they are not followed.

It causes untold amounts of death and violence in this country every day and nobody wants to fix it.

If that mom standing there casually smoking her cigarette knew that she was going to face a night in jail, $10K fine, and all associated legal fees, that kid would have been there at 3:15 like he was supposed to be, and there would have been no confrontation.

But nothing of consequence ever happens for not having the children ready at the appointed time or location

Originally Posted by rickt300

None of us know what kind of man the dead guy was before his timely death.

I do know that nobody seemed too surprised when he got deaded.......

......or seemed to care.

That's a "hint"

Hey what was the case that involved the ex-boyfriend or husband shooting his ol' lady in the driveway because it was night time?

He was fully acquitted.

LOL

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by chlinstructor

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by chlinstructor

Originally Posted by Cheyenne

Originally Posted by deflave

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 isn’t 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.

That’s exactly where he fuqked up. You can’t point a gun at someone over verbal argument.
Like I mentioned in my above post, he became the Aggressor at that point.
And that’s 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. There’s 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 can’t threaten someone with Deadly Force unless the Justification For Deadly Force has been Met.
You can’t 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.

That’s when it escalated, when he brought the gun. Guy never touched him before that.

So you did not watch the video.

He didn’t touch the guy until he brought out the gun.

Did you?

Originally Posted by AcesNeights

I can’t help but laugh at the little guy. Once he had a firearm he got a false sense of being a tough guy. He was able to muster a cowards courage and get all puffed up. He should get some prison time and a little rectal stretching as well as some prison tats to show what a badass he is.

Possibly he thought the dead guy would leave. I wouldn't have shot the idiot once I got clear of him unless he made another wrong move. Little guy could have been scared which doesn't make him a coward. I don't see any prison time for him but he sure ought to ditch the bitch.

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by chlinstructor

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by chlinstructor

Originally Posted by Cheyenne

Originally Posted by deflave

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 isn’t 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.

That’s exactly where he fuqked up. You can’t point a gun at someone over verbal argument.
Like I mentioned in my above post, he became the Aggressor at that point.
And that’s 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. There’s 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 can’t threaten someone with Deadly Force unless the Justification For Deadly Force has been Met.
You can’t 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.

That’s when it escalated, when he brought the gun. Guy never touched him before that.

So you did not watch the video.

He didn’t touch the guy until he brought out the gun.

Did you?

Not a smart move git him dead and home owner walks

The shooter's ex wife is a District judge, their divorce was finalized two weeks after the shooting.

https://www.lubbockonline.com/story...ock-judge-case-investigation/8765295002/

Quote

Lubbock County District Attorney Sunshine Stanek filed a motion with the AG's office recusing her office from the case, stating the "suspect is related to a Lubbock County elected official, who is also a potential witness."

Quote

Court filings show that the couple married in September 2009. They separated in July 2021 and Kyle Carruth filed for divorce in September. Their divorce was finalized two weeks after the shooting.

The affidavit, filed on Nov. 8, was filed as part of Anne-Marie Carruth's counter suit in the couple's divorce. According to the counter petition, Anne-Marie, a district court judge, was asking the court to exclude her ex-husband from their 9th Street home.

Gov. Greg Abbott appointed Anne-Marie Carruth judge of the 72nd Judicial District Court in Crosby and Lubbock Counties in January 2021 to take over the seat for a term set to expire at the end of 2022.

She stated in the affidavit that she hadn't spoken to Kyle about the shooting but said she was "very concerned about his mental state."

Kids are screwed up for life for sure ! Especially if mom has been feeding them bs and getting them to turn on dad. They might be ok while they’re too young to understand but when they’re old enough to really appreciate what happened they’ll come apart.

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by chlinstructor

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by chlinstructor

Originally Posted by Cheyenne

Originally Posted by deflave

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 isn’t 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.

That’s exactly where he fuqked up. You can’t point a gun at someone over verbal argument.
Like I mentioned in my above post, he became the Aggressor at that point.
And that’s 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. There’s 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 can’t threaten someone with Deadly Force unless the Justification For Deadly Force has been Met.
You can’t 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.

That’s when it escalated, when he brought the gun. Guy never touched him before that.

So you did not watch the video.

He didn’t touch the guy until he brought out the gun.

Did you?

Yep. Like I said. The dumbass brought a gun to a verbal argument. He became the Aggressor at that point.
Had he not been shot dead, local cops would have charged the dumbass with the gun with “terroristic threat with a Firearm if the guy without the gun had just walked away.

Originally Posted by chlinstructor

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by chlinstructor

Originally Posted by Cheyenne

Originally Posted by deflave

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 isn’t 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.

That’s exactly where he fuqked up. You can’t point a gun at someone over verbal argument.
Like I mentioned in my above post, he became the Aggressor at that point.
And that’s 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. There’s 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 can’t threaten someone with Deadly Force unless the Justification For Deadly Force has been Met.
You can’t 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 “trespassing” is not enough to justify the gun, doesn’t matter what some of you guys think, that’s the LAW. His only “justification” 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 hadn’t come BACK outside with the gun. He was SAFE inside the house, and ESCALATED the situation when he came back out.

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.

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by SandBilly

Originally Posted by chlinstructor

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by chlinstructor

Originally Posted by Cheyenne

Originally Posted by deflave

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 isn’t 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.

That’s exactly where he fuqked up. You can’t point a gun at someone over verbal argument.
Like I mentioned in my above post, he became the Aggressor at that point.
And that’s 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. There’s 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 can’t threaten someone with Deadly Force unless the Justification For Deadly Force has been Met.
You can’t 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.

That’s when it escalated, when he brought the gun. Guy never touched him before that.

So you did not watch the video.

He didn’t touch the guy until he brought out the gun.

Did you?

It escalated when the dead guy didn't leave. It escalated when the dead guy pushed the live guy and grabbed for the gun. Do you make a habit of grabbing at guns in other peoples hands? The gun was not what caused the escalation. The point was not that the guy hadn't touched him before he brought the gun out but the point where the incident "escalated". Be interesting to know if the deceased was on drugs because making life ending decisions like that does not make sense.

Originally Posted by goalie

Originally Posted by rickt300

None of us know what kind of man the dead guy was before his timely death.

I do know that nobody seemed too surprised when he got deaded.......

......or seemed to care.

That's a "hint"

The calmness of the women was odd.

Originally Posted by goalie

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.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...custody-confrontation-front-porch-video/

I believe it was a 'double-tap'.......

I also believe that the little guy made a mistake letting someone that out weighs you by a 100+#'s get that close, weapon or not..........

Hard to say much about all the personalities 'behind the scene'.......... A lot are blaming the mother, ex-wife, could be dead guy was a class A prick........ None of US know those things. We do know that he was BOLD!!! And while not all BOLD guys are pricks, most pricks are BOLD!!!

Originally Posted by jdm953

Originally Posted by goalie

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..................

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Originally Posted by chlinstructor

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by chlinstructor

Originally Posted by Cheyenne

Originally Posted by deflave

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 isn’t 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.

That’s exactly where he fuqked up. You can’t point a gun at someone over verbal argument.
Like I mentioned in my above post, he became the Aggressor at that point.
And that’s 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. There’s 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 can’t threaten someone with Deadly Force unless the Justification For Deadly Force has been Met.
You can’t 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 “trespassing” is not enough to justify the gun, doesn’t matter what some of you guys think, that’s the LAW. His only “justification” 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 hadn’t 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.

Originally Posted by jdm953

Originally Posted by goalie

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.

And some don't seem to understand they could have argued over their children off of the shooters property.

I'd love to read the back and forth if one of them was black.

LOL

You're assuming the shooter was the legal property owner, it's not clear that he is.

Originally Posted by Squidge

You're assuming the shooter was the legal property owner, it's not clear that he is.

He was legally present, dumb schit.

Originally Posted by Squidge

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.

Originally Posted by Muffin

Originally Posted by jdm953

Originally Posted by goalie

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".

Originally Posted by deflave

I'd love to read the back and forth if one of them was black.

LOL

That would make it easy,..

Originally Posted by jdm953

Originally Posted by Muffin

Originally Posted by jdm953

Originally Posted by goalie

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....................

Originally Posted by Cheyenne

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.

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.

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Originally Posted by chlinstructor

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by chlinstructor

Originally Posted by Cheyenne

Originally Posted by deflave

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 isn’t 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.

That’s exactly where he fuqked up. You can’t point a gun at someone over verbal argument.
Like I mentioned in my above post, he became the Aggressor at that point.
And that’s 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. There’s 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 can’t threaten someone with Deadly Force unless the Justification For Deadly Force has been Met.
You can’t 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 “trespassing” is not enough to justify the gun, doesn’t matter what some of you guys think, that’s the LAW. His only “justification” 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 hadn’t 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 didn’t “push him across the porch” until he came back out with a gun.

Originally Posted by Oakster

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?????

Originally Posted by fburgtx

Originally Posted by chlinstructor

Originally Posted by rickt300

Originally Posted by chlinstructor

Originally Posted by Cheyenne

Originally Posted by deflave

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 isn’t 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.

That’s exactly where he fuqked up. You can’t point a gun at someone over verbal argument.
Like I mentioned in my above post, he became the Aggressor at that point.
And that’s 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. There’s 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 can’t threaten someone with Deadly Force unless the Justification For Deadly Force has been Met.
You can’t 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 “trespassing” is not enough to justify the gun, doesn’t matter what some of you guys think, that’s the LAW. His only “justification” 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 hadn’t come BACK outside with the gun. He was SAFE inside the house, and ESCALATED the situation when he came back out.

Yep.

Good article.......

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2021/1...nd-offers-some-important-lessons-n482485

Imo, Carruth will be someone's prison bitch soon enough.

Originally Posted by Squidge

You're assuming the shooter was the legal property owner, it's not clear that he is.

Originally Posted by Squidge

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

Originally Posted by Birdwatcher

Originally Posted by Cheyenne

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 else’s) 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.