ok, i can see your point.  But, if this goes to trial as a murder charge i can see the jury being swayed that they guy's defense would be basically verbal, brandishing or showing that he is capable of defending with a firearm, to a warning shot to only deadly force after his was thrown around and his weapon was grabbed.  I dont think I could fault the guy for that either even when taking into consideration the child custody bs going on which really doesnt mean much to me anyway.  

For sure this is a "when assholes collide".

And we are talking about this situation, as far as i know he didnt get shot in the foot when the shot was fired so we can assume it is buried 2 foot in the dirt at the time so the round is accountable.  I would think the worst that could be charged would be discharging a firearm in city limits?  But in this case it could show the mindset of "i didn't want to use deadly force and waited until it was absolutely necessary and i had no other choice" type of thing.

ETA:  But i see the point of after the shot was fired the trespasser i guess could have claimed he was a victim of an attempted shooting and could defend himself.  This one is going to be interesting to follow for sure.

If Kyle had not got a gun then shot at him the situation would not have escalated. The guy didn’t grab the gun until he was shot at.  He was close enough to grab it but didn’t until Kyle tried to shoot him in the leg.   Now dead guy had a fight for his life on his hands. He was at the home at the court appointed hand off time and she did not have the kid.  From the victims remarks this was not the first time. Threatening to take you to court isn’t the same as threatening to kill.  And I don’t think you get to kill someone because you want them to leave your lawn. Kyle came out with a gun, shot at him then killed him.  I’m all for self defense but you don’t don’t get to kill people because they yell on your lawn looking for their child.

Excellent advice.

Excellent.

I think thats where the problems is with the warning shots though.  The law is pretty black and white, its either illegal or legal.  They do talk about it in ccw classes around here but because old almost retired cops and defense lawyers dont like it, doesnt mean its illegal.  I dont like seat belt laws or marijuana laws but they are laws.  I dont like some things that are legal but are questionable with integrity or social norms, but, in the end they are legal.

This is excellent advice and also remember that 99% of the time everything is a civil issue that will have to be taken care of in court.

Yeah, that’s straight up murder.

I agree 100%.

Guys who marry or shack up with divorced or separated women with kid(s) automatically invite the non custodial dad(s) into their lives and onto their property.  
Even if there's a restraining order, he's still out there.

I think it to be very true. Some may be empathizing with the guy because they’ve been there and done that, being rung through the family court system. “Look at that bitch and black shirt, who are they to keep me from seeing my kid(s)”. Who knows? Maybe green shirt is a real douchebag and his ex was right to divorce him? Or, maybe he’s a really great dude having a really bad day. Nice guy or douchebag, doesn’t make it a good or bad shoot. Feeling empathy for the guy doesn’t make it a good or bad shoot. I’m just saying those who do feel empathy may be allowing their past personal experiences cloud their view(s). Dude was trying to hold his own court on some other guy’s porch and was getting aggressive. He should have left and called his lawyer or maybe even the local sheriff’s department. At worst, he would have had to wait till some deputies showed up and sorted through the details. Unfortunately, he decided to jump up on that porch and got physical. I don’t know if that shot into the floorboards was a ND or warning shot but how many times does a person need to demand someone leave their property?

I guess some questions that could be asked and the answers may (or may not) justify black shirt’s actions. Must black shirt wait till green shirt picks a chair up to cave his face in? After green shirt jumps on the porch, screaming, and throws his body weight on black shirt, threatens to forcibly take his firearm from him and *bleeeeep*, what are black shirt’s options? Is anyone trying to say black shirt had no right to arm himself when he felt threatened? When did black shirt feel threatened? Was after he repeatedly demanded green shirt leave but was ignored, green shirt continued his arguing and yelling? My opinion is when black shirt demanded green shirt to leave, well, it’s time for green shirt to leave. Get in your vehicle and leave the same way you came in. You got to go, man. Get off the driveway, park on the side of the public road, and start making your phone calls to whomever you believe can help sort this all out. Don’t jump on some dude’s porch while he’s armed and start screaming in his face, throwing your body weight on him while threatening to take his firearm away and *bleeeeep*. Don’t get into a tussle with him on his own porch then grab his firearm after you threatened to take it away from him and *bleeeeep*, forcing him off his porch while trying to break free from you and maintain control of his firearm. No, don’t do these things. That’s not a good idea.

Another thing I just realized.   They never told dead guy where his son was or it wasn’t clear.  Only after he was dead did Kyle state he wasn’t there.  So if the dead guy came for his son he wasn’t leaving till he got him or the cops showed up and made him leave.

Not at all saying it is a good idea ever or if that's what happened here it was either, but I don't see how if an actual shot at that point was good this is a big problem for him. People are making out that no matter what else happened he is on the hook for those charges for the warning shot. I don't think that he is if he was privileged to actually shoot him at that point.

Unless he was actively threatening physical harm to someone just be nice to the dude. You'll probably be in the same position in a couple of years, and unless the woman is a total shit bag the ex dude probably isn't that bad of a guy. Finding a woman who can speak highly of an ex (even if identifying some issue(s) that led to the dissolution) is going to mean you'll likely have a better relationship yourself.

You're 12.
He has to sleep sometime.
Stick a knife in him and it'll be over in time for high school.

The warning shot or possible ND was also *kind of* in the direction of his girlfriend.  Right?  That isn't good.

Your post is irrelevant to what we are discussing. "Tainted" means to be corrupted or polluted. That's not what usually happens to divorced guys with kids.
Once again, that's a poor choice of words.  

Again, I disagree. “Tainted” is very befitting.

ETA: Guys getting wrung through family courts usually end up with a very warped view towards women and courts afterwards. I can include myself concerning my own statement. Some will be able to climb out from that pit but some dig themselves deeper. Just reading some of the posts in divorce threads will showcase guys whose attitudes are permanently damaged because it’s so mentally and emotionally taxing.

The entire custody issue means absolutely jack squat to whether this was a lawful shooting or not.

Get over it, move on, let's not waste another word on the custody matter. It has absolutely zero legal weight on whether either party's actions were lawful. It gives no privileges to the decedent, and excuses no actions on the part of the shooter. Interference with custody, parental kidnapping, etc..none of them are legitimate issues in this case. Period.

Throw allllllll of that shit out, and watch the video. A resident tells a visitor to leave. Visitor makes it clear he refuses. Resident arms himself. Visitor indicates he intends to take the weapon (armed robbery) and assault the resident (aggravated assault/battery). Resident uses deadly force.

It's a justifiable self defense shooting. Move on.

Agreed, excellent advice. The new guy will always be 2nd to the bio, always, no matter what the woman tells the new guy. Women call it "history" for better or worse, no stronger bond than "history." Often times they enjoy the drama. Glad I don't deal with crap like that, never will. Insecure Kyle needs his day in court.

He has a court order stating he can be there to pick up his child if that was the agreement. He has EVERY right to be there if that was the case and she agreed to it. The shooter cannot legally defy the court agreement all concerned parties agreed to when it was signed by the judge/court and barring any further orders, he should just STFU because he is a non custodial entity with zero legal rights concerning the child or visitation in the eyes of the court. He 100% interfered, broke off, got a gun, escalated it and then shot the father.

Unless there is serious hanky panky by the local courts/judge/prosc atty, he is in the wrong and after a fair trial and the actual facts, should be found guilty. He escalated a non violent, non physical disagreement that the father was 100% correct on into a murder. If the father had drawn and shot when he threatened him, he would be legal in the eyes of a legit court.

And if it turns out it was not even his house, he is even more in the wrong and I still can't figure that out one way or the other.

Maybe
But just because he was justified to shoot him on the porch when he fired the warning shot doesn't mean he was still justified after he broke away from the scuffle, created distance and shot him from several feet away as on stood on the porch. I think you can argue imminent threat had passed. I think if the dead guy had charged at him again it would have been regained but that didn't have a chance to happen.

lol.

If there's one thing to be gleaned from the recent threads on SD shootings, its that there are a ton of arfcommers who desperately need to learn about the legal issues around self defense.

Its funny that you think its that cut and dry. Because it isn't. Also he didn't grab for the gun until after it was fired. And your bizarre belief that the fact the father was there due to a court order and was told to leave instead of the kids being produced as requested won't be relevant is also silly.

Those kids are going to be fucked in the head from this sort of insanity.

You think being "several feet" away from a threat means you are no longer in danger?  I don't think so, now if he was I side behind a locked door and shot thru a window or barrier then there was no threat.  Several feet isn't shit as far as being out of danger.

Pretty clear it was his house. If so, I can't imagine he was a party on any agreement signed by any judge.

He very clearly feigns a grab for the gun just before the first shot.

Pretty much this.

His house or her house and he's just shacking up with her? He still interjected himself into a court ordered visitation decree and decided to play jr cop.

I also guarantee that if it gets to a non corrupt court, she'll be legally involved because she deliberately voided the court visitation decree and unless the judge has a pussy downstairs instead of a working penis, most don't like to be told their decrees are not worth the paper they are on, especially if bad shit happens.

No I don't think you are necessarily out of danger but I think the justification under his circumstances may have passed.

He appeared to be unarmed, wasn't advancing on the shooter when shot. If you are able to break contact move away and level the rifle that I think are going to have a hard time arguing justification.

It would be different if he was advancing on him. At the time of the shooting he wasn't.

He fired 2 seconds, if that, after he was flung. That's after green shirt, refused to leave, physically assaulted him, threatened to take and use gun, Tried to take gun twice, flung him.

Agree, and that's why so many people think it was wrong (and probably illegal, whether murder in some degree or manslaughter).

If you haven't seen both camera angles:

Yep.  Why did the shooter come out of the house with a drawn gun?  The dad was there legally to get his son, which is appears was being denied, kidnapping?

Everyone that studies and dissects these shooting knows that justification can change in a few seconds.

I have a hard time justifying shooting a man for standing on a porch not advancing even if he was fighting seconds ago.

I don't think he needed to shoot. If he had not its quite likely that the guy would have advanced again forcing him to shoot but he didn't give him that chance.

Look at the below photo, the distance between them and the guy just standing on the porch.

Attached File

Once it gets out of Lubbock [and it will], it's not going to be a BS self defense ''charge.'' It should have been immediately handed over to both another PD and court simply due to the fact that a local court official was involved. You have to be a special kind of tard not to think that is going to cause you issues.

This is where stupid PD's and local officials shoot themselves in the foot along with the local prosc atty's. Smart ones immediately call for an outside agency to take over all aspects of the case.

Where does it say that? Is there an article or anything that states such? Honestly, I don’t know and I’m not seeing many real details online. Does anyone know if that’s even the ex-wife’s and her son’s residence? If not, I guess one can assume there is some sort of implied permission to enter the property to pick up his son but it was pretty obvious the kid wasn’t there. I’m guessing the kid is with his maternal grandmother(?). Thought I heard something to that effect mentioned in one of the videos. Guy became angry which I think is understandable but in any case, implied consent or not, again it’s pretty obvious the kid isn’t there and green shirt started became seriously agitated. Any consent to enter the property was revoked by the property owner (or actual resident). Black shirt told him to leave. Once is all it should take but he was told multiple times. Guy should have left.

Horrible circumstances.

What’s that, about 15’ give or take?

How many custody disputes have you been to? How many children have you personally seized from their parents, under color of law?

None?

So *maybe* you might consider that you're out of your lane on this one. Granted, I have not served in the state of Texas, and its *possible* they have some sort of wildly different laws than the other states where I've been a LEO, but I'm doubting it. If there are any TX LEOs here I'd be curious to confirm that it's the same as elsewhere.

Generally speaking, custody agreements are a civil matter. The parents go before a judge and bitch about each other, then get an agreed upon schedule for custody. If they violate it, they pay their lawyers big bucks to go back to court and bitch some more to the judge, who typically doesn't care and keeps the status quo. Usually someone then makes up a BS child abuse claim, which then leads to everyone going back to court for more circus. The father typically (but not always) gets screwed out of custody, and the drama continues on until kiddo becomes an adult.

Barring a specific form of court order, in the form of a writ to law enforcement or an injunction against one of the parties, the "court order" means absolutely jack fucking squat in this situation. No judge on the fucking planet is going to write a court order granting one hostile party the right to trespass onto the other party's property.

If you think otherwise, I encourage you to go consult a lawyer in your own personal life before proceeding to take actions like the newly ventilated dipshit from this case. A custody agreement does not give one party or the other the right to trespass on the other's property. On the contrary, in my AO I would likely be bound by law to arrest the baby daddy for domestic violence - trespass, had the incident ended just before the first shot.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, like many of the people in this thread, so please stop spouting incorrect bullshit and do some research.

A visitation agreement that states when and where [especially when there are issues with a party] pick up takes place is a court order. It is not a court suggestion. Sounded like grandma was in the house but it is unclear where the child is at the time. That is on HER however, as a judge, she can't claim to not know the law.

Yes the father was dumb not to leave when the gun came out but you have a disinterested party [BF] interjecting himself where he does not belong. HE escalated it. And the only reason it is now being moved to another court is likely because someone/s are shitting bricks for playing favorites and trying to derail justice locally.

It's a case I'm going to try to keep up on either way. He MAY not get charged criminally but he WILL get sued civilly where the bar is lower. And he had better damn well hope he gets no fathers who have been fvcked over by exes or the courts where visitation is concerned.

Once again, poor choices of words.  You should stop talking about divorced guys.

And you don’t know you’re opinion is your opinion and my opinion is mine. I am a divorced guy.

ETA: Who is happily remarried after working through my hang ups and after spending some time to fix myself, do a bit of dating. At least worked through my hang ups to mine and my wife’s satisfaction.

The video below your post pretty well eviscerates your first point. As the second, I will once again point out that the knowledge you think you know about civil disputes and court orders, simply isn't true. Producing kids, hiding kids, locking kids in the house..none of those things matter a goddamn bit in criminal law (unless you never had any custodial right to the child in the first place). Baby momma and shooter could have walked kiddo out onto the porch, said "Fuck you, the judge can go to hell, you ain't getting him!" then marched kid inside and locked the door.

Know what legal recourse is available to baby daddy right there on the porch, in that moment? Absolutely fuckall nothing. Not a goddamn thing! He can't go inside, he can't remain on the property, he can't use force against baby momma to keep her from going inside. He can't do any of the things you think he can do, because a family court custodial agreement grants you precisely zero ability to violate any other laws.

He has the right to fuck off their property down to the street, call 911, and bitch to law enforcement. Patrol will come out, confirm there aren't any injunctions or protection orders, then sing baby daddy the "it's a civil matter" song, and direct him to go back to family court. In other words, he has the legal right to fuck off, and that's about it. This sucks for him, but it's par for the course whenever two people decide to make a third person, then change their mind about continuing to want to fuck each other. A custody dispute occurs, which is a legal term used to describe a situation in which two adults who are of legal age of majority, proceed go engage in a contest of stupid behavior to one-up each other at being dipshits.

The legal system is what it is, because every other system out there sucks worse. In this thread there are two types of people: those who work inside the legal system, and everyone else. Generally, the former are all going to have a pretty good idea how these things work, and the latter are getting their knowledge from the TV. Please, consider that maybe, just maybe, it might be worth paying attention to some sources of information more than others.

I got full custody of my son and did it without a lawyer to boot. I can be an anal little shit when I need to and I was going to drag down Dr's, her employer, and everyone else I had too if I needed to. I dealt with a psycho bitch ex far longer then any person should ever have to. [and courts suck ass all around, most employees are overpaid by 75% simply because they are assholes at following the law.]

[don't steal schedule 1 drugs as a nurse and if you are a Dr, don't cover it up when your employee gets caught, they really don't like that getting out and getting audited]

And I will still say the shooter should have shut his mouth and stayed out of it, he is jack and shit to the court where the child is concerned.

Yes the civil child custody decree mean jack squat and does not allow one to criminal trespass on said property. Some of the posters to this thread seem to think it magically does and he has a right to be on the property.

As an adult as soon as he came outside with the rifle I would  have left and turned the video over to the cops and the judge doing the custody case and if still be alive

Bad shoot but the dead guy could have made better adult choices even though he shouldn’t have been shot

Could be.

Maybe this is all because Grandma was running a little behind. Who knows…

Great post but most seem not to understand and  keep posting he has a right to trespass. Also in Texas last time i checked Texas Penal code chapter 9 that one can not use deadly force for trespassing.

Just stopped at McDonald's real quick for an ice cream cone

Get back to the house and find out your Dad is dead

Dang