User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:08:01 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The shooter was actually blocking the dead guy from leaving with the gun. When dead guy tried to move the gun (not grab) he got shot at. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: This makes absolutely no sense. He was told to leave multiple times and had every opportunity to. Instead he put himself in that exact position by going to that spot where he is standing in the pic, getting in the guy with the gun's face, and tossing the guy with the gun over to where he was standing in the pic. The shooter was actually blocking the dead guy from leaving with the gun. When dead guy tried to move the gun (not grab) he got shot at. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:19:21 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Has this been posted here? For what it's worth, it Looks like plenty of distance between parties here.https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/9106/Screenshot_20211126-221832_Samsung_Inter-2182509.JPG The name on the bottom left (Anne-Marie) of the photo is the shooter’s current and soon to be ex-wife. I believed the pic was taken by the shooter’s employee inside the house. Anne-Marie is a judge and I think used that pic in her divorce filing against Kyle. She wasn’t present during the shooting. Kyle’s mistress is the dead guy’s ex wife (brunette outside). |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:24:29 AM EDT
[#3]
31 pages and people continue to defend Greenshirt's actions, minimizing his aggressive, intimidating, and assaultive behavior, and completely overlooking the battery that he committed against Blackshirt. There are so many projections in this thread, it is down right disturbing. There are members here who think it is a bad shoot because they see themselves in Greenshirt's position, "victims of the court", and see nothing wrong with Greenshirt's abusive behavior to his ex-wife, his unwillingness to go back to his vehicle after being told to leave the property, his physical confrontation with Blackshirt when presented with an armed opponent, stating direct verbal threats, and committing a physical assault on Blackshirt . If you think Greenshirt's actions were justified, no fucking wonder why some of you are divorced and lost custody of your kid. They are better off.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:25:31 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Got damn you guys are dense. He didn’t use deadly force against a trespasser. He used deadly force against an immediate threat that verbally said I’m going to take it and use against you. Clear, capable, imminent deadly threat with means to do so. After he threatened deadly force against someone remaining in his front yard, who was supposedly there for a lawful purpose. You need to look at the totality of the circumstances. You can't defend yourself from a situation you are an aggressor in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:27:43 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 31 pages and people continue to defend Greenshirt's actions, minimizing his aggressive, intimidating, and assaultive behavior, and completely overlooking the battery that he committed against Blackshirt. There are so many projections in this thread, it is down right disturbing. There are members here who think it is a bad shoot because they see themselves in Greenshirt's position, "victims of the court", and see nothing wrong with Greenshirt's abusive behavior to his ex-wife, his unwillingness to go back to his vehicle after being told to leave the property, his physical confrontation with Blackshirt when presented with an armed opponent, stating direct verbal threats, and committing a physical assault on Blackshirt . If you think Greenshirt's actions were justified, no fucking wonder why some of you are divorced and lost custody of your kid. They are better off. 31 pages and some people act like cops wanting to shoot eight week old lab puppies aggressively running towards them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:28:39 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: One mans issue was about his child, the other man was all about looking bad ass in front of his ''woman'' and getting some white knight pu--y that night. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Hard to see where black shirt felt he was in danger of losing his life. He engaged green shirt and had to go chest match to show how scared he was. Then when green touches the weapon, black creates distance, then fires? He had a chance to de-escalate.. but why the hell would he even go outside with a gun? Chicken egg situation. I agree there, clearly both guys really weren't even considering to de-escalate - the issue was about a child. One mans issue was about his child, the other man was all about looking bad ass in front of his ''woman'' and getting some white knight pu--y that night. So pretty much like I said. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:29:34 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 31 pages and people continue to defend Greenshirt's actions, minimizing his aggressive, intimidating, and assaultive behavior, and completely overlooking the battery that he committed against Blackshirt. There are so many projections in this thread, it is down right disturbing. There are members here who think it is a bad shoot because they see themselves in Greenshirt's position, "victims of the court", and see nothing wrong with Greenshirt's abusive behavior to his ex-wife, his unwillingness to go back to his vehicle after being told to leave the property, his physical confrontation with Blackshirt when presented with an armed opponent, stating direct verbal threats, and committing a physical assault on Blackshirt . If you think Greenshirt's actions were justified, no fucking wonder why some of you are divorced and lost custody of your kid. They are better off. Kyle, is that you? Your lawyer should have advised you to refrain from discussing your case on social media. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:29:49 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: After he threatened deadly force against someone remaining in his front yard, who was supposedly there for a lawful purpose. You need to look at the totality of the circumstances. You can't defend yourself from a situation you are an aggressor in. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Got damn you guys are dense. He didn't use deadly force against a trespasser. He used deadly force against an immediate threat that verbally said I'm going to take it and use against you. Clear, capable, imminent deadly threat with means to do so. After he threatened deadly force against someone remaining in his front yard, who was supposedly there for a lawful purpose. You need to look at the totality of the circumstances. You can't defend yourself from a situation you are an aggressor in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:30:44 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: After he threatened deadly force against someone remaining in his front yard, who was supposedly there for a lawful purpose. You need to look at the totality of the circumstances. You can't defend yourself from a situation you are an aggressor in. Why would green shirt go to the residence of black shirt to get the kid? Was black shirt's ex wife shacking up there or she just used that place to flaunt her new fuck buddy? Was black shirt's wife (the judge) still living at that residence? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:30:45 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 31 pages and people continue to defend Greenshirt's actions, minimizing his aggressive, intimidating, and assaultive behavior, and completely overlooking the battery that he committed against Blackshirt. There are so many projections in this thread, it is down right disturbing. There are members here who think it is a bad shoot because they see themselves in Greenshirt's position, "victims of the court", and see nothing wrong with Greenshirt's abusive behavior to his ex-wife, his unwillingness to go back to his vehicle after being told to leave the property, his physical confrontation with Blackshirt when presented with an armed opponent, stating direct verbal threats, and committing a physical assault on Blackshirt . If you think Greenshirt's actions were justified, no fucking wonder why some of you are divorced and lost custody of your kid. They are better off. Please 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:31:37 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The only person who made any threats was green shirt. The man retrieved a firearm. Green shirt could have lawfully shot him upon him returning out the front door. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:32:13 AM EDT
[#12]
So I have thought about this on and off today.
If you examine the second of the video where the guy in the blue shirt went hands on and threw the guy with the shotgun across his lawn before opening fire, then the shooter is justified. If you examine the 30 seconds from where the guy came out of the house with he shotgun and blue shirt went apeshit, the shooter is justified. By the letter of the law, the shooter may or may not have been legally justified. But, while the shooter was inside loading up his shotgun the guy in the blue shirt was clearly angry, but not out of control. He was arguing with his ex, but he was not threatening, menacing, or anything. Hell, blue shirt was maintaining social distancing for trying out loud. Even when the shooter got frustrated and went inside for his gun, blue shirt wasn't being menacing or threatening. Where shit went sideways was when the shooter came out with the shotgun. Now, the guy in the blue shirt was stupid for going off, and he did go off. The shooter may have been in the legal right to shoot when he did. But, as I see it, the shooter unnecessarily escalated the situation. As I see it, the guy in the black shirt should have gone in the house, turned on the TV and let the kid's parents hash this out. Legal or not, right or wrong, if I'm some kid coming home from wherever and I find out that Mommy's new boyfriend killed my Daddy on the front porch of the house where I am forced to live, well, I just don't see myself ever accepting that person. I just don't see how that could ever happen. He could never be family. I don't see how the shooter did anything but destroy everything in that situation, particularly what he thought he was defending. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:33:20 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The only person who made any threats was green shirt. I agree. Going casually into the house to pee, eat some chips and get a rifle before coming out was not a threat. Shooting the porch by black shirt's feet was not threatening. Dance black shirt...dance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:33:40 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 31 pages and some people act like cops wanting to shoot eight week old lab puppies aggressively running towards them. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 31 pages and people continue to defend Greenshirt's actions, minimizing his aggressive, intimidating, and assaultive behavior, and completely overlooking the battery that he committed against Blackshirt. There are so many projections in this thread, it is down right disturbing. There are members here who think it is a bad shoot because they see themselves in Greenshirt's position, "victims of the court", and see nothing wrong with Greenshirt's abusive behavior to his ex-wife, his unwillingness to go back to his vehicle after being told to leave the property, his physical confrontation with Blackshirt when presented with an armed opponent, stating direct verbal threats, and committing a physical assault on Blackshirt . If you think Greenshirt's actions were justified, no fucking wonder why some of you are divorced and lost custody of your kid. They are better off. 31 pages and some people act like cops wanting to shoot eight week old lab puppies aggressively running towards them. Honest question. Do you know the difference between 8 week old lab puppies and Chad Read? Or are you trying to minimize the situation? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:34:32 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why would green shirt go to the residence of black shirt to get the kid? Was black shirt's ex wife shacking up there or she just used that place to flaunt her new fuck buddy? Was black shirt's wife (the judge) still living at that residence? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: After he threatened deadly force against someone remaining in his front yard, who was supposedly there for a lawful purpose. You need to look at the totality of the circumstances. You can't defend yourself from a situation you are an aggressor in. Why would green shirt go to the residence of black shirt to get the kid? Was black shirt's ex wife shacking up there or she just used that place to flaunt her new fuck buddy? Was black shirt's wife (the judge) still living at that residence? Green shirt’s ex wife was black shirt’s mistress. Presumably the ex wife (black shirt’s mistress) told green shirt to pick the son up at black shirt’s residence like green shirt’s wife (now widow) said. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:35:00 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: After he threatened deadly force against someone remaining in his front yard, who was supposedly there for a lawful purpose. You need to look at the totality of the circumstances. You can't defend yourself from a situation you are an aggressor in. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Got damn you guys are dense. He didn’t use deadly force against a trespasser. He used deadly force against an immediate threat that verbally said I’m going to take it and use against you. Clear, capable, imminent deadly threat with means to do so. After he threatened deadly force against someone remaining in his front yard, who was supposedly there for a lawful purpose. You need to look at the totality of the circumstances. You can't defend yourself from a situation you are an aggressor in. His presence was unlawful once he refused to leave after repeated demands he do so. At that point threatened deadly force is lawful |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:36:31 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I agree. Going casually into the house to pee, eat some chips and get a rifle before coming out was not a threat. Shooting the porch by black shirt's feet was not threatening. Dance black shirt...dance. So if you get into a fender-bender turned road rage and the guy in the other car grabs a rifle from the trunk, that's all good? Probably just grabbing it to see if it's clean? Please 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:36:51 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: His presence was unlawful once he refused to leave after repeated demands he do so. At that point threatened deadly force is lawful If the court agreement states dad is to pick his kid up, well he can't be trespassing, so bad shoot. Next |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:37:54 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: His presence was unlawful once he refused to leave after repeated demands he do so. At that point threatened deadly force is lawful No, no it's not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:38:49 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: His presence was unlawful once he refused to leave after repeated demands he do so. At that point threatened deadly force is lawful Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Got damn you guys are dense. He didn’t use deadly force against a trespasser. He used deadly force against an immediate threat that verbally said I’m going to take it and use against you. Clear, capable, imminent deadly threat with means to do so. After he threatened deadly force against someone remaining in his front yard, who was supposedly there for a lawful purpose. You need to look at the totality of the circumstances. You can't defend yourself from a situation you are an aggressor in. His presence was unlawful once he refused to leave after repeated demands he do so. At that point threatened deadly force is lawful You cannot "threaten deadly force" on someone because they don't leave your yard. Quit making stuff up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:39:31 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So I have thought about this on and off today. If you examine the second of the video where the guy in the blue shirt went hands on and threw the guy with the shotgun across his lawn before opening fire, then the shooter is justified. If you examine the 30 seconds from where the guy came out of the house with he shotgun and blue shirt went apeshit, the shooter is justified. By the letter of the law, the shooter may or may not have been legally justified. But, while the shooter was inside loading up his shotgun the guy in the blue shirt was clearly angry, but not out of control. He was arguing with his ex, but he was not threatening, menacing, or anything. Hell, blue shirt was maintaining social distancing for trying out loud. Even when the shooter got frustrated and went inside for his gun, blue shirt wasn't being menacing or threatening. Where shit went sideways was when the shooter came out with the shotgun. Now, the guy in the blue shirt was stupid for going off, and he did go off. The shooter may have been in the legal right to shoot when he did. But, as I see it, the shooter unnecessarily escalated the situation. As I see it, the guy in the black shirt should have gone in the house, turned on the TV and let the kid's parents hash this out. Legal or not, right or wrong, if I'm some kid coming home from wherever and I find out that Mommy's new boyfriend killed my Daddy on the front porch of the house where I am forced to live, well, I just don't see myself ever accepting that person. I just don't see how that could ever happen. He could never be family. I don't see how the shooter did anything but destroy everything in that situation, particularly what he thought he was defending. We don't know, but a guy who goes toward an armed man, threatening and assaulting him is not the norm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:40:18 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So if you get into a fender-bender turned road rage and the guy in the other car grabs a rifle from the trunk, that's all good? Probably just grabbing it to see if it's clean? Please Who is on the verge of killing/shooting the other driver? If it is the guy grabbing a rifle then he will be shot before he can shoot me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:40:48 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Green shirt went off. We don't know green shirt, but black shirt and co. do. Maybe they knew it was an inevitability, and being armed was the best thing for them. We don't know, but a guy who goes toward an armed man, threatening and assaulting him is not the norm. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So I have thought about this on and off today. If you examine the second of the video where the guy in the blue shirt went hands on and threw the guy with the shotgun across his lawn before opening fire, then the shooter is justified. If you examine the 30 seconds from where the guy came out of the house with he shotgun and blue shirt went apeshit, the shooter is justified. By the letter of the law, the shooter may or may not have been legally justified. But, while the shooter was inside loading up his shotgun the guy in the blue shirt was clearly angry, but not out of control. He was arguing with his ex, but he was not threatening, menacing, or anything. Hell, blue shirt was maintaining social distancing for trying out loud. Even when the shooter got frustrated and went inside for his gun, blue shirt wasn't being menacing or threatening. Where shit went sideways was when the shooter came out with the shotgun. Now, the guy in the blue shirt was stupid for going off, and he did go off. The shooter may have been in the legal right to shoot when he did. But, as I see it, the shooter unnecessarily escalated the situation. As I see it, the guy in the black shirt should have gone in the house, turned on the TV and let the kid's parents hash this out. Legal or not, right or wrong, if I'm some kid coming home from wherever and I find out that Mommy's new boyfriend killed my Daddy on the front porch of the house where I am forced to live, well, I just don't see myself ever accepting that person. I just don't see how that could ever happen. He could never be family. I don't see how the shooter did anything but destroy everything in that situation, particularly what he thought he was defending. We don't know, but a guy who goes toward an armed man, threatening and assaulting him is not the norm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:40:53 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If the court agreement states dad is to pick his kid up, well he can't be trespassing, so bad shoot. Next |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:42:05 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Green shirt’s ex wife was black shirt’s mistress. Presumably the ex wife (black shirt’s mistress) told green shirt to pick the son up at black shirt’s residence like green shirt’s wife (now widow) said. You can take some Red Necks out of the Trailer park, but you can't take the Trailer Park out of some Red Necks... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:42:13 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We don't have that info. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If the court agreement states dad is to pick his kid up, well he can't be trespassing, so bad shoot. Next Yes we do....it's in the audio. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:42:31 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: After he threatened deadly force against someone remaining in his front yard, who was supposedly there for a lawful purpose. You need to look at the totality of the circumstances. You can't defend yourself from a situation you are an aggressor in. Green shirt no longer had a lawful purpose to be there once they told him the kid wasn’t there. Instead, he decided to rant and rave, stomping mud puddles in the dry South Plains dirt, nipple rubbing the resident of the property while pushing and shoving, and making threats of deadly force. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:42:55 AM EDT
[#28]
After many years reading on here I have come to believe in-large the majority here agree on legal rights not being taken away, defending ourselves being a absolute right and having the means to do so.
It disturbs me that 1 case of a bunch of idiots doing idiot things and making bad decisions gives us a reason to tear each apart and in some cases piss on what rights we do have. Truth is- the shooter put to use a couple of his rights that lead to a couple other actions that we are all questioning. The heart of the matter that a bunch of dudes having this much time on this site don’t know shirt about the penal code. I don’t either and I know my opinion doesn’t matter here. But I have read a number of shitty responses to what I know to be rights under Castle, and I’m don’t referring to the trigger pull. I can only assume those posters have probably been bent sideways in support of castle or stand-your-ground but have never really read up on what it entails therefore what you would of done does not make some of the shooters actions illegal. Maybe none- I don’t know the full story and I suspect there is more. Hence no charges yet. Think the PD and AG haven’t watched the same vids we have? The most concerning comment I’ve seen is the idea The shooter should have retreat to his residence. That’s Castle. Would it of helped. Likely. But he wasn’t required to. Stop posting away your rights with BS comments because some of us have worked our tails off to make sure our legislators make the right call on our right to defend ourselves. Besides- there are a million other things to nit pick here. Seriously read up on castle for your state as their are variances. Here is Texas Penal code 931 aka Castle |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:43:17 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You cannot "threaten deadly force" on someone because they don't leave your yard. Quit making stuff up. Yes we can. If we live in Texas we can tell someone three times "Leave my property now" while clicking your heels together. If they are not leaving you can shoot them no more that two full magazines and you have to police your brass so that lawn mowers don't send them into neighbors property. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:44:08 AM EDT
[#30]
Read the articles- plenty of threats to go around. Even 24 hours prior to the event.
You don’t have the totality of the circumstance. Take your own advice |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:45:34 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Who is on the verge of killing/shooting the other driver? If it is the guy grabbing a rifle then he will be shot before he can shoot me. So you can shoot and kill him, but not chest bump him, verbally threaten to take it form him? Isn't the guy who grabbed the rifle from the truck escalating a situation and turning into into a deadly force encounter when it wasn't previously? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:45:46 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why would green shirt go to the residence of black shirt to get the kid? Was black shirt's ex wife shacking up there or she just used that place to flaunt her new fuck buddy? Was black shirt's wife (the judge) still living at that residence? No black shirt and the judge were separated and lived at different places. The Judge’s house is in a very nice neighborhood and quite a bit more expensive than the rundown house black shirt capped green shirt at. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:46:28 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes we do....it's in the audio. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: If the court agreement states dad is to pick his kid up, well he can't be trespassing, so bad shoot. Next Yes we do....it's in the audio. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:46:43 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The man retrieved a firearm. Green shirt could have lawfully shot him upon him returning out the front door. Not in Texas. You are absolutely wrong on this point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:46:51 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Green shirt no longer had a lawful purpose to be there once they told him the kid wasn’t there. Instead, he decided to rant and rave , stomping mud puddles in the the dry South Plains dirt, nipple rubbing the resident of the property while pushing and shoving, and making threats of deadly force. Threats of deadly force before or after the other threatened lethal force? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:47:23 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So I have thought about this on and off today. If you examine the second of the video where the guy in the blue shirt went hands on and threw the guy with the shotgun across his lawn before opening fire, then the shooter is justified. If you examine the 30 seconds from where the guy came out of the house with he shotgun and blue shirt went apeshit, the shooter is justified. By the letter of the law, the shooter may or may not have been legally justified. But, while the shooter was inside loading up his shotgun the guy in the blue shirt was clearly angry, but not out of control. He was arguing with his ex, but he was not threatening, menacing, or anything. Hell, blue shirt was maintaining social distancing for trying out loud. Even when the shooter got frustrated and went inside for his gun, blue shirt wasn't being menacing or threatening. Where shit went sideways was when the shooter came out with the shotgun. Now, the guy in the blue shirt was stupid for going off, and he did go off. The shooter may have been in the legal right to shoot when he did. But, as I see it, the shooter unnecessarily escalated the situation. As I see it, the guy in the black shirt should have gone in the house, turned on the TV and let the kid's parents hash this out. Legal or not, right or wrong, if I'm some kid coming home from wherever and I find out that Mommy's new boyfriend killed my Daddy on the front porch of the house where I am forced to live, well, I just don't see myself ever accepting that person. I just don't see how that could ever happen. He could never be family. I don't see how the shooter did anything but destroy everything in that situation, particularly what he thought he was defending. Good points. Even though it was instigated by the guy who died, lots of bad decisions were definitely made. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:49:48 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So if you get into a fender-bender turned road rage and the guy in the other car grabs a rifle from the trunk, that's all good? Probably just grabbing it to see if it's clean? Please Are asking if the fender bender is in your front yard? It makes a huge difference. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:50:32 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not in Texas. You are absolutely wrong on this point. What, you can only fire until fired upon? A guy draws out a firearm on your during an argument and you just...what... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:53:25 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Maybe I missed it, but He says it's his kid a 3:15?, but no designated pick up spot is established in vid. Maybe I missed it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If the court agreement states dad is to pick his kid up, well he can't be trespassing, so bad shoot. Next Yes we do....it's in the audio. Green shirt’s widow also says they were there to pick up green shirt’s kid from the ex wife. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:53:44 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Are asking if the fender bender is in your front yard? It makes a huge difference. Quote HistoryQuoted: Are asking if the fender bender is in your front yard? It makes a huge difference. Does it? Is this the applicable statute? 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:56:11 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah that's a reasonable situation. But I was under the impression that they told him that they had taken the kid somewhere else. And as I now recall, she says he can't have the kid because she wants to see the kid. Sure doesn't make it sound like she's not 100% in control of the kid's whereabouts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:56:23 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No black shirt and the judge were separated and lived at different places. The Judge’s house is in a very nice neighborhood and quite a bit more expensive than the rundown house black shirt capped green shirt at. That makes sense. The judge is at some state level I believe so probably earns a good salary. I may have read where the judge was trying to get black shirt evicted from that cheap house so she may own it as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:56:40 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Maybe I missed it, but He says it's his kid a 3:15?, but no designated pick up spot is established in vid. Maybe I missed it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If the court agreement states dad is to pick his kid up, well he can't be trespassing, so bad shoot. Next Yes we do....it's in the audio. He's standing there asking his baby momma for his kid, because it's his time for visitation. If baby momma is standing there too, I would assume he's at the right spot.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:58:40 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Green shirt no longer had a lawful purpose to be there once they told him the kid wasn’t there. Instead, he decided to rant and rave, stomping mud puddles in the dry South Plains dirt, nipple rubbing the resident of the property while pushing and shoving, and making threats of deadly force. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: After he threatened deadly force against someone remaining in his front yard, who was supposedly there for a lawful purpose. You need to look at the totality of the circumstances. You can't defend yourself from a situation you are an aggressor in. Green shirt no longer had a lawful purpose to be there once they told him the kid wasn’t there. Instead, he decided to rant and rave, stomping mud puddles in the dry South Plains dirt, nipple rubbing the resident of the property while pushing and shoving, and making threats of deadly force. The ex wife didn’t tell green shirt where the kid was. Green shirt’s widow can be heard yelling, “she should have told that,” in response to black shirt yelling at her, “he’s not here,” after the shooting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:59:05 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 31 pages and some people act like cops wanting to shoot eight week old lab puppies aggressively running towards them.    THANK YOU For that much very needed Belly Laugh... Well said my Friend... VERY Well said!!  BIGGER_HAMMER  @AmericanPeople |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:59:33 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And as I now recall, she says he can't have the kid because she wants to see the kid. Sure doesn't make it sound like she's not 100% in control of the kid's whereabouts. Details on the kid's location may become important. You would think that the ex-wife would call the bio-dad to inform him of a delay if the son was not there. That assumes that she is not a full blown ass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:59:36 AM EDT
[#47]
Bad shoot by any objective measure.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:00:04 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Threats of deadly force before or after the other threatened lethal force? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Green shirt no longer had a lawful purpose to be there once they told him the kid wasn’t there. Instead, he decided to rant and rave , stomping mud puddles in the the dry South Plains dirt, nipple rubbing the resident of the property while pushing and shoving, and making threats of deadly force. Threats of deadly force before or after the other threatened lethal force? Green shirt had no recourse but to leave when he was told the kid wasn’t there and he was ordered to leave. I know you are having a hard time wrapping your head around this mess; but the laws in Texas are much different when it comes to property rights and the application of deadly force than almost every State in the Union. The problem for Green shirt was when he got aggressive and tried to intimidate Black shirt. In the case, Black shirt had every right to retrieve his weapon when he was on his own property; there is no question about this fact in the law in the State of Texas. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:00:57 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Green shirt's widow also says they were there to pick up green shirt's kid from the ex wife. Green shirt didn't know where the kid was, he had police going to grandmas house looking. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:01:33 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Green shirt had no recourse but to leave when he was told the kid wasn’t there and he was ordered to leave. I know you are having a hard time wrapping your head around this mess; but the laws in Texas are much different when it comes to property rights and the application of deadly force than almost every State in the Union. The problem for Green shirt was when he got aggressive and tried to intimidate Black shirt. In the case, Black shirt had every right to retrieve his weapon when he was on his own property; there is no question about this fact in the law in the State of Texas. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Green shirt no longer had a lawful purpose to be there once they told him the kid wasn’t there. Instead, he decided to rant and rave , stomping mud puddles in the the dry South Plains dirt, nipple rubbing the resident of the property while pushing and shoving, and making threats of deadly force. Threats of deadly force before or after the other threatened lethal force? Green shirt had no recourse but to leave when he was told the kid wasn’t there and he was ordered to leave. I know you are having a hard time wrapping your head around this mess; but the laws in Texas are much different when it comes to property rights and the application of deadly force than almost every State in the Union. The problem for Green shirt was when he got aggressive and tried to intimidate Black shirt. In the case, Black shirt had every right to retrieve his weapon when he was on his own property; there is no question about this fact in the law in the State of Texas. I am not sure threatening legal action qualifies as “aggressive” but ymmv |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
