User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 6:49:44 AM EDT
[#1]
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. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Classic example of “you can’t provoke the situation and claim self defense” Nothing in that video warranted him to bring a gun out. You can’t use deadly force to threaten somebody who’s not been aggressive to leave your property. He showed utter disregard for human life by just bringing a gun into a verbal argument. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. He’s going to prison. Oh hell yes you can threaten deadly force after repeatedly telling somebody to leave. When somebody tells you to get off, you better leave the property. If you don’t, you just opened all kinds of lawful use of force to remove you. Try getting into an argument on a bouncer when he demands you leave. You don’t? They can use all force up to but not including deadly to remove you. Bullshit. You cannot shoot someone for refusing to leave. You guys are dense. THREATEN use of deadly force after being repeatedly told to leave. That’s lawful. The instant dead guy grabbed the gun, immediate, imminent, capable deadly threat with verbal assault. A lot of folks in this thread posting authoritatively about Texas law, without actually knowing Texas law. You can't use deadly force against a trespasser in Texas, day or night. Not unless they breach the envelope of your home. The threat to use deadly force can hence be viewed as assault. 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. That's like stepping out in front of a car and shooting the driver because he was going to run you over. If dumb fuck wouldn't have ran inside and got the rifle, there would be no "imminent deadly threat". |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 7:53:27 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's like stepping out in front of a car and shooting the driver because he was going to run you over. If dumb fuck wouldn't have ran inside and got the rifle, there would be no "imminent deadly threat". If dumb fuck would have left property when asked instead of threatening and walking over to shooter ultimately throwing shooter off porch then he would still be here so he could yell at clouds. Seemed like a hot head. Imo all the back story doesn’t matter, and how much of assholes all involved are. But you just cant do what he did. His issues needed to be worked out in the legal system where they were created, not fix it by breaking the law. He had a right to go pick his kid up…But he had to leave when told to by property owner. It was his time to see the kid, sure, but he looked like a raging asshole and truth be known the kid probably took off knowing “dad” was coming to pick him up. Not fun being with a rageful narcissistic POS. The demeanor of the mom as green shirt is berating her is indicative of what she must have went through wile with him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 8:35:44 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The copyrights of evidence of a shooting were signed over to a judge in that jurisdiction? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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 Wait a minute. Copyright Anne-Marie Carruth? The judge? The wife of the shooter? That is the person behind the screen door? And the cops/DA stated, after how many days/weeks, that because the shooter "may or may not have been related to someone in LE/public office", local LE/prosecution are recusing themselves? Uh... I think the poster who stated she included it in her divorce documents are probably why it’s copyrighted that way. Her affidavit stated this. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/200878/D16FC663-3F5C-4370-8900-BF501ED65CC4_jpe-2182580.JPG No. I am guessing whichever journalist obtained it from her divorce case just slapped that on that since that is where they got it and CYA. Not the real copyright. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 8:48:41 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is this what you think is applicable? Notice it says "force," and not "lethal force." Both are defined by statute. In pretty much every state you can use reasonable force to get someone off your property. You're saying the manager of a grocery store can blast a drunk in the head for refusing to leave the restroom when requested. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Huge difference- your looking for 9.31 not 9.41 in this circumstance. Nice try though Is this what you think is applicable? (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property. Notice it says "force," and not "lethal force." Both are defined by statute. In pretty much every state you can use reasonable force to get someone off your property. You're saying the manager of a grocery store can blast a drunk in the head for refusing to leave the restroom when requested. And to the degree necessary, such as an arm bar, not killing someone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 8:55:12 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That perfectly illustrates the point I was making earlier about green shirt trying to leave. Assuming that's his white truck, how is he supposed to leave without black shirt perceiving a threat because he's advancing? When you tell a guy to leave then you have to let him leave. That is the law regarding tresspassers. Black shirt effectively had him captive and then executed him. That's the proverbial smoking gun before the actual smoking gun. It wouldve been interesting to see if he had held fire for a second and if green shirt had advanced on him again. That might change things. Afaik theres a path to the right that leads to the vehicles so hes not actually blocking his path. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 8:56:38 AM EDT
[#6]
I’d just argue that the dumbass shooter frightened black shirt and made him feel like he had to disarm him. Prior to that there was no reason to even involve a gun in the scenario. He was there to pick up his child. I’d keep going back to that over and over. Why did black shirt even grab the gun? Did he want to kill him? He was just there to pick up his child which is in the court docs (child custody agreements include them). It looks like black shirt planned on killing him. He was very calm and didn’t look like he felt like he was in danger at all.
Black shirt escalated things provoking green shirt to escalate. Green shirt tried throwing black shirt away to create distance after black shirt fired a warning shot right near him which would freak anyone out. Then after distance was created black shirt murdered green shirt. Green shirt just wanted to pick up his son at the time dictated by the signed child custody agreement. I can assure you if your ex makes you wait all of the fucking time to get your kid at a designated time you’d be pissed too. Black shirt is a murderer. You want to keep gun rights and the left from foaming at the mouth when it comes to taking them away, use some common sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 8:58:02 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The man retrieved a firearm. Green shirt could have lawfully shot him upon him returning out the front door. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. We shoot people for legally carrying a firearm on their property? Maybe in your state. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 9:16:06 AM EDT
[#8]
Taking bets on Green Shirt having always been a hot-head or having a fair amount of substance in his system at the time of death.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 9:17:16 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What, you can only fire until fired upon? A guy draws out a firearm on your during an argument and you just...what... Leave would probably be the best choice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 9:21:02 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is this what you think is applicable? Notice it says "force," and not "lethal force." Both are defined by statute. In pretty much every state you can use reasonable force to get someone off your property. You're saying the manager of a grocery store can blast a drunk in the head for refusing to leave the restroom when requested. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Huge difference- your looking for 9.31 not 9.41 in this circumstance. Nice try though Is this what you think is applicable? (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property. Notice it says "force," and not "lethal force." Both are defined by statute. In pretty much every state you can use reasonable force to get someone off your property. You're saying the manager of a grocery store can blast a drunk in the head for refusing to leave the restroom when requested. Is a gun lethal force until its fired or attempted to be fired? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 9:27:58 AM EDT
[#11]
People in this thread continue to confuse “legal” with “right”
He was legally allowed to go get his rifle. It was dumb and probably the worst move. I agree that he shouldve just stayed inside and watched tv through the whole thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 9:33:15 AM EDT
[#12]
The widow alleges that the ex wife and shooter conspired to murder green shirt. I did think it was odd that the son wasn’t at the house but the ex wife was and that “she wanted to see him longer.”
Then again there is a massive amount of derp and stupidity in this incident so who knows. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 9:33:25 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I was in a similar situation once. My wifes ex comes to my house, getting hot tempered demanding to see his son. The issue with that however was he was behind on child support, and arrived a day late for the visit. This was a dispute between my wife and her ex, I did not fell it was any of my business to get involved, unless he force-ably came into my home. I told my wife to get back inside, lock the door and call the cops, while she did that I got her divorce decree, which stated that she was in the right to refuse visitation. Once the cops arrived they reviewed the divorce decree, told my wifes ex he needed to leave or would be charged with trespassing. And that was the end to it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm not gonna lie, if someone tells me they're taking my gun from me, gets right up in my face, and I feel pressure on the gun... I'm assuming they've grabbed it. My eyes aren't where the camera is, I can't pause, pinch and zoom, slow down, or edit my real-time perception. This also isn't the only time dudes hands were in contact with the gun. Again, devils advocate. Just pointing out that his perception at the time might have been perfectly reasonable, which is the standard it should be judged against. This was brought up when discussion video evidence in the Rittenhouse trial, if we recall. He was asked to leave and refused. This meets trespass. Shooter had a legal right to be there and to be armed. He was within his right to use force at that point, but not deadly force. Dead guy then advanced on him, told him he was going to take his gun and use it on him, then grabbed, swatted, or whatever at the gun and then tossed the guy around. At this point I'd say he met the reasonable threshold of deadly force. Back it up 45 seconds and I would personally never have gotten involved outside of telling him to leave, telling GF to come inside, and then sit inside waiting for the police or him to leave. No need to go through anything further over a custody issue. It just seems from how Texas castle doctrine and stand your ground is written the guy is clear on this. Nailed it. I was in a similar situation once. My wifes ex comes to my house, getting hot tempered demanding to see his son. The issue with that however was he was behind on child support, and arrived a day late for the visit. This was a dispute between my wife and her ex, I did not fell it was any of my business to get involved, unless he force-ably came into my home. I told my wife to get back inside, lock the door and call the cops, while she did that I got her divorce decree, which stated that she was in the right to refuse visitation. Once the cops arrived they reviewed the divorce decree, told my wifes ex he needed to leave or would be charged with trespassing. And that was the end to it. Yeah but if you're not an idiot asshole, then there are no assholes colliding, thus no viral videos. Boooooring. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 9:44:15 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The widow alleges that the ex wife and shooter conspired to murder green shirt. I did think it was odd that the son wasn’t at the house but the ex wife was and that “she wanted to see him longer.” Then again there is a massive amount of derp and stupidity in this incident so who knows. The winner here is the ex. She gains sole custody but loses her .gov thefted bloodmoney. She will drop the shooter in jail for life after a few tears and find someone else to parasite off of to make up for lost income after some swiping on tinder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 9:53:03 AM EDT
[#15]
If a divorced father dies, does a portion of the estate have to go towards child support?
I have no idea how that works. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 9:56:11 AM EDT
[#16]
At my day job. Showed the video to my co-worker, owns guns, ccw permit, etc.
He says black shirt guy, murder. That concludes this installment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 9:59:05 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: The winner here is the ex. She gains sole custody but loses her .gov thefted bloodmoney. She will drop the shooter in jail for life after a few tears and find someone else to parasite off of to make up for lost income after some swiping on tinder. Quoted: If a divorced father dies, does a portion of the estate have to go towards child support? I have no idea how that works. She will get dead guy’s social security until child is 18. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 10:06:27 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: At my day job. Showed the video to my co-worker, owns guns, ccw permit, etc. He says black shirt guy, murder. That concludes this installment. NoT iN tExAs |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 10:11:48 AM EDT
[#19]
We all have our opinion on what we saw and/or interpreted what happened. What really matters is what the charge is and how additional info folds out.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 10:26:30 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If a divorced father dies, does a portion of the estate have to go towards child support? I have no idea how that works. iirc I had to have a life insurance policy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 10:31:01 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: She will get dead guy’s social security until child is 18. Poor kid won't see a dime. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 10:32:05 AM EDT
[#22]
This happened in Texas not some shithole country where this is an thrice hourly occurrence.
Exwife & shooter were way too calm during & after the incident, no one rendered aid to victim, not even a gasp or oh my God! Looks like the exwife lured him there and had mr pussywhipped kill him. Something will leak from one of them & it will all fall apart. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 10:34:46 AM EDT
[#23]
Looks like a bad idea
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 10:37:15 AM EDT
[#24]
I think the authorities are going to look very hard at the custodial agreement, and figure out if they conspired to break that agreement.
If it can be proved that the property owners intended to create this dispute and if they were the source of conflict and didn't attempt to remove themselves from it, they will have a difficult time claiming Self defense. The fact she is a judge will also play a higher burden on them in respect to the custodial contract being broken. This is comparable to slapping someone in the face, and then pulling a gun on them when they go to beat the shit out of you. The video is not clear who was the primary aggressor, it's also very clear that the shooter left, and returned with the gun.. which is a big nono for self defense claims. Not sure I would say it's murder, but something along the lines of reckless manslaughter |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 10:41:05 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The widow alleges that the ex wife and shooter conspired to murder green shirt. I did think it was odd that the son wasn't at the house but the ex wife was and that "she wanted to see him longer." Then again there is a massive amount of derp and stupidity in this incident so who knows. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 10:42:58 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is a gun lethal force until its fired or attempted to be fired? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Huge difference- your looking for 9.31 not 9.41 in this circumstance. Nice try though Is this what you think is applicable? (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property. Notice it says "force," and not "lethal force." Both are defined by statute. In pretty much every state you can use reasonable force to get someone off your property. You're saying the manager of a grocery store can blast a drunk in the head for refusing to leave the restroom when requested. Is a gun lethal force until its fired or attempted to be fired? Yes, see the Texas deadly conduct statute I copied early. You can catch a misdemeanor for pointing an unloaded gun in a person’s general direction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 10:43:59 AM EDT
[#27]
I'm betting this is not the first time she has played fuck-fuck games during visitation times.
Everybody has their cellphones out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 10:47:14 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's probably a tall order to prove unless there's communications showing it, or a witness/confession. If they can prove that they purposely created this conflict, they lose a lot of ground on a self defense claim, which could be enough for a murder charge without direct proof. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 10:59:22 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes, see the Texas deadly conduct statute I copied early. You can catch a misdemeanor for pointing an unloaded gun in a person’s general direction. Ill have to go find that. Does that apply in a situation where force up to but not including deadly force is authorized? Just like you could punch him in the face to get him to fuck off and leave but in other circumstances thatd be assault. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 11:00:21 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Can anyone point me towards the part in the Texas penal code where you can shoot people for trespassing? No, you can’t because it isn’t in there. Shooter chose to give up any advantage he might have under castle doctrine by leaving his castle. So, it being his property has fuck all to do with it. Now it’s just a straight “Did you reasonably have an immediate fear of death or serious bodily injury.” With all the AOJP elements that apply. And that’s why the shooter is well and truly fucked. Which probably suits baby momma just fine and solved both of her problems at one throw. You could be right about the shooters future but your wrong about his rights under castle. So long as he was on his property those rights applied. As he stood 20 feet from the front door…still his castle. I also don’t think he was shot for trespassing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 11:00:59 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If dumb fuck would have left property when asked instead of threatening and walking over to shooter ultimately throwing shooter off porch then he would still be here so he could yell at clouds. Seemed like a hot head. Imo all the back story doesn’t matter, and how much of assholes all involved are. But you just cant do what he did. His issues needed to be worked out in the legal system where they were created, not fix it by breaking the law. He had a right to go pick his kid up…But he had to leave when told to by property owner. It was his time to see the kid, sure, but he looked like a raging asshole and truth be known the kid probably took off knowing “dad” was coming to pick him up. Not fun being with a rageful narcissistic POS. The demeanor of the mom as green shirt is berating her is indicative of what she must have went through wile with him. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That's like stepping out in front of a car and shooting the driver because he was going to run you over. If dumb fuck wouldn't have ran inside and got the rifle, there would be no "imminent deadly threat". If dumb fuck would have left property when asked instead of threatening and walking over to shooter ultimately throwing shooter off porch then he would still be here so he could yell at clouds. Seemed like a hot head. Imo all the back story doesn’t matter, and how much of assholes all involved are. But you just cant do what he did. His issues needed to be worked out in the legal system where they were created, not fix it by breaking the law. He had a right to go pick his kid up…But he had to leave when told to by property owner. It was his time to see the kid, sure, but he looked like a raging asshole and truth be known the kid probably took off knowing “dad” was coming to pick him up. Not fun being with a rageful narcissistic POS. The demeanor of the mom as green shirt is berating her is indicative of what she must have went through wile with him. The step mom has filed to remove the children from mom (black shirt’s mistress), which is incredibly unusual. The son that green shirt and step mom were there to pick up no longer wants anything to do with mom or black shirt and refuses to be in the same house. FYI, a more likely reason that green shirt and the ex wife are no longer together is the ex wife was fucking black shirt behind his back. Black shirt’s soon to be ex wife said that black shirt’s affair with green shirt’s ex wife had been going on for years. So green shirt’s ex wife was not only playing games with the kids. She also fucked around behind his back with another married man. She seems like a real piece of shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 11:03:14 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It makes absolutely a lot of sense. Look at the pic. Look at where shooter guy is in relation to the green shirt guys path of escape. He is directly between the green shirt guy and green shirt guys truck. Should green shirt guy make his way to his truck? He'll be advancing toward the shooter if he does. As I've said, shooter, IMO, would then be justified in shooting EVEN THOUGH green shirt is actually trying to leave. So what is green shirt to do in that situation? He's a captive of black shirt because he has nowhere to go. He never got a chance to do anything because shooterman was butthurt enough to kill him. The correct thing for black shirt to do is to demand that green shirt prone out, then have the skank beast call the cops and explain everything. Not to kill green shirt unless he advances in a threatening manner. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: That perfectly illustrates the point I was making earlier about green shirt trying to leave. Assuming that's his white truck, how is he supposed to leave without black shirt perceiving a threat because he's advancing? When you tell a guy to leave then you have to let him leave. That is the law regarding tresspassers. Black shirt effectively had him captive and then executed him. That's the proverbial smoking gun before the actual smoking gun. It makes absolutely a lot of sense. Look at the pic. Look at where shooter guy is in relation to the green shirt guys path of escape. He is directly between the green shirt guy and green shirt guys truck. Should green shirt guy make his way to his truck? He'll be advancing toward the shooter if he does. As I've said, shooter, IMO, would then be justified in shooting EVEN THOUGH green shirt is actually trying to leave. So what is green shirt to do in that situation? He's a captive of black shirt because he has nowhere to go. He never got a chance to do anything because shooterman was butthurt enough to kill him. The correct thing for black shirt to do is to demand that green shirt prone out, then have the skank beast call the cops and explain everything. Not to kill green shirt unless he advances in a threatening manner. Agree here. But today you don’t think the question will end up in court as to how black shirt ended up there you’d be wrong. In addition, the video clearly shows green shirt taking a couple steps towards black shirt at the time of being stopped in his tracks. Watch the video from inside. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 11:06:58 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ill have to go find that. Does that apply in a situation where force up to but not including deadly force is authorized? Just like you could punch him in the face to get him to fuck off and leave but in other circumstances thatd be assault. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Yes, see the Texas deadly conduct statute I copied early. You can catch a misdemeanor for pointing an unloaded gun in a person’s general direction. Ill have to go find that. Does that apply in a situation where force up to but not including deadly force is authorized? Just like you could punch him in the face to get him to fuck off and leave but in other circumstances thatd be assault. I copied it into the thread on page 33. Not sure on how it interacts with trespassing and assault laws. I’m not a lawyer. I just found it while reading up on statutes. Texas also has a mutually agreed combat law, but I don’t think that applies here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 11:08:40 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm betting this is not the first time she has played fuck-fuck games during visitation times. Everybody has their cellphones out. 100% guaranteed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 11:09:08 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: People in this thread continue to confuse “legal” with “right” He was legally allowed to go get his rifle. It was dumb and probably the worst move. I agree that he shouldve just stayed inside and watched tv through the whole thing. This right here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 11:10:27 AM EDT
[#36]
The fact that this case is a 34 page argument on this site says a lot about how justified this shooting was.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 11:13:20 AM EDT
[#37]
(I haven’t read any of the comments)
Well, he was asked to leave, said he was gonna take the gun & kill the guy, received a warning shot & attempted to disarm him. Seems like a good shoot. If some guy comes out with a gun & tells me to go- I’m the fuck outta there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 11:13:57 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The fact that this case is a 34 page argument on this site says a lot about how justified this shooting was. Willing to wager? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 11:16:40 AM EDT
[#39]
Regardless of how this ends up….has anyone noticed that the shooter fired in the exact same direction as where the person videoing from inside was originally standing prior to black shirt being thrown off the porch
No way blackshirt knew the video person moved before he pulled up. Not that ended well but could of been even worse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 11:18:19 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Regardless of how this ends up.has anyone noticed that the shooter fired in the exact same direction as where the person videoing from inside was originally standing prior to black shirt being thrown off the porch No way blackshirt knew the video person moved before he pulled up. Not that ended well but could of been even worse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 11:37:42 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No. I am guessing whichever journalist obtained it from her divorce case just slapped that on that since that is where they got it and CYA. Not the real copyright. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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 Wait a minute. Copyright Anne-Marie Carruth? The judge? The wife of the shooter? That is the person behind the screen door? And the cops/DA stated, after how many days/weeks, that because the shooter "may or may not have been related to someone in LE/public office", local LE/prosecution are recusing themselves? Uh... I think the poster who stated she included it in her divorce documents are probably why it’s copyrighted that way. Her affidavit stated this. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/200878/D16FC663-3F5C-4370-8900-BF501ED65CC4_jpe-2182580.JPG No. I am guessing whichever journalist obtained it from her divorce case just slapped that on that since that is where they got it and CYA. Not the real copyright. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 11:39:43 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The winner here is the ex. She gains sole custody but loses her .gov thefted bloodmoney. She will drop the shooter in jail for life after a few tears and find someone else to parasite off of to make up for lost income after some swiping on tinder. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The widow alleges that the ex wife and shooter conspired to murder green shirt. I did think it was odd that the son wasn't at the house but the ex wife was and that "she wanted to see him longer." Then again there is a massive amount of derp and stupidity in this incident so who knows. The winner here is the ex. She gains sole custody but loses her .gov thefted bloodmoney. She will drop the shooter in jail for life after a few tears and find someone else to parasite off of to make up for lost income after some swiping on tinder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 11:43:01 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I copied it into the thread on page 33. Not sure on how it interacts with trespassing and assault laws. I’m not a lawyer. I just found it while reading up on statutes. Texas also has a mutually agreed combat law, but I don’t think that applies here. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yes, see the Texas deadly conduct statute I copied early. You can catch a misdemeanor for pointing an unloaded gun in a person’s general direction. Ill have to go find that. Does that apply in a situation where force up to but not including deadly force is authorized? Just like you could punch him in the face to get him to fuck off and leave but in other circumstances thatd be assault. I copied it into the thread on page 33. Not sure on how it interacts with trespassing and assault laws. I’m not a lawyer. I just found it while reading up on statutes. Texas also has a mutually agreed combat law, but I don’t think that applies here. Agreed i dont think mutual applies either. My point being if he can use any force up to but NOT including deadly force then I think he was okay to have the gun. Besides the mere presence of a gun to me isnt lethal force. Or every altercation with someone who was open carrying would be considered using lethal force. I dont think brandishing is a thing in texas on your own property but not sure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 11:44:29 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ill have to go find that. Does that apply in a situation where force up to but not including deadly force is authorized? Just like you could punch him in the face to get him to fuck off and leave but in other circumstances thatd be assault. Maybe some TX criminal lawyer could explain the case law around texas code 9.04... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 11:47:57 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: texas is weird Maybe some TX criminal lawyer could explain the case law around texas code 9.04... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Ill have to go find that. Does that apply in a situation where force up to but not including deadly force is authorized? [/color] Just like you could punch him in the face to get him to fuck off and leave but in other circumstances thatd be assault. Maybe some TX criminal lawyer could explain the case law around texas code 9.04... I think we can all agree Texas is weird. And Texans weirder  |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 11:52:28 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Agreed i dont think mutual applies either. My point being if he can use any force up to but NOT including deadly force then I think he was okay to have the gun. Besides the mere presence of a gun to me isnt lethal force. Or every altercation with someone who was open carrying would be considered using lethal force. I dont think brandishing is a thing in texas on your own property but not sure. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yes, see the Texas deadly conduct statute I copied early. You can catch a misdemeanor for pointing an unloaded gun in a person’s general direction. Ill have to go find that. Does that apply in a situation where force up to but not including deadly force is authorized? Just like you could punch him in the face to get him to fuck off and leave but in other circumstances thatd be assault. I copied it into the thread on page 33. Not sure on how it interacts with trespassing and assault laws. I’m not a lawyer. I just found it while reading up on statutes. Texas also has a mutually agreed combat law, but I don’t think that applies here. Agreed i dont think mutual applies either. My point being if he can use any force up to but NOT including deadly force then I think he was okay to have the gun. Besides the mere presence of a gun to me isnt lethal force. Or every altercation with someone who was open carrying would be considered using lethal force. I dont think brandishing is a thing in texas on your own property but not sure. Brandishing isn't a thing at all in Texas. It's either Disorderly Conduct or Deadly Conduct. Penal Code Title 5, § 22.05 Deadly Conduct Penal Code Title 9, § 42.01 - Disorderly Conduct https://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/Brandishing_Display_of_Firearm.pdf For what it's worth, that's one of the reasons Texas fought to get open carry. Prior to open carry, you could pick up a disorderly conduct charge for your shirt riding up over your CCW. My CCW instructor had a portion of the class where he dealt with talking to law enforcement if a member of the public calls the cops on you. He specifically demonstrated how bending over a few times will catch your shirt tail and pull it up over your gun if you're not paying attention. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 11:55:08 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The fact that this case is a 34 page argument on this site says a lot about how justified this shooting was. This is Arfcom. We could have a 35 page thread arguing about which side of the plate the fork goes on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 11:55:30 AM EDT
[#48]
Bad shoot
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:02:06 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah, that might have worked. Had it been me, I'd have probably put both hands up and made a big half circle around Napoleon and back to my truck. Green shirt never got the chance because Napoleon had already decided that he wasn't respecting the magic shooty stick and needed to die. He picked the worst possible time to shoot. Greenie wasn't advancing or presenting an immediate and imminent threat. He'd have been much better off if he'd shot him when he first came out of the house. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:02:40 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think the authorities are going to look very hard at the custodial agreement, and figure out if they conspired to break that agreement. If it can be proved that the property owners intended to create this dispute and if they were the source of conflict and didn't attempt to remove themselves from it, they will have a difficult time claiming Self defense. The fact she is a judge will also play a higher burden on them in respect to the custodial contract being broken. This is comparable to slapping someone in the face, and then pulling a gun on them when they go to beat the shit out of you. The video is not clear who was the primary aggressor, it's also very clear that the shooter left, and returned with the gun.. which is a big nono for self defense claims. Not sure I would say it's murder, but something along the lines of reckless manslaughter This is sort of along my lines of thinking, did black shirt and his girlfriend intentionally create this situation. The women in the video says something like she didn’t hand the kid over because she wanted to see the kid, but the kid isn’t there it sounds like? And green shirt says he’s sending the police to the women’s mom’s house sting something like “because that’s probably where he is”. So the mom kept the kid to see him but the kid isn’t there, the dad says the kid is probably at the mom of the mom’s house so it sounds like it doesn’t actually know where the kid is. There were people in the house also, I wonder if they heard the shooter say anything beforehand about trying to rile green shirt up. To me this would be like me calling you a Hilary loving liberal taint face, you come up and shove me, I pull out my firearm, you do a grab the firearm and toss me like green shirt did to black shirt, I shoot you. If I deliberately set out to antagonize you to find a wraps to shoot you, still self defense? I think more than what’s just on video is going to come into play here. Should you be able to defend yourself and property? Sure. But should you create a situation where you go and look for a reason to shoot someone? Seems more like waiting for the other person to give you a reason to shoot them than it does being in fear of your life. |
|
|
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.
