User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 1:47:46 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This came in on Branca's blog from a LOSD member. His name is on the blog post, but i will not enter it here. Content below: "I think Andrew missed the most important factor in this case. The Shooter does not live at this property and does not own this property. The shooter is married to a judge. This property belongs to the father of the child, and the mother and child live on the property. The mother is violating the divorce agreement by refusing to turn over the child at the court agreed-upon time 3 PM on this property The father has a divorce agreement ratified by the court that states he’s allowed to be on his own property at 3 PM to pick up the child. Shooter is illegally interfering with a court ordered agreement. He’s committing one of several crimes by trying to trespass the father. The father verbally asserts his legal rights. The shooter leaves a verbal argument goes to a place of safety and instead of calling the police, returns with a gun. He then commits further crimes by initiating a deadly force attack of the father by shooting the warning shot. Warning shots are completely illegal in Texas. Responding to a non-deadly force attack with deadly force is also illegal in Texas. The father has every right to respond to the deadly force warning shot attack with his own deadly force attack. I am certain that this guy’s wife, the judge, would love the local authorities to prosecute him especially as he’s cheating on her with this man’s ex-wife. I am certain Texas going to throw the book at him." Does this change any minds? Wow, how’s that for the “muh trespassing folks.” Fry the motherfucker. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 1:48:29 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is how green shirt’s body ended up in its final position https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/384478/495A736D-DB49-4BDC-AA99-24B7FC8F0AC0-2184342.png ETA: Check your emotional hang ups at the door and watch videos closely. ETAx2: Pay very close attention between 00:11 and 00:12 seconds. Use the pause feature. This is a clean shoot. I disagree. I have watched the segment multiple times. Although it may be due to imperfect syncing between the video and audio, it appears to my eyes and ears that the first shot (of the two aimed at green shirt) rang out just before his leg raised. Taking into account all of his body movements, he did not appear to be advancing towards black shirt. The leg movement he initiated was more of someone maintaining balance after having just slung someone off a porch (and having just been shot). |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 1:49:46 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I disagree. I have watched the segment multiple times. Although it may be due to imperfect syncing between the video and audio, it appears to my eyes and ears that the first shot (of the two aimed at green shirt) rang out just before his leg raised. Taking into account all of his body movements, he did not appear to be advancing towards black shirt. The leg movement he initiated was more of someone maintaining balance after having just slung someone off a porch (and having just been shot). Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: This is how green shirt’s body ended up in its final position https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/384478/495A736D-DB49-4BDC-AA99-24B7FC8F0AC0-2184342.png ETA: Check your emotional hang ups at the door and watch videos closely. ETAx2: Pay very close attention between 00:11 and 00:12 seconds. Use the pause feature. This is a clean shoot. I disagree. I have watched the segment multiple times. Although it may be due to imperfect syncing between the video and audio, it appears to my eyes and ears that the first shot (of the two aimed at green shirt) rang out just before his leg raised. Taking into account all of his body movements, he did not appear to be advancing towards black shirt. The leg movement he initiated was more of someone maintaining balance after having just slung someone off a porch (and having just been shot). That’s what I’m seeing. Also why I don’t see that video as conclusive. People are seeing what they want to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 1:50:17 PM EDT
[#4]
Wait a second the property belongs to the divorced and not the boyfriend/shooter?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 1:51:56 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wait a second the property belongs to the divorced and not the boyfriend/shooter? According to the internet, yes. Black shirt shot green shirt at ex wife’s house, which belongs to green shirt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 1:55:24 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: According to the internet, yes. Black shirt shot green shirt at ex wife’s house, which belongs to green shirt. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Wait a second the property belongs to the divorced and not the boyfriend/shooter? According to the internet, yes. Black shirt shot green shirt at ex wife’s house, which belongs to green shirt. If true black shirt is a asshole and deserves what he gets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 1:55:25 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes he was. When you are told to leave private property by the owner and you remain, you are trespassing. Doesn't matter why you were there. Your welcome is officially worn out. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: He wasn't trespassing, so all the positioning has nothing to do with it at all. He murdered a man who was legally there to pick up his kid. He's going to jail. Yes he was. When you are told to leave private property by the owner and you remain, you are trespassing. Doesn't matter why you were there. Your welcome is officially worn out. Yep trespassing isnt just being there with permission. Staying after being asked to leave is trespassing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 1:55:26 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This came in on Branca's blog from a LOSD member. His name is on the blog post, but i will not enter it here. Content below: "I think Andrew missed the most important factor in this case. The Shooter does not live at this property and does not own this property. The shooter is married to a judge. This property belongs to the father of the child, and the mother and child live on the property. The mother is violating the divorce agreement by refusing to turn over the child at the court agreed-upon time 3 PM on this property The father has a divorce agreement ratified by the court that states he’s allowed to be on his own property at 3 PM to pick up the child. Shooter is illegally interfering with a court ordered agreement. He’s committing one of several crimes by trying to trespass the father. The father verbally asserts his legal rights. The shooter leaves a verbal argument goes to a place of safety and instead of calling the police, returns with a gun. He then commits further crimes by initiating a deadly force attack of the father by shooting the warning shot. Warning shots are completely illegal in Texas. Responding to a non-deadly force attack with deadly force is also illegal in Texas. The father has every right to respond to the deadly force warning shot attack with his own deadly force attack. I am certain that this guy’s wife, the judge, would love the local authorities to prosecute him especially as he’s cheating on her with this man’s ex-wife. I am certain Texas going to throw the book at him." Does this change any minds? IF this is true, it's going to knock a lot of wind out of the sails of the ''he's trespassing so I can shoot him'' posters. Even if he is shacked up with the soon to be ex of green shirt, does an ''invited guest'' enjoy the same legal rights as the property owner? And if the property owner [who's name is on the deed will be important] is on his own property, black shirt isn't in a very good legal position. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 1:57:03 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If green shirt is done with his advancing and black shirt shoots him, then it’s a bad shoot per SME Andrew Branca. Window of imminent harm had closed. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I really like this pic https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/9106/Screenshot_20211126-221832_Samsung_Inter-2182509.JPG ETA: For all the posters saying green shirt didn’t continue advancing. Here is a much better, UNCROPPED image. Andrew Branca in the above video he posted apparently didn't see this picture as he himself stated he based his opinion on the two cell phone videos that he saw. In this picture it appears that the deceased was still moving forward toward the shooter after he had spun and tossed the shooter off of the porch. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/9106/Screenshot_20211126-221832_Samsung_Inter-2182509.JPG Green shirt ended off the porch spinning black shirt off the porch. Watch the video again and pay close attention to 00:11-00:12 seconds marks. The first shot that strikes green shirt is when green shirt is regaining his footing. Up to that point, green shirt has done all the advancing and was in attack mode. Green shirt is in motion when the first shot that strikes is taken. Again, pay very close attention to the 00:11-00:12 second marks. Look at black shirt’s body movements, look at green shirt’s body movements. This is a clean shoot.
Really not seeing green shirt advancing toward black shirt in that video. Looks like he’s puffing his chest out and lifting his head to yell at him. Looking at his feet, they’re both on the porch. Left heel is up, but I’m not seeing green shirt advancing. He’s already done his advancing, he’s getting shot at that point. If green shirt is done with his advancing and black shirt shoots him, then it’s a bad shoot per SME Andrew Branca. Window of imminent harm had closed. “Instance/Instant”. Neither are on a clock at that moment, they are both in the heat of the moment. ETA: We have the luxury to pause, rewind, slow down the events caught in video. They do not have that same luxury. We can say either “should’ve/could’ve/would’ve” while they only had their ability to react. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 1:58:16 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Simply put; if black shirt hasn’t bright the gun out then he wouldn’t be looking at possibly taking a ride through the legal system. There was zero need to introduce the gun into that situation Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Branca clearly said that he could have shot him at the time the warning shot was taken and it would have been a good shoot. He basically said nothing folks were on about here was correct & doing the victory dance here is unfounded on either side. Going to get the gun was not an issue, and the video shows black shirt was provoked not the other way around. The analysis he presented was that castle doctrine didn't matter because he didn't have any duty to retreat regardless, so your mocking is total BS there. Those saying he wasn't okay to go get his gun and that he illegally handled the gun and provoked green shirt deserve the biggest derision. The only thing that mattered was that he shot him and if there was an imminent threat at the very end. Provocation goes to green shirt not black shirt, hence voluntary manslaughter not murder. He also said if he even shifted his weight forward at the end it was justified because green shirt was the one that provoked him. He doesn't see it but it looks like the video shows it. I think there were different versions of the video from inside. Simply put; if black shirt hasn’t bright the gun out then he wouldn’t be looking at possibly taking a ride through the legal system. There was zero need to introduce the gun into that situation “He shouldnt have had the gun” Sounds familiar. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 1:59:36 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: “Instance/Instant”. Neither are on a clock at that moment, they are both in the heat of the moment. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I really like this pic https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/9106/Screenshot_20211126-221832_Samsung_Inter-2182509.JPG ETA: For all the posters saying green shirt didn’t continue advancing. Here is a much better, UNCROPPED image. Andrew Branca in the above video he posted apparently didn't see this picture as he himself stated he based his opinion on the two cell phone videos that he saw. In this picture it appears that the deceased was still moving forward toward the shooter after he had spun and tossed the shooter off of the porch. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/9106/Screenshot_20211126-221832_Samsung_Inter-2182509.JPG Green shirt ended off the porch spinning black shirt off the porch. Watch the video again and pay close attention to 00:11-00:12 seconds marks. The first shot that strikes green shirt is when green shirt is regaining his footing. Up to that point, green shirt has done all the advancing and was in attack mode. Green shirt is in motion when the first shot that strikes is taken. Again, pay very close attention to the 00:11-00:12 second marks. Look at black shirt’s body movements, look at green shirt’s body movements. This is a clean shoot.
Really not seeing green shirt advancing toward black shirt in that video. Looks like he’s puffing his chest out and lifting his head to yell at him. Looking at his feet, they’re both on the porch. Left heel is up, but I’m not seeing green shirt advancing. He’s already done his advancing, he’s getting shot at that point. If green shirt is done with his advancing and black shirt shoots him, then it’s a bad shoot per SME Andrew Branca. Window of imminent harm had closed. “Instance/Instant”. Neither are on a clock at that moment, they are both in the heat of the moment. Not what the SME said. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 2:00:25 PM EDT
[#12]
Woah, if that's all true, that green shirt is the property owner, this got even more interesting.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 2:00:56 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yep trespassing isnt just being there with permission. Staying after being asked to leave is trespassing. Not trespassing with a court order. This case has nothing to do with trespassing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 2:01:45 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This came in on Branca's blog from a LOSD member. His name is on the blog post, but i will not enter it here. Content below: "I think Andrew missed the most important factor in this case. The Shooter does not live at this property and does not own this property. The shooter is married to a judge. This property belongs to the father of the child, and the mother and child live on the property. The mother is violating the divorce agreement by refusing to turn over the child at the court agreed-upon time 3 PM on this property The father has a divorce agreement ratified by the court that states he’s allowed to be on his own property at 3 PM to pick up the child. Shooter is illegally interfering with a court ordered agreement. He’s committing one of several crimes by trying to trespass the father. The father verbally asserts his legal rights. The shooter leaves a verbal argument goes to a place of safety and instead of calling the police, returns with a gun. He then commits further crimes by initiating a deadly force attack of the father by shooting the warning shot. Warning shots are completely illegal in Texas. Responding to a non-deadly force attack with deadly force is also illegal in Texas. The father has every right to respond to the deadly force warning shot attack with his own deadly force attack. I am certain that this guy’s wife, the judge, would love the local authorities to prosecute him especially as he’s cheating on her with this man’s ex-wife. I am certain Texas going to throw the book at him." Does this change any minds? A simple search of the property shows the owner is shooters parents. Negates the argument. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 2:02:01 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wow, how’s that for the “muh trespassing folks.” Fry the motherfucker. Hahahahaha a fourth hand comment from a faceless rando on the internet and youre vindicated lol. Youre just as bad as the people you claim are seeing the video as conclusive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 2:02:07 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not what the SME said. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I really like this pic https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/9106/Screenshot_20211126-221832_Samsung_Inter-2182509.JPG ETA: For all the posters saying green shirt didn’t continue advancing. Here is a much better, UNCROPPED image. Andrew Branca in the above video he posted apparently didn't see this picture as he himself stated he based his opinion on the two cell phone videos that he saw. In this picture it appears that the deceased was still moving forward toward the shooter after he had spun and tossed the shooter off of the porch. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/9106/Screenshot_20211126-221832_Samsung_Inter-2182509.JPG Green shirt ended off the porch spinning black shirt off the porch. Watch the video again and pay close attention to 00:11-00:12 seconds marks. The first shot that strikes green shirt is when green shirt is regaining his footing. Up to that point, green shirt has done all the advancing and was in attack mode. Green shirt is in motion when the first shot that strikes is taken. Again, pay very close attention to the 00:11-00:12 second marks. Look at black shirt’s body movements, look at green shirt’s body movements. This is a clean shoot.
Really not seeing green shirt advancing toward black shirt in that video. Looks like he’s puffing his chest out and lifting his head to yell at him. Looking at his feet, they’re both on the porch. Left heel is up, but I’m not seeing green shirt advancing. He’s already done his advancing, he’s getting shot at that point. If green shirt is done with his advancing and black shirt shoots him, then it’s a bad shoot per SME Andrew Branca. Window of imminent harm had closed. “Instance/Instant”. Neither are on a clock at that moment, they are both in the heat of the moment. Not what the SME said. I see what I see and form my own opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 2:02:40 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: IF this is true, it's going to knock a lot of wind out of the sails of the ''he's trespassing so I can shoot him'' posters. Even if he is shacked up with the soon to be ex of green shirt, does an ''invited guest'' enjoy the same legal rights as the property owner? And if the property owner [who's name is on the deed will be important] is on his own property, black shirt isn't in a very good legal position. That look you get when you realize you’ve been defending the guy who shot the homeowner… |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 2:02:59 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Which doesn't mean a damn thing a far as the shooting Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Not saying that. I'm saying he was in fact trespassing when he refused to leave. Which doesn't mean a damn thing a far as the shooting I agree. I was responding to someone asserting that it was not trespassing to remain on the premises after being told to leave because "he was there to pick up his kid." |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 2:03:17 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not trespassing with a court order. This case has nothing to do with trespassing. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Yep trespassing isnt just being there with permission. Staying after being asked to leave is trespassing. Not trespassing with a court order. This case has nothing to do with trespassing. Have you seen this said court order? No? Okay so youre guessing like the rest of us okay. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 2:03:36 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A simple search of the property shows the owner is shooters parents. Negates the argument. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: This came in on Branca's blog from a LOSD member. His name is on the blog post, but i will not enter it here. Content below: "I think Andrew missed the most important factor in this case. The Shooter does not live at this property and does not own this property. The shooter is married to a judge. This property belongs to the father of the child, and the mother and child live on the property. The mother is violating the divorce agreement by refusing to turn over the child at the court agreed-upon time 3 PM on this property The father has a divorce agreement ratified by the court that states he's allowed to be on his own property at 3 PM to pick up the child. Shooter is illegally interfering with a court ordered agreement. He's committing one of several crimes by trying to trespass the father. The father verbally asserts his legal rights. The shooter leaves a verbal argument goes to a place of safety and instead of calling the police, returns with a gun. He then commits further crimes by initiating a deadly force attack of the father by shooting the warning shot. Warning shots are completely illegal in Texas. Responding to a non-deadly force attack with deadly force is also illegal in Texas. The father has every right to respond to the deadly force warning shot attack with his own deadly force attack. I am certain that this guy's wife, the judge, would love the local authorities to prosecute him especially as he's cheating on her with this man's ex-wife. I am certain Texas going to throw the book at him." Does this change any minds? A simple search of the property shows the owner is shooters parents. Negates the argument. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 2:03:58 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That look you get when you realize you’ve been defending the guy who shot the homeowner… Quote HistoryQuoted: That look you get when you realize you’ve been defending the guy who shot the homeowner… Quoted: A simple search of the property shows the owner is shooters parents. Negates the argument. What was that you were saying? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 2:04:26 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Have you seen this said court order? No? Okay so youre guessing like the rest of us okay. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yep trespassing isnt just being there with permission. Staying after being asked to leave is trespassing. Not trespassing with a court order. This case has nothing to do with trespassing. Have you seen this said court order? No? Okay so youre guessing like the rest of us okay. No I'm just going off the audio on the tape. Do you doubt there was a visitation agreement signed by a judge? I don't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 2:05:01 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No I'm just going off the audio on the tape. Do you doubt there was a visitation agreement signed by a judge? I don't. There might be. Does that visitation agreement to go wherever he wants anywhere he thinks his son might be? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 2:05:29 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Hahahahaha a fourth hand comment from a faceless rando on the internet and youre vindicated lol. Youre just as bad as the people you claim are seeing the video as conclusive. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Wow, how’s that for the “muh trespassing folks.” Fry the motherfucker. Hahahahaha a fourth hand comment from a faceless rando on the internet and youre vindicated lol. Youre just as bad as the people you claim are seeing the video as conclusive. It’s all so tiresome. Someone said property records have it as the shooter’s parent’s house. Vindication averted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 2:06:05 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wait a second the property belongs to the divorced and not the boyfriend/shooter? If this is the case all those "stay out of Muh state of Texas guys" I'd like to hear what you think? I'm not sure who owns the house because I heard it's shooters mom, the judge (who is inside?), the baby momma, and now the dead guy. Maybe the guy was living there but I'm not sure how he was protecting his property or has the right to tell him to leave? If it's the shooter's house maybe by Texas law he might get off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 2:06:41 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What was that you were saying? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That look you get when you realize you’ve been defending the guy who shot the homeowner… Quoted: A simple search of the property shows the owner is shooters parents. Negates the argument. What was that you were saying? Yeah yeah, 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 2:06:54 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If you can't trust info posted in a comment section, then what can you trust? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: This came in on Branca's blog from a LOSD member. His name is on the blog post, but i will not enter it here. Content below: "I think Andrew missed the most important factor in this case. The Shooter does not live at this property and does not own this property. The shooter is married to a judge. This property belongs to the father of the child, and the mother and child live on the property. The mother is violating the divorce agreement by refusing to turn over the child at the court agreed-upon time 3 PM on this property The father has a divorce agreement ratified by the court that states he's allowed to be on his own property at 3 PM to pick up the child. Shooter is illegally interfering with a court ordered agreement. He's committing one of several crimes by trying to trespass the father. The father verbally asserts his legal rights. The shooter leaves a verbal argument goes to a place of safety and instead of calling the police, returns with a gun. He then commits further crimes by initiating a deadly force attack of the father by shooting the warning shot. Warning shots are completely illegal in Texas. Responding to a non-deadly force attack with deadly force is also illegal in Texas. The father has every right to respond to the deadly force warning shot attack with his own deadly force attack. I am certain that this guy's wife, the judge, would love the local authorities to prosecute him especially as he's cheating on her with this man's ex-wife. I am certain Texas going to throw the book at him." Does this change any minds? A simple search of the property shows the owner is shooters parents. Negates the argument. Which is why I comb official records. For fun, guess what property owner did to spend time in a Mexican jail? Took a .22 over the border. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 2:07:09 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There might be. Does that visitation agreement to go wherever he wants anywhere he thinks his son might be? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: No I'm just going off the audio on the tape. Do you doubt there was a visitation agreement signed by a judge? I don't. There might be. Does that visitation agreement to go wherever he wants anywhere he thinks his son might be? It gives him permission to meet up with Mom to pick up his Son. So if Mom was there, then yes. Courts don't usually specify location, just meet with Mom. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 2:07:32 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That look you get when you realize you’ve been defending the guy who shot the homeowner… Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: IF this is true, it's going to knock a lot of wind out of the sails of the ''he's trespassing so I can shoot him'' posters. Even if he is shacked up with the soon to be ex of green shirt, does an ''invited guest'' enjoy the same legal rights as the property owner? And if the property owner [who's name is on the deed will be important] is on his own property, black shirt isn't in a very good legal position. That look you get when you realize you’ve been defending the guy who shot the homeowner… Goddamn |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 2:07:56 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There might be. Does that visitation agreement to go wherever he wants anywhere he thinks his son might be? My point being the agreement has limits. Just like your earlier example of a search warrant. Its only good for whats on the warrant. The agreement is allegedly for picking up his kid. Hes been told the kid isnt there. He cant see the kid. Ergo the agreement means shit then. He cant kick the door down and do a search for the kid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 2:09:35 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I see what I see and form my own opinion. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I really like this pic https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/9106/Screenshot_20211126-221832_Samsung_Inter-2182509.JPG ETA: For all the posters saying green shirt didn’t continue advancing. Here is a much better, UNCROPPED image. Andrew Branca in the above video he posted apparently didn't see this picture as he himself stated he based his opinion on the two cell phone videos that he saw. In this picture it appears that the deceased was still moving forward toward the shooter after he had spun and tossed the shooter off of the porch. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/9106/Screenshot_20211126-221832_Samsung_Inter-2182509.JPG Green shirt ended off the porch spinning black shirt off the porch. Watch the video again and pay close attention to 00:11-00:12 seconds marks. The first shot that strikes green shirt is when green shirt is regaining his footing. Up to that point, green shirt has done all the advancing and was in attack mode. Green shirt is in motion when the first shot that strikes is taken. Again, pay very close attention to the 00:11-00:12 second marks. Look at black shirt’s body movements, look at green shirt’s body movements. This is a clean shoot.
Really not seeing green shirt advancing toward black shirt in that video. Looks like he’s puffing his chest out and lifting his head to yell at him. Looking at his feet, they’re both on the porch. Left heel is up, but I’m not seeing green shirt advancing. He’s already done his advancing, he’s getting shot at that point. If green shirt is done with his advancing and black shirt shoots him, then it’s a bad shoot per SME Andrew Branca. Window of imminent harm had closed. “Instance/Instant”. Neither are on a clock at that moment, they are both in the heat of the moment. Not what the SME said. I see what I see and form my own opinion. Like I said, people are seeing what they want to see. Video is inconclusive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 2:11:10 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wait a second the property belongs to the divorced and not the boyfriend/shooter? If Green shirt doesn’t live there and someone else lives there, Green shirt’s right to be on the property is severely limited. I am a landlord and I can’t go on my rented property will-nilly. I once was asked by a friend’s wife to accompany her husband, the executor of his mother’s estate, to accompany him on a property inventory. The husband is a hot head. As it turns out the occupant of the house sister would not let him in. I convinced my friend that we should leave the property. Once I got back to my truck, I called the Police non emergency line. They sent out a peace officer who accompanied us back on the property to conduct the inventory. Once we left, I suggested that he file a motion with the court to compel his sister to grant him access as executor of the estate. He did; the court ordered his sister to pay $1,700 to cover court costs, legal fees, and compensation for our time. Folks I share this tail with you as this is how it is done. You don’t puff up your chest and get conformational. Green shirt guy was a fool, a bully, and a dead guy for his actions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 2:13:51 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah yeah, Look all I’m saying is maybe wait for some actual information before jumping down each other’s throats. We’ve heard lots of talk about things we have absolutely no proof of. I think its a bad shoot, but good shooting. I think kyle is a retard. I think chad is an asshole. I think theyre both stupid for banging skeezebag. I think we wont know the whole truth ever and I think the trial will be entertaining. But everyone in this threads wants to be right so damn bad. To the point where we have retards calling for stricter gun laws. Do you think they can hear themselves? No all they hear is “im right im right im right” |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 2:15:07 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By: A simple search of the property shows the owner is shooters parents. Negates the argument. For the people just catching up…yes, I was trolled by rando internet comment also. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 2:16:05 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: For the people just catching up…yes, I was trolled by rando internet comment also. And I’m happy you’re admitting you got rolled and youre taking it in style. I wonder if the three other people who reveled in it will? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 2:16:24 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My point being the agreement has limits. Just like your earlier example of a search warrant. Its only good for whats on the warrant. The agreement is allegedly for picking up his kid. Hes been told the kid isnt there. He cant see the kid. Ergo the agreement means shit then. He cant kick the door down and do a search for the kid. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: There might be. Does that visitation agreement to go wherever he wants anywhere he thinks his son might be? My point being the agreement has limits. Just like your earlier example of a search warrant. Its only good for whats on the warrant. The agreement is allegedly for picking up his kid. Hes been told the kid isnt there. He cant see the kid. Ergo the agreement means shit then. He cant kick the door down and do a search for the kid. Comments on Widow's facebook page....there's a lot more to this story than the video. Widow is collecting signatures for "Chad's Law" https://www.change.org/p/child-visitation-rights?recruiter=543900944&recruited_by_id=63494ba0-1d17-11e6-94d3-9b3cfd189459&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=petition_dashboard ...I’ve told many people … it’s not like Chad hasn’t had the exact same confrontation with them many times. ...because they planned this out! ...Chad had a right to be there to get his son. As the article suggests it was court ordered for him to pick up his son at 3:15. ...I’m so sorry Jennifer but this is what the media does and why it scares me so much. They are there to stir controversy, Kyle had no business putting his nose in this situation. He already knew what he was going to do when he pulled out that gun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 2:24:05 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A simple search of the property shows the owner is shooters parents. Negates the argument. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: This came in on Branca's blog from a LOSD member. His name is on the blog post, but i will not enter it here. Content below: "I think Andrew missed the most important factor in this case. The Shooter does not live at this property and does not own this property. The shooter is married to a judge. This property belongs to the father of the child, and the mother and child live on the property. The mother is violating the divorce agreement by refusing to turn over the child at the court agreed-upon time 3 PM on this property The father has a divorce agreement ratified by the court that states he’s allowed to be on his own property at 3 PM to pick up the child. Shooter is illegally interfering with a court ordered agreement. He’s committing one of several crimes by trying to trespass the father. The father verbally asserts his legal rights. The shooter leaves a verbal argument goes to a place of safety and instead of calling the police, returns with a gun. He then commits further crimes by initiating a deadly force attack of the father by shooting the warning shot. Warning shots are completely illegal in Texas. Responding to a non-deadly force attack with deadly force is also illegal in Texas. The father has every right to respond to the deadly force warning shot attack with his own deadly force attack. I am certain that this guy’s wife, the judge, would love the local authorities to prosecute him especially as he’s cheating on her with this man’s ex-wife. I am certain Texas going to throw the book at him." Does this change any minds? A simple search of the property shows the owner is shooters parents. Negates the argument. Over at LOSD, this is members only content. This was posted by a member who does not utilize a screen name and appears to be an actual name, so I will not post it here. I have asked in the comments section of the relevant post if the poster has any evidence to validate these claims. If I get more information I will post. As a rule, over there, it is not just internet randos shit-posting; but this could be an example of misinformation. File this one under "Important if true" and "verify". Thank you for the records search; I do not even know the relevant address. If you are correct it is a direct refutation of his argument and I will point that out over at LOSD. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 2:26:38 PM EDT
[#38]
Texas Law
Available Evidence DA/AG will decided what law(s) may have been broken based on evidence. If they believe a law was broken and believe they can win the case, they will charge Kyle with a crime. It’s going to be tough, under TX law, for DA/AG to charge Kyle AND WIN A VERDICT, unless they can show premeditation in some form. The reason is you’ll not find 12 people, based on TX Law, to convict Kyle. This thread shows you this. Because of this, unless this was planned and can be proven, Kyle won’t be charged….IMHO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 2:30:55 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Look all I’m saying is maybe wait for some actual information before jumping down each other’s throats. We’ve heard lots of talk about things we have absolutely no proof of. I think its a bad shoot, but good shooting. I think kyle is a retard. I think chad is an asshole. I think theyre both stupid for banging skeezebag. I think we wont know the whole truth ever and I think the trial will be entertaining. But everyone in this threads wants to be right so damn bad. To the point where we have retards calling for stricter gun laws. Do you think they can hear themselves? No all they hear is “im right im right im right” Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Yeah yeah, Look all I’m saying is maybe wait for some actual information before jumping down each other’s throats. We’ve heard lots of talk about things we have absolutely no proof of. I think its a bad shoot, but good shooting. I think kyle is a retard. I think chad is an asshole. I think theyre both stupid for banging skeezebag. I think we wont know the whole truth ever and I think the trial will be entertaining. But everyone in this threads wants to be right so damn bad. To the point where we have retards calling for stricter gun laws. Do you think they can hear themselves? No all they hear is “im right im right im right” Yeah, I copied my first post in this thread above. “Bad but possibly legal shoot.” Lawyers, jury, and additional facts are going to make or break the legal part. These types of threads are interesting to me because I carry a gun, so they’re learning exercises. Same with the ones like “street robberies and you.” The whole, “we need better gun laws,” thing is stupid. The current laws are fine, and in a perfect world, Kyle gets to run green shirt off by pulling the pins on two grenades he picked up at Walmart next to the .22LR ammo while screaming “I’ll kill us all motherfucker.” |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 2:32:56 PM EDT
[#40]
Edit: seems to have been debunked by Mr Pi
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 2:33:06 PM EDT
[#41]
I will also note that green shirt made no move toward shooter before first shot fired. That "knee lift" was a result of the bullet strike.
Green shirt squared up and steadied himself after the dwarf toss; but did not move in the direction of the shooter. I am certain now that Branca has done a frame by frame and saw the same. That is why his analysis is focused on failure of imminence of the threat at th moment the trigger was pulled on the first shot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 2:34:32 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Texas Law Available Evidence DA/AG will decided what law(s) may have been broken based on evidence. If they believe a law was broken and believe they can win the case, they will charge Kyle with a crime. It’s going to be tough, under TX law, for DA/AG to charge Kyle AND WIN A VERDICT, unless they can show premeditation in some form. The reason is you’ll not find 12 people, based on TX Law, to convict Kyle. This thread shows you this. Because of this, unless this was planned and can be proven, Kyle won’t be charged….IMHO. I agree Eta: for the record, I think it was a bad shoot but I don't think he will end up convicted by a unanimous jury decision. Unless some texts, voicemail, emails come out and prove premeditation |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 2:36:52 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well well well….how do the local “He was justified!!!” Crew feel now? I’m positive now that this was murder. Whether he’s charged doesn’t change the fact he murdered this man, was never in any danger, and created the whole situation. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: This came in on Branca's blog from a LOSD member. His name is on the blog post, but i will not enter it here. Content below: "I think Andrew missed the most important factor in this case. The Shooter does not live at this property and does not own this property. The shooter is married to a judge. This property belongs to the father of the child, and the mother and child live on the property. The mother is violating the divorce agreement by refusing to turn over the child at the court agreed-upon time 3 PM on this property The father has a divorce agreement ratified by the court that states he’s allowed to be on his own property at 3 PM to pick up the child. Shooter is illegally interfering with a court ordered agreement. He’s committing one of several crimes by trying to trespass the father. The father verbally asserts his legal rights. The shooter leaves a verbal argument goes to a place of safety and instead of calling the police, returns with a gun. He then commits further crimes by initiating a deadly force attack of the father by shooting the warning shot. Warning shots are completely illegal in Texas. Responding to a non-deadly force attack with deadly force is also illegal in Texas. The father has every right to respond to the deadly force warning shot attack with his own deadly force attack. I am certain that this guy’s wife, the judge, would love the local authorities to prosecute him especially as he’s cheating on her with this man’s ex-wife. I am certain Texas going to throw the book at him." Does this change any minds? Well well well….how do the local “He was justified!!!” Crew feel now? I’m positive now that this was murder. Whether he’s charged doesn’t change the fact he murdered this man, was never in any danger, and created the whole situation. This may be misinformation posted over at LOSD. That is very unusual there, but may be so in this case. I have queried the member about the source of the information. I will report back if I can get any clarity out of that member. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 2:37:34 PM EDT
[#44]
In my opinion, I don’t believe this should even reach charges brought. I wouldn’t be surprised if it went to civil court but then if it did, I’d think the claimant would lose (rightfully). They were instructed to leave the property multiple times and refused while also introducing aggressive physical action to include physical assault on their part against black shirt. The family court order covers only so much and I suppose the fact the ex-wife was physically on the property at that time could imply some sort of consent or permission by the property resident for green shirt to be there but it does not allow uncivil behavior, no matter how badly anyone desires to spin it (leave your emotional baggage at the door). Any family court issued orders violated by the ex-wife should be handled in court, not by green shirt at black shirt’s residence. Court orders are premised on civil behavior between parties, not just any kind of behavior you feel like exhibiting.
Did black shirt break any law? Not positive but I do not believe so. There was that shot to the porch floor board but not sure if that was a reflex induced ND or actual warning shot. If a warning shot, not sure if that’s a gray area. Did ex-wife violate a family court order? Very good chance but not sure. At best, this is my layman’s opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 2:43:42 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In my opinion, I don’t believe this should even reach charges brought. I wouldn’t be surprised if it went to civil court but then if it did, I’d think the claimant would lose (rightfully). They were instructed to leave the property multiple times and refused while also introducing aggressive physical action to include physical assault on their part against black shirt. The family court order covers only so much and I suppose the fact the ex-wife was physically on the property at that time could imply some sort of consent or permission by the property resident for green shirt to be there but it does not allow uncivil behavior, no matter how badly anyone desires to spin it (leave your emotional baggage at the door). Any family court issued orders violated by the ex-wife should be handled in court, not by green shirt at black shirt’s residence. Court orders are premised on civil behavior between parties, not just any kind of behavior you feel like exhibiting. Did black shirt break any law? Not positive but I do not believe so. There was that shot to the porch floor board but not sure if that was a reflex induced ND or actual warning shot. If a warning shot, not sure if that’s a gray area. Did ex-wife violate a family court order? Very good chance but not sure. At best, this is my layman’s opinion. Warning shots are not allowed in Texas. He should have shot him then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 2:47:00 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In my opinion, I don’t believe this should even reach charges brought. I wouldn’t be surprised if it went to civil court but then if it did, I’d think the claimant would lose (rightfully). They were instructed to leave the property multiple times and refused while also introducing aggressive physical action to include physical assault on their part against black shirt. The family court order covers only so much and I suppose the fact the ex-wife was physically on the property at that time could imply some sort of consent or permission by the property resident for green shirt to be there but it does not allow uncivil behavior, no matter how badly anyone desires to spin it (leave your emotional baggage at the door). Any family court issued orders violated by the ex-wife should be handled in court, not by green shirt at black shirt’s residence. Court orders are premised on civil behavior between parties, not just any kind of behavior you feel like exhibiting. Did black shirt break any law? Not positive but I do not believe so. There was that shot to the porch floor board but not sure if that was a reflex induced ND or actual warning shot. If a warning shot, not sure if that’s a gray area. Did ex-wife violate a family court order? Very good chance but not sure. At best, this is my layman’s opinion. The shooter is going to have a problem with imminence and reasonableness with this. If "uncivil behavior" was cause for shooting we would be stacking dead like cord-wood in this society. Had green shirt come at him again after the toss, he would have been completely justified in the shooting. But he shot too soon to make this a clear case. There is enough stupid here fro a whole town, much less four people. I guess no one told the folks in Lubbock that contributions to stereotypes are not tax deductible. This particular episode of idiocy even came with an accompanying pop country music soundtrack that does not need to be dubbed in. Pathetic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 2:50:45 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Comments on Widow's facebook page....there's a lot more to this story than the video. Widow is collecting signatures for "Chad's Law" https://www.change.org/p/child-visitation-rights?recruiter=543900944&recruited_by_id=63494ba0-1d17-11e6-94d3-9b3cfd189459&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=petition_dashboard ...I’ve told many people … it’s not like Chad hasn’t had the exact same confrontation with them many times. ...because they planned this out! ...Chad had a right to be there to get his son. As the article suggests it was court ordered for him to pick up his son at 3:15. ...I’m so sorry Jennifer but this is what the media does and why it scares me so much. They are there to stir controversy, Kyle had no business putting his nose in this situation. He already knew what he was going to do when he pulled out that gun. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: There might be. Does that visitation agreement to go wherever he wants anywhere he thinks his son might be? My point being the agreement has limits. Just like your earlier example of a search warrant. Its only good for whats on the warrant. The agreement is allegedly for picking up his kid. Hes been told the kid isnt there. He cant see the kid. Ergo the agreement means shit then. He cant kick the door down and do a search for the kid. Comments on Widow's facebook page....there's a lot more to this story than the video. Widow is collecting signatures for "Chad's Law" https://www.change.org/p/child-visitation-rights?recruiter=543900944&recruited_by_id=63494ba0-1d17-11e6-94d3-9b3cfd189459&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=petition_dashboard ...I’ve told many people … it’s not like Chad hasn’t had the exact same confrontation with them many times. ...because they planned this out! ...Chad had a right to be there to get his son. As the article suggests it was court ordered for him to pick up his son at 3:15. ...I’m so sorry Jennifer but this is what the media does and why it scares me so much. They are there to stir controversy, Kyle had no business putting his nose in this situation. He already knew what he was going to do when he pulled out that gun. Lol like shes not biased. And as we learned just a second ago. Comments on articles on the internet aren’t exactly reliable. Which is why I’ll wait to see the custody document if it’s ever released before saying much about it. And even if it says hes allowed to come pick the kid up what does that matter once hes been told the kid isnt there? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 2:53:15 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah, I copied my first post in this thread above. “Bad but possibly legal shoot.” Lawyers, jury, and additional facts are going to make or break the legal part. These types of threads are interesting to me because I carry a gun, so they’re learning exercises. Same with the ones like “street robberies and you.” The whole, “we need better gun laws,” thing is stupid. The current laws are fine, and in a perfect world, Kyle gets to run green shirt off by pulling the pins on two grenades he picked up at Walmart next to the .22LR ammo while screaming “I’ll kill us all motherfucker.” Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yeah yeah, Look all I’m saying is maybe wait for some actual information before jumping down each other’s throats. We’ve heard lots of talk about things we have absolutely no proof of. I think its a bad shoot, but good shooting. I think kyle is a retard. I think chad is an asshole. I think theyre both stupid for banging skeezebag. I think we wont know the whole truth ever and I think the trial will be entertaining. But everyone in this threads wants to be right so damn bad. To the point where we have retards calling for stricter gun laws. Do you think they can hear themselves? No all they hear is “im right im right im right” Yeah, I copied my first post in this thread above. “Bad but possibly legal shoot.” Lawyers, jury, and additional facts are going to make or break the legal part. These types of threads are interesting to me because I carry a gun, so they’re learning exercises. Same with the ones like “street robberies and you.” The whole, “we need better gun laws,” thing is stupid. The current laws are fine, and in a perfect world, Kyle gets to run green shirt off by pulling the pins on two grenades he picked up at Walmart next to the .22LR ammo while screaming “I’ll kill us all motherfucker.” I agree on the perfect world there. I also agree that it might be legal but it’s definitely not the right move. I think most posters in the thread are approacit from the same angle. Theyre putting themselves in one pair of shoes or the other. Everyone wants there to be a clearly established rule book that says do this dont do this. But there isnt. Fairly open ended laws like this create these situations but they also help good people put in bad situations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 2:54:53 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Warning shots are not allowed in Texas. He should have shot him then. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: In my opinion, I don't believe this should even reach charges brought. I wouldn't be surprised if it went to civil court but then if it did, I'd think the claimant would lose (rightfully). They were instructed to leave the property multiple times and refused while also introducing aggressive physical action to include physical assault on their part against black shirt. The family court order covers only so much and I suppose the fact the ex-wife was physically on the property at that time could imply some sort of consent or permission by the property resident for green shirt to be there but it does not allow uncivil behavior, no matter how badly anyone desires to spin it (leave your emotional baggage at the door). Any family court issued orders violated by the ex-wife should be handled in court, not by green shirt at black shirt's residence. Court orders are premised on civil behavior between parties, not just any kind of behavior you feel like exhibiting. Did black shirt break any law? Not positive but I do not believe so. There was that shot to the porch floor board but not sure if that was a reflex induced ND or actual warning shot. If a warning shot, not sure if that's a gray area. Did ex-wife violate a family court order? Very good chance but not sure. At best, this is my layman's opinion. Warning shots are not allowed in Texas. He should have shot him then. The warning shot gets iffy, as lethal force was justified. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2021 2:55:35 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Warning shots are not allowed in Texas. He should have shot him then. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: In my opinion, I don’t believe this should even reach charges brought. I wouldn’t be surprised if it went to civil court but then if it did, I’d think the claimant would lose (rightfully). They were instructed to leave the property multiple times and refused while also introducing aggressive physical action to include physical assault on their part against black shirt. The family court order covers only so much and I suppose the fact the ex-wife was physically on the property at that time could imply some sort of consent or permission by the property resident for green shirt to be there but it does not allow uncivil behavior, no matter how badly anyone desires to spin it (leave your emotional baggage at the door). Any family court issued orders violated by the ex-wife should be handled in court, not by green shirt at black shirt’s residence. Court orders are premised on civil behavior between parties, not just any kind of behavior you feel like exhibiting. Did black shirt break any law? Not positive but I do not believe so. There was that shot to the porch floor board but not sure if that was a reflex induced ND or actual warning shot. If a warning shot, not sure if that’s a gray area. Did ex-wife violate a family court order? Very good chance but not sure. At best, this is my layman’s opinion. Warning shots are not allowed in Texas. He should have shot him then. Agreed its like he purposely chose the worst moment possible. Ngl if I felt the need to go get a gun. And I go back outside and the mfr runs up on me that would be it. Same situation where I found myself looking down the barrel of my 870 at a meth head looking for shit to steal in my driveway. I was thinking fuuuuck I hope this person just fucking leaves or life is about to get shitty. |
|
|
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.
