User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 2:30:47 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Assault is definitely a crime lol. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. You can’t shoot trespassers, even in Texas. If green shirt had sat in the yard and said fuck you. Black shirt couldn’t have done anything about it. Yep. Trespasser has to be committing a crime. Like assault? I wish ole chad had stayed in the yard and yelled fuck you. Itd have made for a more interesting video and he’d probably be alive. Assault is definitely a crime lol. There’s probably someone here who’d argue that fact but it aint me lol. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 2:38:42 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What name does he go by? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: ETA: and his name is William, not Kyle.  What name does he go by?  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 2:41:25 PM EDT
[#3]
i think they're all trash and i'd like them all to disappear forever.
this is a perfect example of why you don't get a divorce, why you don't get involved with people who have kids with someone else. if my wife leaves me, and she takes the kids - that's it she took the kids. they're gone. the kids are gone. maybe you can see them again, maybe not. the court isn't going to solve the problems they're going to create more problems. any woman who'd take your kids will kill your ass in a second given the chance. any woman who'd have children with a man, get divorced, the play custody games will absolutely get your stupid ass hemmed up with her failures for sure. my uncle was shot in the face by his wife, and before she shot him, she had tried to have him killed at least 2 other times. ugly custody battles are always about the couples hurting each other and always hurt the children. if someone would hurt their children, and the person they had them with - what do you think they'd do to you? if your wife leaves you, its over man - wifes gone and she's taking everything you and her ever made. you can move on or you can mess around playing games until she figures out a way to kill you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 2:45:52 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: ETA: and his name is William, not Kyle. What name does he go by? https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/200878/94F5322B-5D68-4A87-B178-6105551E2BBB_jpe-2185670.JPG Well that takes care of that. ETA: I’m fine with calling them black shirt and green shirt. It’s like Michael Douglas in Falling Down during the hamburger scene: “Why am I calling you by your first names? I work with my boss for 7 years, and I still call him mister. Now I’m calling you Rick and Shiela like we’re in some kind of AA meeting…” |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 2:52:09 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What does his driver’s license say? ETA: beat by exponentialpi Thats his slave name. And this is a stupid point for anyone to argue about. I prefer black shirt and blue/green shirt lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 2:52:53 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Legalities aside, that was fucking stupid and senseless. I think 95% of people in here agree on this. And the 5% who dont, only feel that way because they want to be “right” |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 2:55:06 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well that takes care of that. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ETA: and his name is William, not Kyle. What name does he go by? https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/200878/94F5322B-5D68-4A87-B178-6105551E2BBB_jpe-2185670.JPG Well that takes care of that. You do know what putting your nickname in quotes means right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 2:56:31 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You do know what putting your nickname in quotes means right? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ETA: and his name is William, not Kyle. What name does he go by? https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/200878/94F5322B-5D68-4A87-B178-6105551E2BBB_jpe-2185670.JPG Well that takes care of that. You do know what putting your nickname in quotes means right? Is that like getting your right ear pierced? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 2:58:22 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You do know what putting your nickname in quotes means right? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ETA: and his name is William, not Kyle. What name does he go by? https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/200878/94F5322B-5D68-4A87-B178-6105551E2BBB_jpe-2185670.JPG Well that takes care of that. You do know what putting your nickname in quotes means right? Preferred name. What does GD say about preferred pronouns? What about preferred sex?/Also, you got me quoted before the edit. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 2:58:24 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There’s probably someone here who’d argue that fact but it aint me lol. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. You can’t shoot trespassers, even in Texas. If green shirt had sat in the yard and said fuck you. Black shirt couldn’t have done anything about it. Yep. Trespasser has to be committing a crime. Like assault? I wish ole chad had stayed in the yard and yelled fuck you. Itd have made for a more interesting video and he’d probably be alive. Assault is definitely a crime lol. There’s probably someone here who’d argue that fact but it aint me lol. But just so we are clear, you don't get to claim trespassing while your committing the crime of custodial interference. And not just claim trespassing, but also be threatening deadly physical force against a man who is only there to try and take custody of his son in the exact way the courts say he is allowed. And when that same man shoves you, presenting no deadly threat, you don't get to shoot him and claim self defense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 3:17:21 PM EDT
[#11]
"What's that you say, belligerent stranger who refuses to leave my property? You say you're going to forcibly take away my legally-carried firearm and you're going to kill me? And now you're approaching me to follow up on your very specific threat? And you're pushing me around and grabbing my gun? I would normally defend myself against you, but now I find out you have a court order?!"
 Half of GD wants Kyle to wash dad's car while waiting for the cops to show up. I mean, the guy's name is Chad AND he has a court order that lets him go wherever the fuck he wants all the goddamn time? I mean, obviously Chad was just living his best life til that evil short person decided to commit murder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 3:18:51 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryLooks like he goes by Kyle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 3:23:38 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thats his slave name. And this is a stupid point for anyone to argue about. I prefer black shirt and blue/green shirt lol Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: What does his driver’s license say? ETA: beat by exponentialpi Thats his slave name. And this is a stupid point for anyone to argue about. I prefer black shirt and blue/green shirt lol But what is his screen name here? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 3:36:40 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But what is his screen name here? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: What does his driver’s license say? ETA: beat by exponentialpi Thats his slave name. And this is a stupid point for anyone to argue about. I prefer black shirt and blue/green shirt lol But what is his screen name here? We will all find out when it gets subpoenaed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 3:41:19 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm not sure anyone has said it does. It is an assault, no question, but I don't believe anyone is suggesting a "chest bump" by itself is cause. Do you believe it is reasonable for some use of force to by the person on the receiving end of a "chest bump" to remove the actor off their person? You cannot use deadly force in response to non-deadly force. That is a major pillar of self-defense law (proportionality). When Carruth responded to the chest bumping and nudging away the barrel by firing at Read's feet, he was using deadly force against what was a non-deadly force event. This action then provoked Read, understandably because Carruth had just turned the encounter into a deadly one, to grab for the gun. One can't use deadly force in response to an attack that person provoked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 3:43:24 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "What's that you say, belligerent stranger who refuses to leave my property? You say you're going to forcibly take away my legally-carried firearm and you're going to kill me? And now you're approaching me to follow up on your very specific threat? And you're pushing me around and grabbing my gun? I would normally defend myself against you, but now I find out you have a court order?!" https://ih0.redbubble.net/image.256775008.1869/pp,550x550.u8.jpg Half of GD wants Kyle to wash dad's car while waiting for the cops to show up. I mean, the guy's name is Chad AND he has a court order that lets him go wherever the fuck he wants all the goddamn time? I mean, obviously Chad was just living his best life til that evil short person decided to commit murder. It's not at all trespassing if he has a court order granting the right to be there to pick up his child. And you don't get to threaten someone with a firearm when the only thing they want is their child. The Millers have a much better claim of self defense than this douche. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 3:50:53 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's not at all trespassing if he has a court order granting the right to be there to pick up his child. And you don't get to threaten someone with a firearm when the only thing they want is their child. The Millers have a much better claim of self defense than this douche. He doesn’t have a court order granting him the right to trespass, notwithstanding your vociferous protestations to the contrary. Jesus, there’s some first class fuckery going on in this thread… |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 3:50:59 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I seriously can't comprehend how some of you pussies get through life. The dead guy wasn't trespassing, he was there to pick up his kid. Period. The bitch starts playing fukfuk games and tempers flare. There was no life or death situation until that short faggot got a gun and started shooting at dead guys feet. In this situation it is not reasonable to expect the words "get off my property" to have some magical effect. This is some drama BS brought about by the occupants of the house. You dont get to stir the pot, escalate it and the say " get off my property, no take backs and your dead if you don't". The guy was there to get his kid. This wasn't some unknown crackhead running up on them from a dark alley. Harsh words and flared tempers are part of divorce and custody problems. Period. What kind of fucking small dick short man faggot thinks that it's okay to murder someone over this shit? Just because he whispered the magical phrase "get off my property"? Im all for stand your ground.but against evil people looking evil shit, not some dad who is irate about his son not being where he is supposed to be. A family has been destroyed. What the fuck is wrong with you people? Honestly, im guessing that the "its ok to murder people if i whisper the magic phrase first" crowd stand about 5 foot 6 inches and are scarred of life. Of course you faggots want an easy button to kill people.. It isn't fair to assume that those arguing that black shirt was within his rights are supporting him as a person. He seems like a shitbag to me and a lot of other options should have been considered. It still matters that his rights are the same as anyone else (like a little old lady) in this situation regardless of all the stuff you're fixated on. As Branca says multiple times in his comments, if you ask the wrong questions, you get the wrong answer (with respect to whether he was legal to do what he did). |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 4:07:20 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: ETA: and his name is William, not Kyle. What name does he go by? https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/200878/94F5322B-5D68-4A87-B178-6105551E2BBB_jpe-2185670.JPG “Professional land man” Ironic 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 4:07:48 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's not at all trespassing if he has a court order granting the right to be there to pick up his child. And you don't get to threaten someone with a firearm when the only thing they want is their child. The Millers have a much better claim of self defense than this douche. Your court order that specifies your ex-wife must share custody of your children has zero effect on your ability to remain on my property, ESPECIALLY if said children are not even on said property. And "wanting their child" is not some magic wand that lets Chadad get away with TRESPASSING AND ASSAULT. Christ on a Creamcheese Cracker - court orders don't magically grant you diplomatic immunity HOW TF IS ANYONE ARGUING THIS POINT? Time to face facts Murdergate cultists: Chad was the one who fucked around. Chad was the one who found out. Another Kyle, another VICTORY. I'll buy Kyle a monster energy drink to celebrate. PSA: Court orders don't give you the right to be an asshole, or to trespass. So it is written, so let it be done. /thread |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 4:07:53 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You can use non-deadly force to prevent non-deadly force being used against yourself (assuming you didn't start the fight). You cannot use deadly force in response to non-deadly force. That is a major pillar of self-defense law (proportionality). When Carruth responded to the chest bumping and nudging away the barrel by firing at Read's feet, he was using deadly force against what was a non-deadly force event. This action then provoked Read, understandably because Carruth had just turned the encounter into a deadly one, to grab for the gun. One can't use deadly force in response to an attack that person provoked. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I'm not sure anyone has said it does. It is an assault, no question, but I don't believe anyone is suggesting a "chest bump" by itself is cause. Do you believe it is reasonable for some use of force to by the person on the receiving end of a "chest bump" to remove the actor off their person? You cannot use deadly force in response to non-deadly force. That is a major pillar of self-defense law (proportionality). When Carruth responded to the chest bumping and nudging away the barrel by firing at Read's feet, he was using deadly force against what was a non-deadly force event. This action then provoked Read, understandably because Carruth had just turned the encounter into a deadly one, to grab for the gun. One can't use deadly force in response to an attack that person provoked. Hold up, there is the disconnect here… When Carruth responded to the chest bumping / / and nudging away the barrel by firing at Read's feet, These are part of a whole but are also two very distinctly different acts. Each warranted differing levels of force. The chest bump is one thing, the contact to the firearm at the heel of green shirt’s vocalized threat(s) are another animal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 4:12:29 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lol at all the experts here. A recognized expert in the field of self defense and self defense laws has weighed in with the caveat it is based upon the two available videos. The same two videos all the arm chair commandos here have access to. At some point one can agree to disagree and wait for the real verdict OR continue to act like Chad and Kyle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 4:19:18 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's much better to ignore things that undermine arguments for out personal positions, and focus on irrelevant details. You can't argue in bad faith, otherwise. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Lol at all the experts here. A recognized expert in the field of self defense and self defense laws has weighed in with the caveat it is based upon the two available videos. The same two videos all the arm chair commandos here have access to. At some point one can agree to disagree and wait for the real verdict OR continue to act like Chad and Kyle. I think the gentleman is wrong. If black shirt had his eyes on green shirt during that (*entire) moment, I too would find it very questionable *but that is not how it went down*. Due to how momentum carried black shirt off the porch and into the yard, his back/side was facing green shirt. It was only after black shirt was able to stop his forward travel (momentum) and turn around was he able to regain his sight of green shirt. I’d argue at that point we aren’t dealing with Yes/No thought processing but responding while being attacked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 4:21:27 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You said the exact same thing I did  I never said the cops were going to arrest her or lock her up. And if she’s just hiding the kids in the house, they most definitely will go inside and bring them out. What is your point again? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: De-escalating and avoiding someone getting killed is the prudent course of action in a civil dispute like this with known parties. Even if you're 100% right and justified in your position it would be smart to walk off, let things cool down, and sort it out later. No sense in shooting someone, or getting shot, when you can avoid it easily. The dude coming out with the PCC in that context was a fucking moron. The father getting in his face and turning it physical was equally stupid and he got himself killed. Even if you're right and the other person is wrong, attacking an armed dude isn't likely going to turn out well. Denying visitation in Texas is a criminal offense. Jailable criminal offense. Not civil. Not until a Judge Rules on it. That happens in... ... ... Civil (Family) Court. If a parent is violating the Court Custody Orders - the other party needs to go before the Judge in Court to present the facts (Documented) & then the Judge CAN rule to punish the offender in several different ways. Fines are typical, Arrest if it continues or fines are not paid. If other party refuses to show to present their case (misses hearings) or continues to violate the Custody Order, the Judge can issue a Arrest Warrant. However, until their IS a Arrest Warrant, no cop or deputy is going to play Perry Mason and insert himself in the matter unless the life or physical welfare of the child are at imminent risk. Wrong. I have personal experience with this. In Texas. If the child is not where they are supposed to be when they are supposed to be there, the cops will most definitely come and intervene. I won’t deny that there is a process that needs to be followed and that the cops are going to respond and arrest someone denying visitation. But they most certainly will come to investigate the situation and resolve it if possible. WRONG - I also have personal experience with this very matter in Texas. Cops "intervening" means they come out - making sure no one is getting violent or dangerous with the other parties, and then taking a report. Let's repeat that... "Taking a Report". They will not force Mommy to produce Little Timmy & Tina, nor will they lock her up. They will ask nicely and try to cajole the other party to be nice & follow the rules. But unless one of them loses it and gets violent - threatening - it is highly unlikely they will do more than make a report. That report is documentation that can be used in the CIVIL Court to address failure to by one parent to provide access to the other parent. Civil Court Matter. However, unless there is a Active Arrest Warrant (issued by a Judge for repeated failures to follow the specific orders of the Court regarding custody & visitation or support), the Police are NOT going to grab baby momma, slap handcuffs on her & stuff her in the back of a Black & White based just on Angry Dad saying "I'm supposed to have my son at 3:30 and he isn't here"! Fact. Been there & done that. I can understand Green Shirt Angry Dad being unhappy over fucky - fucky with Visitation (again Been there & done that ). But being a raging A-Hole only got him shot + Black Shirt now is going to get "tenderly loved" all up the Angus by the Judicial system.BIGGER_HAMMER  You said the exact same thing I did I never said the cops were going to arrest her or lock her up. And if she’s just hiding the kids in the house, they most definitely will go inside and bring them out. What is your point again? You said "The cops talk to the offender and she either produces the kids or the cops make her." He said "They will not force Mommy to produce Little Timmy & Tina" Did you honestly forget what you wrote, are you incapable of reading what you wrote, or are you being purposely ignorant? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 4:29:37 PM EDT
[#25]
This whole thing happened because those people are all retarded.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 4:36:00 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Please show me where in Texas law you can retrieve a firearm in the middle of a verbal dispute and not have it be deemed a threat by the other party. Or show me where a person can escalate a situation, almost shoot the other party in the foot, then claim self defense. Just like in the Arbery case in Georgia, when presented with a lethal threat the other party is acting reasonably when they defend themselves against said threat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 4:36:29 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You said "The cops talk to the offender and she either produces the kids or the cops make her." He said "They will not force Mommy to produce Little Timmy & Tina" Did you honestly forget what you wrote, are you incapable of reading what you wrote, or are you being purposely ignorant? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: De-escalating and avoiding someone getting killed is the prudent course of action in a civil dispute like this with known parties. Even if you're 100% right and justified in your position it would be smart to walk off, let things cool down, and sort it out later. No sense in shooting someone, or getting shot, when you can avoid it easily. The dude coming out with the PCC in that context was a fucking moron. The father getting in his face and turning it physical was equally stupid and he got himself killed. Even if you're right and the other person is wrong, attacking an armed dude isn't likely going to turn out well. Denying visitation in Texas is a criminal offense. Jailable criminal offense. Not civil. Not until a Judge Rules on it. That happens in... ... ... Civil (Family) Court. If a parent is violating the Court Custody Orders - the other party needs to go before the Judge in Court to present the facts (Documented) & then the Judge CAN rule to punish the offender in several different ways. Fines are typical, Arrest if it continues or fines are not paid. If other party refuses to show to present their case (misses hearings) or continues to violate the Custody Order, the Judge can issue a Arrest Warrant. However, until their IS a Arrest Warrant, no cop or deputy is going to play Perry Mason and insert himself in the matter unless the life or physical welfare of the child are at imminent risk. Wrong. I have personal experience with this. In Texas. If the child is not where they are supposed to be when they are supposed to be there, the cops will most definitely come and intervene. I won’t deny that there is a process that needs to be followed and that the cops are going to respond and arrest someone denying visitation. But they most certainly will come to investigate the situation and resolve it if possible. WRONG - I also have personal experience with this very matter in Texas. Cops "intervening" means they come out - making sure no one is getting violent or dangerous with the other parties, and then taking a report. Let's repeat that... "Taking a Report". They will not force Mommy to produce Little Timmy & Tina, nor will they lock her up. They will ask nicely and try to cajole the other party to be nice & follow the rules. But unless one of them loses it and gets violent - threatening - it is highly unlikely they will do more than make a report. That report is documentation that can be used in the CIVIL Court to address failure to by one parent to provide access to the other parent. Civil Court Matter. However, unless there is a Active Arrest Warrant (issued by a Judge for repeated failures to follow the specific orders of the Court regarding custody & visitation or support), the Police are NOT going to grab baby momma, slap handcuffs on her & stuff her in the back of a Black & White based just on Angry Dad saying "I'm supposed to have my son at 3:30 and he isn't here"! Fact. Been there & done that. I can understand Green Shirt Angry Dad being unhappy over fucky - fucky with Visitation (again Been there & done that ). But being a raging A-Hole only got him shot + Black Shirt now is going to get "tenderly loved" all up the Angus by the Judicial system.BIGGER_HAMMER You said the exact same thing I did I never said the cops were going to arrest her or lock her up. And if she’s just hiding the kids in the house, they most definitely will go inside and bring them out. What is your point again? You said "The cops talk to the offender and she either produces the kids or the cops make her." He said "They will not force Mommy to produce Little Timmy & Tina" Did you honestly forget what you wrote, are you incapable of reading what you wrote, or are you being purposely ignorant?  Attached FileThe police will not go room to room with dogs nor search the attic for hidden rooms, nor will they throw mom in the back of the squad car. The Police will TALK to her and ASK her nicely to follow the instructions and produce the children. If she says "Sorry I can't because; 'he's a drunk', 'he's a drug abuser', 'he's got a junky skank transvestite hooker for a girlfriend' then the police are pretty much at 'write a report & leave it to a Judge in Court throw the book at her' then leave as long as no one is shooting, knifing or otherwise assaulting each other. You made it sound like the Police will take Daddy's side and force compliance. No, all they do is document the incident so a Judge in court will make a ruling regarding compliance and penalties for violating the courts orders. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 4:40:37 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: i think they're all trash and i'd like them all to disappear forever. this is a perfect example of why you don't get a divorce, why you don't get involved with people who have kids with someone else. if my wife leaves me, and she takes the kids - that's it she took the kids. they're gone. the kids are gone. maybe you can see them again, maybe not. the court isn't going to solve the problems they're going to create more problems. any woman who'd take your kids will kill your ass in a second given the chance. any woman who'd have children with a man, get divorced, the play custody games will absolutely get your stupid ass hemmed up with her failures for sure. my uncle was shot in the face by his wife, and before she shot him, she had tried to have him killed at least 2 other times. ugly custody battles are always about the couples hurting each other and always hurt the children. if someone would hurt their children, and the person they had them with - what do you think they'd do to you? if your wife leaves you, its over man - wifes gone and she's taking everything you and her ever made. you can move on or you can mess around playing games until she figures out a way to kill you. She tried to have him killed time, and she didn't hire an undercover cop or snitch either time? I hope she bought a lottery ticket before she shot him. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 4:41:54 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think the gentleman is wrong. If black shirt had his eyes on green shirt during that (*entire) moment, I too would find it very questionable *but that is not how it went down*. Due to how momentum carried black shirt off the porch and into the yard, his back was facing green shirt. It was only after black shirt was able to stop his forward travel (momentum) and turn around was he able to regain his sight of green shirt. I'd argue at that point we aren't dealing with Yes/No thought processing but responding while being attacked. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Lol at all the experts here. A recognized expert in the field of self defense and self defense laws has weighed in with the caveat it is based upon the two available videos. The same two videos all the arm chair commandos here have access to. At some point one can agree to disagree and wait for the real verdict OR continue to act like Chad and Kyle. I think the gentleman is wrong. If black shirt had his eyes on green shirt during that (*entire) moment, I too would find it very questionable *but that is not how it went down*. Due to how momentum carried black shirt off the porch and into the yard, his back was facing green shirt. It was only after black shirt was able to stop his forward travel (momentum) and turn around was he able to regain his sight of green shirt. I'd argue at that point we aren't dealing with Yes/No thought processing but responding while being attacked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 4:43:10 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Your court order that specifies your ex-wife must share custody of your children has zero effect on your ability to remain on my property, ESPECIALLY if said children are not even on said property. And "wanting their child" is not some magic wand that lets Chadad get away with TRESPASSING AND ASSAULT. Christ on a Creamcheese Cracker - court orders don't magically grant you diplomatic immunity HOW TF IS ANYONE ARGUING THIS POINT? Time to face facts Murdergate cultists: Chad was the one who fucked around. Chad was the one who found out. Another Kyle, another VICTORY. I'll buy Kyle a monster energy drink to celebrate. PSA: Court orders don't give you the right to be an asshole, or to trespass. So it is written, so let it be done. /thread Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It's not at all trespassing if he has a court order granting the right to be there to pick up his child. And you don't get to threaten someone with a firearm when the only thing they want is their child. The Millers have a much better claim of self defense than this douche. Your court order that specifies your ex-wife must share custody of your children has zero effect on your ability to remain on my property, ESPECIALLY if said children are not even on said property. And "wanting their child" is not some magic wand that lets Chadad get away with TRESPASSING AND ASSAULT. Christ on a Creamcheese Cracker - court orders don't magically grant you diplomatic immunity HOW TF IS ANYONE ARGUING THIS POINT? Time to face facts Murdergate cultists: Chad was the one who fucked around. Chad was the one who found out. Another Kyle, another VICTORY. I'll buy Kyle a monster energy drink to celebrate. PSA: Court orders don't give you the right to be an asshole, or to trespass. So it is written, so let it be done. /thread Kyle's only victory will be if he survives his first year in prison without catching anal warts. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 4:46:12 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lol at all the experts here. A recognized expert in the field of self defense and self defense laws has weighed in with the caveat it is based upon the two available videos. The same two videos all the arm chair commandos here have access to. At some point one can agree to disagree and wait for the real verdict OR continue to act like Chad and Kyle. I'm out - everyone now is just rehashing the same disproven tenet that black shirt escalated and provoked when that is the opposite of what was said by the legal expert. People saying he wasn't allowed to get the gun are wrong. People saying he's in trouble for the warning shot are wrong. Next thing you know, they'll be proposing Chad's law to further restrict our gun rights because even a large portion of posters here on a gun forum are arguing in support of it by saying the things above. Getting a gun on your own property is fine any time (unless lawfully ordered not to by authorities). Getting a gun is not an act of violence or a threat. Saying otherwise is saying the gun is at fault.  / |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 4:47:10 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He doesn’t have a court order granting him the right to trespass, notwithstanding your vociferous protestations to the contrary. Jesus, there’s some first class fuckery going on in this thread… The first crime committed here was custodial interference. When your the one breaking the law, you've lost the moral high ground. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 4:50:12 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah, but what about some other person, in some other state, in some other situation? WHAT ABOUT THAT. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Lol at all the experts here. A recognized expert in the field of self defense and self defense laws has weighed in with the caveat it is based upon the two available videos. The same two videos all the arm chair commandos here have access to. At some point one can agree to disagree and wait for the real verdict OR continue to act like Chad and Kyle. I think the gentleman is wrong. If black shirt had his eyes on green shirt during that (*entire) moment, I too would find it very questionable *but that is not how it went down*. Due to how momentum carried black shirt off the porch and into the yard, his back was facing green shirt. It was only after black shirt was able to stop his forward travel (momentum) and turn around was he able to regain his sight of green shirt. I'd argue at that point we aren't dealing with Yes/No thought processing but responding while being attacked. Hell I don’t know. I’m just some random guy on the Internet talking about shit completely out of my wheelhouse. There are actual experts talking about this who know much better than I do what constitutes solid self defense and I’m here just blah, blah, blah, spouting uninformed opinions. ETA: Another poster said he’s out, same here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 4:51:29 PM EDT
[#34]
I know it’s not a law, but the scheming mother is really to blame and will come out on top.
She knew what she was doing. I wouldn’t be surprised if she suggested he go back outside with the gun. Ex is now dead, new man probably going to prison. All her problems are over, and I wouldn’t be surprised if she get the property after he’s locked up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 4:53:26 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why do you guys gloss over Black shirt going to get his gun because of what he thinks is trespassing, and causing this entire situation to go from a 2 straight to a 10. The introduction of the gun is a threat (an assault) on Green shirt. This whole thing was planned out.. Going to need more gun laws since you guys can't grasp such a basic concept. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 4:55:11 PM EDT
[#36]
Yeah, legality aside, I'd bet if you could ask both of those guys if they regret their decisions that day, they'd both say yes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 5:11:13 PM EDT
[#37]
If green shirt was carrying, would he be justified in drawing and firing once the long gun was produced and warning/ND/ whatever shot was fired?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 5:17:02 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If green shirt was carrying, would he be justified in drawing and firing once the long gun was produced and warning/ND/ whatever shot was fired? Yes |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 5:21:08 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If green shirt was carrying, would he be justified in drawing and firing once the long gun was produced and warning/ND/ whatever shot was fired? Porportional match of force. When Black Shirt produced the rifle and fired that "warning shot" at him (that can be two violent felonies right there) it's more likely a Jury might find Green Shirt had a fear for his life. However the question of "why didn't you just leave & wait for the cops?" is the question that would be very difficult for Green Shirt to overcome in front of a Jury. But he's still be alive to be tried in court. This incident could have been the TV pilot for a reality show When Flaming Idiots Collide!  Vs.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 5:27:19 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Hell I don't know. I'm just some random guy on the Internet talking about shit completely out of my wheelhouse. There are actual experts talking about this who know much better than I do what constitutes solid self defense and I'm here just blah, blah, blah, spouting uninformed opinions. ETA: Another poster said he's out, same here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 5:33:18 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Branca looked at that and said the only context it provides is that green shirt was provoking black shirt. You're just wrong and it has been dispelled by the legal experts and posted multiple times in this thread. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Please show me where in Texas law you can retrieve a firearm in the middle of a verbal dispute and not have it be deemed a threat by the other party. Or show me where a person can escalate a situation, almost shoot the other party in the foot, then claim self defense. Just like in the Arbery case in Georgia, when presented with a lethal threat the other party is acting reasonably when they defend themselves against said threat. Carruth entered his home and emerged a moment later back onto the front porch carrying a carbine (a pistol-caliber long gun), presumably to attempt to compel Read to comply with his command to leave the property. The appearance of the carbine instead escalated the confrontation, with Read jumping up onto the front porch, leading to the two men chest-bumping each other. Read then reached for the carbine, and appears to have used the leverage of the long gun to sling Carruth several feet off his own front porch. You can't escalate a situation, make the other party feel threatened, and then claim self defense when they try to defend themselves from your actions. Even in Texas. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 5:33:27 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There’s probably someone here who’d argue that fact but it aint me lol. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. You can’t shoot trespassers, even in Texas. If green shirt had sat in the yard and said fuck you. Black shirt couldn’t have done anything about it. Yep. Trespasser has to be committing a crime. Like assault? I wish ole chad had stayed in the yard and yelled fuck you. Itd have made for a more interesting video and he’d probably be alive. Assault is definitely a crime lol. There’s probably someone here who’d argue that fact but it aint me lol. Uh , I just watched the video from the phone inside the house. Kyle shot twice ?!?! The first video that I saw didn't show that. I still say Chad was in the wrong and had no right to be there, but a liberal jury will say "He shot him twice to make sure he was dead" not "to stop the threat" Just my .02 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 5:35:35 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because it isn't, and the legal analysis doesn't at all support this BS from any legal standpoint. Going to need more gun laws since you guys can't grasp such a basic concept. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Why do you guys gloss over Black shirt going to get his gun because of what he thinks is trespassing, and causing this entire situation to go from a 2 straight to a 10. The introduction of the gun is a threat (an assault) on Green shirt. This whole thing was planned out.. Going to need more gun laws since you guys can't grasp such a basic concept. But he is one guy providing an opinion. Not the voice of God himself. Settle down. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 5:36:22 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "What's that you say, belligerent stranger who refuses to leave my property? You say you're going to forcibly take away my legally-carried firearm and you're going to kill me? And now you're approaching me to follow up on your very specific threat? And you're pushing me around and grabbing my gun? I would normally defend myself against you, but now I find out you have a court order?!" https://ih0.redbubble.net/image.256775008.1869/pp,550x550.u8.jpg Half of GD wants Kyle to wash dad's car while waiting for the cops to show up. I mean, the guy's name is Chad AND he has a court order that lets him go wherever the fuck he wants all the goddamn time? I mean, obviously Chad was just living his best life til that evil short person decided to commit murder.  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 5:44:58 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "What's that you say, belligerent stranger who refuses to leave my property? You say you're going to forcibly take away my legally-carried firearm and you're going to kill me? And now you're approaching me to follow up on your very specific threat? And you're pushing me around and grabbing my gun? I would normally defend myself against you, but now I find out you have a court order?!" https://ih0.redbubble.net/image.256775008.1869/pp,550x550.u8.jpg Half of GD wants Kyle to wash dad's car while waiting for the cops to show up. I mean, the guy's name is Chad AND he has a court order that lets him go wherever the fuck he wants all the goddamn time? I mean, obviously Chad was just living his best life til that evil short person decided to commit murder. If the shooter could, honest-to-God, say that he believed his life to be in danger when he took the shot, then he's a giant cunt. He may actually have feared for his life, who knows. But the legal standard is generally "would the average person have feared for his life?" I suspect the jury will say no. My pure speculation is that he shot because he was angry, not in fear for his life, and that's why he's fucked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 5:47:42 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If green shirt was carrying, would he be justified in drawing and firing once the long gun was produced and warning/ND/ whatever shot was fired? Fuck no. He wasn’t supposed to be there & was told to leave. He should thrown his hands up & walked to his truck, when he saw that rifle. They weren’t on equal ground, this wasn’t public. He was in the wrong & throttled down on that- to his death. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 5:54:50 PM EDT
[#47]
The majority of the arguments here are made by individuals who would require a lawyer to argue legalities in court on their behalf.
In addition to this…we will soon enough determine who is right and who is wrong in the last 48 pages of pre-law doctrine….should probably consider that as there will be plenty of folks eating crow in this thread. I no longer have time for this, I’m heading over to the Covid Forum. Meet me there? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 6:01:38 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Branca actually does mention how the retrieval of the gun escalated things. But he doesn't go into it in detail. You can't escalate a situation, make the other party feel threatened, and then claim self defense when they try to defend themselves from your actions. Even in Texas. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Please show me where in Texas law you can retrieve a firearm in the middle of a verbal dispute and not have it be deemed a threat by the other party. Or show me where a person can escalate a situation, almost shoot the other party in the foot, then claim self defense. Just like in the Arbery case in Georgia, when presented with a lethal threat the other party is acting reasonably when they defend themselves against said threat. Carruth entered his home and emerged a moment later back onto the front porch carrying a carbine (a pistol-caliber long gun), presumably to attempt to compel Read to comply with his command to leave the property. The appearance of the carbine instead escalated the confrontation, with Read jumping up onto the front porch, leading to the two men chest-bumping each other. Read then reached for the carbine, and appears to have used the leverage of the long gun to sling Carruth several feet off his own front porch. You can't escalate a situation, make the other party feel threatened, and then claim self defense when they try to defend themselves from your actions. Even in Texas. Texas statute says “provoke.” Escalation isn’t in the statute. A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section. If green shirt had sat down and told black shirt to go stick the gun up black shirt’s ass and pull the trigger till it went click, then black shirt couldn’t legally do anything except muscle him off the property or call the cops. Instead he did what he did, which ended with him getting possibly legally shot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 6:03:27 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If the shooter could, honest-to-God, say that he believed his life to be in danger when he took the shot, then he's a giant cunt. He may actually have feared for his life, who knows. But the legal standard is generally "would the average person have feared for his life?" I suspect the jury will say no. My pure speculation is that he shot because he was angry, not in fear for his life, and that's why he's fucked. Unarmed person tells you he will kill you. Unarmed person pursues you in order (presumably) to make good on his threat. Unarmed person gets his hands on you and your legally-carried firearm. But you're the good guy, so obviously you let it fly. Only an evil murderer would shoot an unarmed man who probably thinks he's doing the right thing. Someone should tell the Rittenhouse jury they fucked up big time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 6:05:40 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You're entirely too busy licking Branca's balls. He gave a decent review of the moment when the shots were fired, that is it. He doesn't touch upon any other factors that lead up to it. But he is one guy providing an opinion. Not the voice of God himself. Settle down. You can say all you want about things you are far less qualified to speak on than he is, but putting me down for respecting that he clearly has superior knowledge than anyone in this thread is just ad hominem. |
|
|
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.
