User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 8:33:18 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The amount of people here simping for the dead guy is crazy. You all would fit better at DU than here. I sure don't think I've ever "simped" for anybody, but I've been here a helluva lot longer than you, pal. Legal or not, the shooter had no just cause for doing what he did. And yeah. That's just my opinion, but it's worth as much as yours. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 8:39:04 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It’s been 19 days and yet no charges. If they decide not to file charges will they announce it or just leave GD in suspense? Be married to a judge in a small town and let us know the outcome. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 8:41:45 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Part of the problem is that this thread is getting longer and more difficult to get the known facts. Even understanding who is who in the video is confusing. Quick run down: - shooter: boyfriend of the woman arguing and husband of the judge at the time - dead guy: ex-husband of the woman arguing, who he has a son with - woman filming: current wife of dead guy - woman filming has said the ex-wife was suppose to drop the son off to them, but didn't. When the dead guy called the ex wife she told him that she wanted him to come over the shooters house and get the son so she could see him (the dead guy). The dead guy gets out to get the son and the ex-wife starts playing games about the whereabouts of the son. So the dead guy was invited over to the shooters house to get his son only to end up in a position where the son wasn't being given to him and the shooter comes out with a gun. Interesting theory. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 8:42:31 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The red is presented as fact and the blue is a question. As to your last point, you would trespass, close the distance with an armed homeowner, threaten to kill him with his own weapon, batter him, and then you would feel justified in trying to make good on your threat to take his gun away and kill him with it? That’s some fucked up shit right there. . . Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Honest question; if someone just shot at you and then gets within arms reach, would you make a play for the gun? That’s clearly not what happened. You need to watch the video again. The “?” in his post indicated that he was asking, not telling. To answer, for me, I would most definitely make a play for that gun. I’m not going to just stand there and get shot. The red is presented as fact and the blue is a question. As to your last point, you would trespass, close the distance with an armed homeowner, threaten to kill him with his own weapon, batter him, and then you would feel justified in trying to make good on your threat to take his gun away and kill him with it? That’s some fucked up shit right there. . . Holy shit you just put a BUNCH of words in my mouth! The question was that if someone just shot at you and then gets within arm’s reach, would you make a play for the gun. The poster offered this question without any context whatsoever. Yes, I realize what we’re discussing in this thread. However, I answered it based on just the question asked. Either way, if I’m in a situation like the one we’re discussing, and I was unarmed and had already been shot at, and the shooter is within arm’s length away from me, I’m most definitely going to try and defend myself, including gaining control of the firearm. After that, I’m going to try my best to break contact and get the police on the phone. I’m not going to automatically shoot him once I’ve disarmed him (despite the exciting outcome that you just randomly made up). For the record, since you also jumped to the conclusion that me choosing to defend myself implied I’d trespass and do all of the other stupid stuff that green shirt did, I most definitely would not. I have a very difficult ex who has tried repeatedly to put me in these types of compromising situations. I don’t take the bait, ever. I’m well aware with how the system works and I make the best of a very challenging situation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 8:42:47 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The amount of people here simping for the dead guy is crazy. You all would fit better at DU than here. Welcome new guy.. Who are you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 8:50:13 PM EDT
[#6]
This thread is dripping with bias from obvious previous personal experience that is blomding some to think critically. I remember a thread not long ago about a shop owner using a bat to kick out trespassers for kot wearing a mask and a lot of gd was for using force to remove trespassers.
Now since it's "that stupid slut bitch playing games woth chold custody and taking all the guys shit and that short little faggot" etc gd is on the side of the trespasser. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 8:59:25 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Then why was his statements post shooting along the lines of "I told him to leave". Which all ties back to my question about the mother being a resident and having to be the one to tell green shirt to leave in order for there to be an actual trespass happening Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Good question. I personally think he armed himself because he was trying to demonstrate to his side piece that he has a huge dick, and he doesn’t take shit from anybody. I’m sure his lawyer will argue that green shirt had a history of threats, and black shirt was taking prudent action prior to trespassing green shirt. Then why was his statements post shooting along the lines of "I told him to leave". Which all ties back to my question about the mother being a resident and having to be the one to tell green shirt to leave in order for there to be an actual trespass happening The trespass doesn’t really matter. You can’t use deadly force in a pure trespassing situation in Texas. You can only use the minimum force necessary to remove the person from your property. If black shirt tries to rest his case on trespassing, then he’s fucked. The only time deadly force is authorized is to prevent great bodily harm or death, to prevent an actor from committing one of a few enumerated crimes, or to prevent an actor from fleeing one of a few enumerated crimes. Trespassing isn’t one of those crimes. So, he has to fear bodily harm or death for the shoot to be legal. If he’s in his house or very close to it, then the court assumes his fear of imminent great bodily harm or death is reasonable, which is why I think that statement from black shirt will be another strike against him in court if he gets indicted. It demonstrates that he wasn’t in fear of imminent bodily harm or death. He was in fear of his side piece thinking green shirt wasn’t going to respect his authority. He should have said, I thought he was going to kill me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 9:04:38 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It’s been 19 days and yet no charges. If they decide not to file charges will they announce it or just leave GD in suspense? How do you keep a retard in suspense? I will tell you tomorrow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 9:07:46 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The trespass doesn’t really matter. You can’t use deadly force in a pure trespassing situation in Texas. You can only use the minimum force necessary to remove the person from your property. If black shirt tries to rest his case on trespassing, then he’s fucked. The only time deadly force is authorized is to prevent great bodily harm or death, to prevent an actor from committing one of a few enumerated crimes, or to prevent an actor from fleeing one of a few enumerated crimes. Trespassing isn’t one of those crimes. So, he has to fear bodily harm or death for the shoot to be legal. If he’s in his house or very close to it, then the court assumes his fear of imminent great bodily harm or death is reasonable, which is why I think that statement from black shirt will be another strike against him in court if he gets indicted. It demonstrates that he wasn’t in fear of imminent bodily harm or death. He was in fear of his side piece thinking green shirt wasn’t going to respect his authority. He should have said, I thought he was going to kill me. Agree. Saying "i told yall to you leave" is pretty damning.. We will see what texas does |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 9:08:02 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "This individual was on my property without my permission. He told me he would forcibly disarm me and kill me. When he grabbed my gun I felt that my life was in danger." Case over, imo. People arguing that black shirt guy had no reason to feel threatened might want to take a look at what happened the last time an unarmed attacker threatened a legally-armed Kyle and grabbed his gun. If Kyle would have fired at that point I would agree with you 100% but once they were separated by 15', the situation changed and the immediacy of the threat went away and a new aggressive action on the part of Chad would be needed to justify the shooting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 9:18:15 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If Kyle would have fired at that point I would agree with you 100% but once they were separated by 15', the situation changed and the immediacy of the threat went away and a new aggressive action on the part of Chad would be needed to justify the shooting. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: "This individual was on my property without my permission. He told me he would forcibly disarm me and kill me. When he grabbed my gun I felt that my life was in danger." Case over, imo. People arguing that black shirt guy had no reason to feel threatened might want to take a look at what happened the last time an unarmed attacker threatened a legally-armed Kyle and grabbed his gun. If Kyle would have fired at that point I would agree with you 100% but once they were separated by 15', the situation changed and the immediacy of the threat went away and a new aggressive action on the part of Chad would be needed to justify the shooting. *him vs me because I'm not quoting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 9:21:24 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Be married to a judge in a small town and let us know the outcome. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It’s been 19 days and yet no charges. If they decide not to file charges will they announce it or just leave GD in suspense? Be married to a judge in a small town and let us know the outcome. Welcome fellow firearm enthusiast. His being formerly married to the judge caused the case to be handed off to the Texas AG. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 9:23:26 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Which is what black shirt is saying, 'Green Shirt moved towards him'. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: "This individual was on my property without my permission. He told me he would forcibly disarm me and kill me. When he grabbed my gun I felt that my life was in danger." Case over, imo. People arguing that black shirt guy had no reason to feel threatened might want to take a look at what happened the last time an unarmed attacker threatened a legally-armed Kyle and grabbed his gun. If Kyle would have fired at that point I would agree with you 100% but once they were separated by 15', the situation changed and the immediacy of the threat went away and a new aggressive action on the part of Chad would be needed to justify the shooting. Black shirt’s attorney is saying that now. At the time, Black shirt said, “I told you all to leave.” It remains to be seen who the court will believe or if the Texas AG will even charge black shirt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 9:25:42 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Agree. Saying "i told yall to you leave" is pretty damning.. We will see what texas does It really is. He should have said "He was coming right for me!"  How To Get Around Hunting Laws - SOUTH PARK |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 9:28:34 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: KR situation is a red herring. That situation is nothing like this. KR is not even in the same universe and should not be mentioned in this thread. The carbine dude was not under an imminent threat, the victim was not armed in any way and did not constitute an imminent and clear and present danger. He had neither the means no the desire (but no means for sure) to do harm to the owner. How would he do any harm to him? With that? Bare fists versus a gun? The only thing he could do was run his mouth, which he did. Still does not rise to the level of a credible threat. And that is the bottom line. If they can't prove imminent danger, the attackers position is not going to stand up in court. You don't just deploy weapons on people that won't leave your porch. The jury won't like it. He is on very thin ice here. If he pulls it off, I will be surprised. He was a threat when they were rubbing nipples on the porch. Now, when the fatal shot was fired some moments later there was distance between them and it is harder to say he was an immediate threat being unarmed. The fact they spun around a bit might alter that some, but also it didn't seem to me the big guy was really intent on killing the smaller guy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 9:31:25 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Black shirt's attorney is saying that now. At the time, Black shirt said, "I told you all to leave." It remains to be seen who the court will believe or if the Texas AG will even charge black shirt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 9:32:35 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Agree. Saying "i told yall to you leave" is pretty damning.. We will see what texas does Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The trespass doesn’t really matter. You can’t use deadly force in a pure trespassing situation in Texas. You can only use the minimum force necessary to remove the person from your property. If black shirt tries to rest his case on trespassing, then he’s fucked. The only time deadly force is authorized is to prevent great bodily harm or death, to prevent an actor from committing one of a few enumerated crimes, or to prevent an actor from fleeing one of a few enumerated crimes. Trespassing isn’t one of those crimes. So, he has to fear bodily harm or death for the shoot to be legal. If he’s in his house or very close to it, then the court assumes his fear of imminent great bodily harm or death is reasonable, which is why I think that statement from black shirt will be another strike against him in court if he gets indicted. It demonstrates that he wasn’t in fear of imminent bodily harm or death. He was in fear of his side piece thinking green shirt wasn’t going to respect his authority. He should have said, I thought he was going to kill me. Agree. Saying "i told yall to you leave" is pretty damning.. We will see what texas does Yea. GD’s getting twisted in knots about the peripheral stuff that isn’t the deciding factor of whether or not this is a good self defense shoot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 9:38:42 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Be married to a judge in a small town and let us know the outcome. It isn’t interference from the judge or her advocates. It is simply because of her position they are punting the disposition of the case to the state so as to avoid the appearance of an impurity. As witnessed by all by all of the posting expressing and espousing the Democrat Leftists party line, there are quit a few social media influencers posting in this thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 9:43:38 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yea. GD’s getting twisted in knots about the peripheral stuff that isn’t the deciding factor of whether or not this is a good self defense shoot. Note that peripheral stuff was what the ADA and media focused on in the Kenosha shootings. In my viewing the fact that the shooting took some place apart suggests it is probably a bad shoot. Chad had a chance to grapple for the gun, didn't do that but could have on the porch. I think he didn't want to back down but also didn't want to take the final step to make it a fight to the death. They danced around a moment, then Kyle shot him from a relative distance. If Chad didn't grapple for the gun the first time why would he try a second time from a greater distance? Of course expecting rational behavior in these situations may lead to the wrong conclusion. Michael Brown did run away before he charged. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 9:53:17 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Note that peripheral stuff was what the ADA and media focused on in the Kenosha shootings. In my viewing the fact that the shooting took some place apart suggests it is probably a bad shoot. Chad had a chance to grapple for the gun, didn't do that but could have on the porch. I think he didn't want to back down but also didn't want to take the final step to make it a fight to the death. They danced around a moment, then Kyle shot him from a relative distance. If Chad didn't grapple for the gun the first time why would he try a second time from a greater distance? Of course expecting rational behavior in these situations may lead to the wrong conclusion. Michael Brown did run away before he charged. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Yea. GD’s getting twisted in knots about the peripheral stuff that isn’t the deciding factor of whether or not this is a good self defense shoot. Note that peripheral stuff was what the ADA and media focused on in the Kenosha shootings. In my viewing the fact that the shooting took some place apart suggests it is probably a bad shoot. Chad had a chance to grapple for the gun, didn't do that but could have on the porch. I think he didn't want to back down but also didn't want to take the final step to make it a fight to the death. They danced around a moment, then Kyle shot him from a relative distance. If Chad didn't grapple for the gun the first time why would he try a second time from a greater distance? Of course expecting rational behavior in these situations may lead to the wrong conclusion. Michael Brown did run away before he charged. Honestly I see it as the opposite, he already grabbed at the gun twice after threatening to take it and kill him with it. He already had shown an escalating propensity to attempting to disarm him, what was to stop him from a third successful try? The 6-10 feet away when he started advancing again was nothing in terms of closing distance and disarming him. Hot head guy should have waited in his car or just made a record of the custody issues. Somebody with a gun on their own porch telling you to leave, you should leave. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 9:53:27 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: IMO y'all are ready to much into that. If it ends up in court it will be brought up, but He just shot a guy, and been through an ordeal. 'If they left, none of this would have happened', is a reasoned thought. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Black shirt's attorney is saying that now. At the time, Black shirt said, "I told you all to leave." It remains to be seen who the court will believe or if the Texas AG will even charge black shirt. “A well reasoned thought for a sociopathic killer!” /closing argument ETA:
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 9:54:50 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Haven't changed a thing, I still say black shirt is going to be doing time in a PMITA penitentiary when this is over. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Nice that you've changed what you want to argue, because you were 100% wrong on the trespassing issue. Now I'll wait for you to provide evidence that Carruth engaged in any custodial interference, rather than his new girlfriend (Read's ex wife). Based on the publically available information, Read's kids weren't at Carruth's house. So, tell us all about his custodial interference. I'll wait. . . Haven't changed a thing, I still say black shirt is going to be doing time in a PMITA penitentiary when this is over. Haven’t changed a thing? So you’re still claiming that a custody and visitation agreement grants trespass rights? It would have been better changing your position on that bit of nonsense. If you kid is at my house, and I have no right to keep him from you, does my right to trespass you trump your right to your child? I don't think you'll find a reasonable person anywhere that says sorry, you'll get your kid some other time. The issue has been addressed by reasonable people multiple times in this thread. The child not being available at the appointed time is a civil matter that will be addressed by the family court judge, not the father. If you still believe that a custody agreement grants trespass rights, it’s your burden to prove it. Also show me where there is a definitive answer that the child isn't there. Let's face it, ex wife and black shirt don't seem like the most reliable people and very well could be lying about it as part of their fuck fuck games. I haven’t seen a definitive answer to that question, but Read certainly believed it, based on what he said. Nevertheless, the burden is on you to support your claim that the kid was in fact there, if that’s your position. I'm not saying black shirt is interfering in the custody, but ex wife certainly is. And just from judging what I can in the video it certainly seems like a strong possibility that ex wife lives there, or at the very least spends a great deal of time there. Either way, if ex wife is there and refusing to turn over the kid,a crime has already been committed. Again, it’s a civil matter, not criminal (the kid hasn’t been kidnapped). If the kid isn’t there, but is at the ex MIL’s house as Read believed, the wife isn’t refusing to hand him over. She doesn’t have him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 9:57:14 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. I know he was asked to leave, but was he invited there by his ex to pick up his son? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 9:57:42 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Honestly I see it as the opposite, he already grabbed at the gun twice after threatening to take it and kill him with it. He already had shown an escalating propensity to attempting to disarm him, what was to stop him from a third successful try? The 6-10 feet away when he started advancing again was nothing in terms of closing distance and disarming him. Hot head guy should have waited in his car or just made a record of the custody issues. Somebody with a gun on their own porch telling you to leave, you should leave. I don't think he made an attempt to disarm. He did seem to put his hand under the gun and may have considered it, but he didn't press it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 10:00:02 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If the kid isn’t there, but is at the ex MIL’s house as Read believed, the wife isn’t refusing to hand him over. She doesn’t have him. Except this seem to be the agreed handover time, so likely she was playing games and intentionally did things to avoid handing him over. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 10:04:45 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Holy shit you just put a BUNCH of words in my mouth! The question was that if someone just shot at you and then gets within arm’s reach, would you make a play for the gun. The poster offered this question without any context whatsoever. Yes, I realize what we’re discussing in this thread. However, I answered it based on just the question asked. Either way, if I’m in a situation like the one we’re discussing, and I was unarmed and had already been shot at, and the shooter is within arm’s length away from me, I’m most definitely going to try and defend myself, including gaining control of the firearm. After that, I’m going to try my best to break contact and get the police on the phone. I’m not going to automatically shoot him once I’ve disarmed him (despite the exciting outcome that you just randomly made up). For the record, since you also jumped to the conclusion that me choosing to defend myself implied I’d trespass and do all of the other stupid stuff that green shirt did, I most definitely would not. I have a very difficult ex who has tried repeatedly to put me in these types of compromising situations. I don’t take the bait, ever. I’m well aware with how the system works and I make the best of a very challenging situation. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Honest question; if someone just shot at you and then gets within arms reach, would you make a play for the gun? That’s clearly not what happened. You need to watch the video again. The “?” in his post indicated that he was asking, not telling. To answer, for me, I would most definitely make a play for that gun. I’m not going to just stand there and get shot. The red is presented as fact and the blue is a question. As to your last point, you would trespass, close the distance with an armed homeowner, threaten to kill him with his own weapon, batter him, and then you would feel justified in trying to make good on your threat to take his gun away and kill him with it? That’s some fucked up shit right there. . . Holy shit you just put a BUNCH of words in my mouth! The question was that if someone just shot at you and then gets within arm’s reach, would you make a play for the gun. The poster offered this question without any context whatsoever. Yes, I realize what we’re discussing in this thread. However, I answered it based on just the question asked. Either way, if I’m in a situation like the one we’re discussing, and I was unarmed and had already been shot at, and the shooter is within arm’s length away from me, I’m most definitely going to try and defend myself, including gaining control of the firearm. After that, I’m going to try my best to break contact and get the police on the phone. I’m not going to automatically shoot him once I’ve disarmed him (despite the exciting outcome that you just randomly made up). For the record, since you also jumped to the conclusion that me choosing to defend myself implied I’d trespass and do all of the other stupid stuff that green shirt did, I most definitely would not. I have a very difficult ex who has tried repeatedly to put me in these types of compromising situations. I don’t take the bait, ever. I’m well aware with how the system works and I make the best of a very challenging situation. I’m sorry. I thought that your post was based on the context of the instant case and not a new hypothetical. That renders my response null and void. Please accept my apology. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 10:11:36 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't think he made an attempt to disarm. He did seem to put his hand under the gun and may have considered it, but he didn't press it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Honestly I see it as the opposite, he already grabbed at the gun twice after threatening to take it and kill him with it. He already had shown an escalating propensity to attempting to disarm him, what was to stop him from a third successful try? The 6-10 feet away when he started advancing again was nothing in terms of closing distance and disarming him. Hot head guy should have waited in his car or just made a record of the custody issues. Somebody with a gun on their own porch telling you to leave, you should leave. I don't think he made an attempt to disarm. He did seem to put his hand under the gun and may have considered it, but he didn't press it. In the second gun grabbing attempt, he has hold of the barrel with his right hand and is grabbing Carruth with his left. Hard to claim that he’s not trying to follow through on his threat to take the gun away from Carruth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 10:13:55 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Except this seem to be the agreed handover time, so likely she was playing games and intentionally did things to avoid handing him over. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If the kid isn’t there, but is at the ex MIL’s house as Read believed, the wife isn’t refusing to hand him over. She doesn’t have him. Except this seem to be the agreed handover time, so likely she was playing games and intentionally did things to avoid handing him over. Very likely. But my point is that it’s unlikely that she refused to hand over the kid - rather that handing him over at that moment was an impossibility. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 10:16:29 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Whatever happened to a good old fist fight? Black shirt, whether justified or not (not commenting on that), acted like a little bitch.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 10:19:18 PM EDT
[#30]
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… Texas law does not give you the right to shoot someone due to "trespassing".... Talk about JFC.... Pay the fuck attention... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 10:27:16 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Texas law does not give you the right to shoot someone due to "trespassing".... Talk about JFC.... Pay the fuck attention... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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… Texas law does not give you the right to shoot someone due to "trespassing".... Talk about JFC.... Pay the fuck attention... Using any kind of force to gain access to someone’s porch is considered felony burglary in TX, apparently. That force can be a crowbar on a window/door or shoving the owner while on that porch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 10:29:21 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Texas law does not give you the right to shoot someone due to "trespassing".... Talk about JFC.... Pay the fuck attention... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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… Texas law does not give you the right to shoot someone due to "trespassing".... Talk about JFC.... Pay the fuck attention... He wasn’t shot for trespassing, and I’ve never claimed any such thing. Do try to keep up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 10:32:19 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't think he made an attempt to disarm. He did seem to put his hand under the gun and may have considered it, but he didn't press it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Honestly I see it as the opposite, he already grabbed at the gun twice after threatening to take it and kill him with it. He already had shown an escalating propensity to attempting to disarm him, what was to stop him from a third successful try? The 6-10 feet away when he started advancing again was nothing in terms of closing distance and disarming him. Hot head guy should have waited in his car or just made a record of the custody issues. Somebody with a gun on their own porch telling you to leave, you should leave. I don't think he made an attempt to disarm. He did seem to put his hand under the gun and may have considered it, but he didn't press it. He started to right before the “warning shot” or AD, whichever that was. That grab motion is what precipitated the first firing. The second time when he throws Kyle he is grabbing the gun with his right hand as he throws Kyle with his left and spins him, trying to grab it and pull away. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 10:35:25 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He started to right before the “warning shot” or AD, whichever that was. That grab motion is what precipitated the first firing. The second time when he throws Kyle he is grabbing the gun with his right hand as he throws Kyle with his left and spins him, trying to grab it and pull away. If he was actually trying to take the gun then it makes shooting him much more defensible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 10:44:27 PM EDT
[#35]
When assholes collide. If an armed man tells you to get off his property. Get off and assess from there. Pro tip. Don’t jump on railroad tracks and flag down a train to ask for a ride, then be surprised when you get run over.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 10:51:17 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If he was actually trying to take the gun then it makes shooting him much more defensible. That was a manlet toss. The gun was just one leverage point. Green's left arm then provides most of the throw force to Black's right shoulder. No offense to wee Black shirt, but if Green wanted to take the gun, he would have. And yes it is absolutely when assholes collide. Can't tell if the kid is better off or not 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 10:51:40 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. If he'd shot him when they were dick to dick and shoving, he'd likely be in the clear. Choosing to shoot once there was some distance between them is going to be the tough part to explain, especially since dead guy wasn't charging at him, reaching into his waistband, etc. when he was shot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 11:22:12 PM EDT
[#38]
Around 15-20 years ago I was driving home in traffic listening to talk radio and they were discussing a recent shooting in DFW.
Apparently a there was a tiff between two neighbors living in a duplex because the other neighbor was gay. One day the gay neighbor gets hammered, goes out to the back yard to pee buck naked and comes back by accident to the neighbor's back sliding glass door and bangs on it insisting to be let back into "his" place. The neighbor shoots him 5 times through the glass door. The DA says that it was a good shoot until the guy went outside and put bullet number 6 into the neighbor's head. Then there was the Joe Horn incident. Texas is very forgiving for for property owners. Kyle may get charged, but I doubt he gets convicted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 11:27:21 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote History"Guns Up!" 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 11:50:36 PM EDT
[#40]
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? ?? Nice try. I was speaking on our overall points that were being made, not the exact words. Some of y’all just try to make shit up just so you (think you) have something to argue about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 11:53:37 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/hes_right_you_know-328.jpg The 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. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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? /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/hes_right_you_know-328.jpg The 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. “You made it sound like” I really don’t need to explain anything else. You’re putting words in my mouth and assigning your own meaning to what I’m saying. I’m not on trial and nothing I’ve said is even close to as black and white as you want it to be so you have a reason to argue semantics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2021 11:56:59 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If he'd shot him when they were dick to dick and shoving, he'd likely be in the clear. Choosing to shoot once there was some distance between them is going to be the tough part to explain, especially since dead guy wasn't charging at him, reaching into his waistband, etc. when he was shot. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. If he'd shot him when they were dick to dick and shoving, he'd likely be in the clear. Choosing to shoot once there was some distance between them is going to be the tough part to explain, especially since dead guy wasn't charging at him, reaching into his waistband, etc. when he was shot. I don’t see that. Can you tell me in which video (and the time stamp) where this can be seen? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2021 12:11:29 AM EDT
[#43]
Dead guy got his punishment for being a prick - he's dead.
Shooter guy is going to get some punishment, somehow. in that area, DA probably doesn't want to prosecute if at all possible. I doubt you'd get a conviction or acquittal based on this thread, 12 folks aren't going to agree either way. But shooter guy escalated when there was no need, and shot about 4 seconds later than when it may have been understandable. Dead guy didn't show up to shoot someone, I'm not as sure about shooter guy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2021 1:18:54 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don’t see that. Can you tell me in which video (and the time stamp) where this can be seen? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. If he'd shot him when they were dick to dick and shoving, he'd likely be in the clear. Choosing to shoot once there was some distance between them is going to be the tough part to explain, especially since dead guy wasn't charging at him, reaching into his waistband, etc. when he was shot. I don’t see that. Can you tell me in which video (and the time stamp) where this can be seen? Texaspyro21 posted a link to another video near the bottom of page 1. Somebody was filming from inside the house. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2021 1:42:27 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The first crime committed here was custodial interference. When your the one breaking the law, you've lost the moral high ground. The guy who owned the property and wasn't a legal guardian is guilty of "custodial interference"? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2021 1:43:45 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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 After verbally threatening the guy with murder and then assaulting him, he would have been justified in drawing and shooting black shirt? Are you serious? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2021 1:46:24 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The guy who owned the property and wasn't a legal guardian is guilty of "custodial interference"? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The first crime committed here was custodial interference. When your the one breaking the law, you've lost the moral high ground. The guy who owned the property and wasn't a legal guardian is guilty of "custodial interference"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2021 1:48:24 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Haven't changed a thing, I still say black shirt is going to be doing time in a PMITA penitentiary when this is over. If you kid is at my house, and I have no right to keep him from you, does my right to trespass you trump your right to your child? I don't think you'll find a reasonable person anywhere that says sorry, you'll get your kid some other time. Also show me where there is a definitive answer that the child isn't there. Let's face it, ex wife and black shirt don't seem like the most reliable people and very well could be lying about it as part of their fuck fuck games. I'm not saying black shirt is interfering in the custody, but ex wife certainly is. And just from judging what I can in the video it certainly seems like a strong possibility that ex wife lives there, or at the very least spends a great deal of time there. Either way, if ex wife is there and refusing to turn over the kid,a crime has already been committed. Sweet Jesus please don't move away from NY. That state is perfect for you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2021 1:56:11 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ?? Nice try. I was speaking on our overall points that were being made, not the exact words. Some of y’all just try to make shit up just so you (think you) have something to argue about. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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? ?? Nice try. I was speaking on our overall points that were being made, not the exact words. Some of y’all just try to make shit up just so you (think you) have something to argue about. The fuck are you talking about, "make shit up"? I literally quoted exactly what you wrote. Are you telling me you're so full of shit that I shouldn't take anything you say seriously? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2021 1:56:53 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Texaspyro21 posted a link to another video near the bottom of page 1. Somebody was filming from inside the house. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. If he'd shot him when they were dick to dick and shoving, he'd likely be in the clear. Choosing to shoot once there was some distance between them is going to be the tough part to explain, especially since dead guy wasn't charging at him, reaching into his waistband, etc. when he was shot. I don’t see that. Can you tell me in which video (and the time stamp) where this can be seen? Texaspyro21 posted a link to another video near the bottom of page 1. Somebody was filming from inside the house. Thanks. In that video, after Carruth is thrown/jumps off the porch, I see a blurred-out half image of Read that is visible for a small fraction of a second. I can’t tell anything from that. I certainly can’t see that the “dead guy wasn't charging at him, reaching into his waistband, etc.” |
|
|
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.
