User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 3:43:35 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Being on private property after being told to leave is trespassing. The custody agreement doesn't change that. Post up the law that you believe makes your position correct. I'll wait while you do your research. Are all court orders invalidated by an order to get off the property? Somebody with an arrest warrant out for them will love this news. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 3:46:35 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Best post on here. Blackshirt was told to get off this thread a few days ago and did. Most of the people on here defending Black shirt must be his buddies or they wouldn't sound so desperate. Bottom line, the guy went to get there to pick up his kid. Small dick should've shut the fuck up and let them handle it. Greenshirt had every right to be pissed but clearly was managing his frustration. [Before needledick gets the gun, dad is trying to talk to mom. From 5 to 10 ft he steps forward and She steps back to clearly further escalate tensions. Clearly green shirt stops progressing forward.] Greenshirt is rightfully pissed but in control at that point. NO NEED TO GET A WEAPON! Take your pussy ass inside and fix me a sandwich. My guess is the small man complex got the best of blackshirt before this and he hasn't been able to shut the fuck up at any point before. Given blackshirt's criminal record it sounds like he has a history of dumbass decisions. The rest of you guys defending blackshirt are not convincing those of us not related to the inbred. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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.. Best post on here. Blackshirt was told to get off this thread a few days ago and did. Most of the people on here defending Black shirt must be his buddies or they wouldn't sound so desperate. Bottom line, the guy went to get there to pick up his kid. Small dick should've shut the fuck up and let them handle it. Greenshirt had every right to be pissed but clearly was managing his frustration. [Before needledick gets the gun, dad is trying to talk to mom. From 5 to 10 ft he steps forward and She steps back to clearly further escalate tensions. Clearly green shirt stops progressing forward.] Greenshirt is rightfully pissed but in control at that point. NO NEED TO GET A WEAPON! Take your pussy ass inside and fix me a sandwich. My guess is the small man complex got the best of blackshirt before this and he hasn't been able to shut the fuck up at any point before. Given blackshirt's criminal record it sounds like he has a history of dumbass decisions. The rest of you guys defending blackshirt are not convincing those of us not related to the inbred. I have no idea why you and the fag that your sucking his internet dick think they can group all us who think green shirt should have left as pussies or inbred. I don’t know the back story, but my reaction is if kid wasn’t there, there’s nothing to pick up. Deal with it somewhere else with your lawyer, but get your loud bitching mouth off my property. Now some are saying it’s his property, or….who the hell knows. But my opinion on what is just in the vid is valid. Show your ass you might get deaded. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 3:50:36 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have no idea why you and the fag that your sucking his internet dick think they can group all us who think green shirt should have left as pussies or inbred. I don't know the back story, but my reaction is if kid wasn't there, there's nothing to pick up. Deal with it somewhere else with your lawyer, but get your loud bitching mouth off my property. Now some are saying it's his property, or.who the hell knows. But my opinion on what is just in the vid is valid. Show your ass you might get deaded. Shooter should have stayed inside, called his girlfriend inside and called the cops. Both could have been much smarter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 3:51:47 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He was having a conversation with his ex-wife that resides there. Little shooter doesn't own the property, his parents do. One roommate can't trespass a roommates guest just because they feel like it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted:If you go and get a gun while I'm talking to my ex-wife, then fire that gun at me, I'm grabbing it as soon as I can reach it... as would anyone else in that situation. Little dude is going to jail for his actions that day. Smart people quit trespassing when they're told to. The property owner/legal resident can legally remove you from the property, it's on you if you advance on him while he's armed. He was having a conversation with his ex-wife that resides there. Little shooter doesn't own the property, his parents do. One roommate can't trespass a roommates guest just because they feel like it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 3:53:27 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He should have walked off the property, he can stand out there and rant for hours if he wants. Shooter should have stayed inside, called his girlfriend inside and called the cops. Both could have been much smarter. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I have no idea why you and the fag that your sucking his internet dick think they can group all us who think green shirt should have left as pussies or inbred. I don't know the back story, but my reaction is if kid wasn't there, there's nothing to pick up. Deal with it somewhere else with your lawyer, but get your loud bitching mouth off my property. Now some are saying it's his property, or.who the hell knows. But my opinion on what is just in the vid is valid. Show your ass you might get deaded. Shooter should have stayed inside, called his girlfriend inside and called the cops. Both could have been much smarter. Yup. Nailed it. Go stand in the street which you can legally do. I'd have gone inside after he didn't leave and called the cops, getting hauled off in handcuffs for not obeying the law wouldn't help his cause in the family courts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 3:55:32 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well you probably should leave someone's property when told to, especially when they return with a gun to make sure you didn't misinterpret them telling you to GTFO The gun shots happened in the middle of the fight, there ain't no slow motion in real life. He walks. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Best video by far - the sided by side is helpful, but especially the frame by frame. He very clearly is taking a step forward just before the shots with his left foot going from stationary to raised. How many times do you have to let your attacker attack you before you can shoot them? That question has no bearing on legal/not legal shoot. It’s, “at the time of the shoot, was the shooter in reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm or death?” If someone disengages the fight, no matter how many times they attacked you, then you don’t get to shoot them simply because they attacked you at some time in the past. If you had your hands on my gun 2 seconds before you are an imminent threat It depends what happens in those 2 seconds. The guy didn't turn around and run away, that would have been the thing to do if he wanted to not get shot. You attack someone with a gun, its literally the definition of fuck around and find out. Hmm, where does he turn around and run away to? Into the house? “He’s burglarizing an occupied dwelling!” At the shooter? “He’s coming right for me!” There aren’t many places to retreat to. Note, I’m not arguing Green shirt had the right to do or was smart in any of his actions. I’m not saying Black shirt wasn’t legal to shoot Green shirt. I’m saying that it’s inconclusive, and he likely will get a ride through the legal system and possibly an all expense paid vacation at state penitentiary. Black shirt also fucked around and is currently finding out just how expensive his, “get off my lawn,” stunt will be. The side piece must have been an absolutely spectacular fuck for him to implode his marriage and finances over her. Now that the side piece’s kids are refusing to be around Black shirt and threatening to run away, just wait until the side piece flips on black shirt to save her relationship with the kids. Well you probably should leave someone's property when told to, especially when they return with a gun to make sure you didn't misinterpret them telling you to GTFO The gun shots happened in the middle of the fight, there ain't no slow motion in real life. He walks. Uh huh, Travis McMichael, Gregory McMichael, and William Bryan Jr. probably thought that also. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 3:56:53 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: OMG its totally murder then...  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Best video by far - the sided by side is helpful, but especially the frame by frame. He very clearly is taking a step forward just before the shots with his left foot going from stationary to raised. How many times do you have to let your attacker attack you before you can shoot them? That question has no bearing on legal/not legal shoot. It’s, “at the time of the shoot, was the shooter in reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm or death?” If someone disengages the fight, no matter how many times they attacked you, then you don’t get to shoot them simply because they attacked you at some time in the past. If you had your hands on my gun 2 seconds before you are an imminent threat If you go and get a gun while I'm talking to my ex-wife, then fire that gun at me, I'm grabbing it as soon as I can reach it... as would anyone else in that situation. Little dude is going to jail for his actions that day. He hasn't been charged yet, and Lubbock PD thinks it was self defense. If you're yelling at my wife on my property and try to grab my gun after I tell you multiple times to leave then you're getting shot. It wasn’t his wife. It was his side piece. He filed for divorce from his wife. OMG its totally murder then... Didn’t say that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 3:57:00 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He should have walked off the property, he can stand out there and rant for hours if he wants. Shooter should have stayed inside, called his girlfriend inside and called the cops. Both could have been much smarter. This If nothing else this video is another good example that just pulling a gun will not deescalate a situation like it does in the movies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 3:58:11 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Uh huh, Travis McMichael, Gregory McMichael, and William Bryan Jr. probably thought that also. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Best video by far - the sided by side is helpful, but especially the frame by frame. He very clearly is taking a step forward just before the shots with his left foot going from stationary to raised. How many times do you have to let your attacker attack you before you can shoot them? That question has no bearing on legal/not legal shoot. It’s, “at the time of the shoot, was the shooter in reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm or death?” If someone disengages the fight, no matter how many times they attacked you, then you don’t get to shoot them simply because they attacked you at some time in the past. If you had your hands on my gun 2 seconds before you are an imminent threat It depends what happens in those 2 seconds. The guy didn't turn around and run away, that would have been the thing to do if he wanted to not get shot. You attack someone with a gun, its literally the definition of fuck around and find out. Hmm, where does he turn around and run away to? Into the house? “He’s burglarizing an occupied dwelling!” At the shooter? “He’s coming right for me!” There aren’t many places to retreat to. Note, I’m not arguing Green shirt had the right to do or was smart in any of his actions. I’m not saying Black shirt wasn’t legal to shoot Green shirt. I’m saying that it’s inconclusive, and he likely will get a ride through the legal system and possibly an all expense paid vacation at state penitentiary. Black shirt also fucked around and is currently finding out just how expensive his, “get off my lawn,” stunt will be. The side piece must have been an absolutely spectacular fuck for him to implode his marriage and finances over her. Now that the side piece’s kids are refusing to be around Black shirt and threatening to run away, just wait until the side piece flips on black shirt to save her relationship with the kids. Well you probably should leave someone's property when told to, especially when they return with a gun to make sure you didn't misinterpret them telling you to GTFO The gun shots happened in the middle of the fight, there ain't no slow motion in real life. He walks. Uh huh, Travis McMichael, Gregory McMichael, and William Bryan Jr. probably thought that also. That's literally maybe the worst example possible to use. Luckily ya'lls opinions matter as much as mine. Citizens in Lubbock Texas will decide this, and yes I know them better than anyone posting in this thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 3:59:59 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He should have walked off the property, he can stand out there and rant for hours if he wants. Shooter should have stayed inside, called his girlfriend inside and called the cops. Both could have been much smarter. Nobody should have to go in and hide on their own property, ever, unless they choose to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 4:07:16 PM EDT
[#11]
Too many folks are making this about "get off my property" and other such nuances. While the nuances will matter, the simple question is whether or not a reasonable person would believe their life was in danger or that grave bodily harm was imminent. That's what a jury would be asked to decide. The guy got a gun over a custody issue with someone he knew well. This isn't a stranger or something like that; it was a dude and his ex wife having a pissing match about custody. No threats before the gun came out. No nothing other than loud voices before shooter went and got the gun. All of this will be used at a trial. Words don't necessarily mean anything. They can be used to show a reasonable fear of death, but they aren't determinative. That he was told to leave and didn't is irrelevant in considering the reasonableness of the shooters fear.
Does anyone sincerely believe green shirt was going to kill black shirt? I sure don't. If black shirt didn't fire when he did, green shirt was gonna stand there shouting until the cops arrived. If black shirt never got the gun, green shirt might still be mad on the porch for all I know. That's what I really believe, so I don't think black shirt was in reasonable fear. He was way too quick on the trigger imo. What's interesting is how split the forum is on this. The Rittenhouse case wasn't nearly this contentious. If charges are filed, I think the best the shooter can hope for is a hung jury. Most likely is some form of compromised conviction on a lesser included imo. Guy is gonna eat a felony if I had to bet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 4:09:22 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Too many folks are making this about "get off my property" and other such nuances. While the nuances will matter, the simple question is whether or not a reasonable person would believe their life was in danger or that grave bodily harm was imminent. That's what a jury would be asked to decide. The guy got a gun over a custody issue with someone he knew well. This isn't a stranger or something like that. All of this will be used at a trial. Words don't necessarily mean anything. They can be used to show a reasonable fear of death, but they aren't determinative. Does anyone sincerely believe green shirt was going to kill black shirt? I sure don't. If black shirt didn't fire when he did, green shirt was gonna stand there shouting until the cops arrived. That's what I really believe, so I don't think black shirt was in reasonable fear. He was way too quick on the trigger imo. What's interesting is how split the forum is on this. The Rittenhouse case wasn't nearly this contentious. If charges are filed, I think the best the shooter can hope for is a hung jury. Most likely is some form of compromised conviction on a lesser included imo. Guy is gonna eat a felony if I had to bet. Green shirt sure the fuck said he was gonna fuck him up with his own gun. Hard to fight a dead man's own words. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 4:09:50 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This If nothing else this video is another good example that just pulling a gun will not deescalate a situation like it does in the movies. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: He should have walked off the property, he can stand out there and rant for hours if he wants. Shooter should have stayed inside, called his girlfriend inside and called the cops. Both could have been much smarter. This If nothing else this video is another good example that just pulling a gun will not deescalate a situation like it does in the movies. You can tell Black shirt vapor locked. If Green shirt had been committed to the gun grab, then Black shirt would probably have lost it. If Green shirt grabs the barrel and stock then twists instead of rubbing nipples with black shirt, then Black shirt possibly gets shot on his own property. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 4:11:42 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Too many folks are making this about "get off my property" and other such nuances. While the nuances will matter, the simple question is whether or not a reasonable person would believe their life was in danger or that grave bodily harm was imminent. That's what a jury would be asked to decide. The guy got a gun over a custody issue with someone he knew well. This isn't a stranger or something like that. All of this will be used at a trial. Words don't necessarily mean anything. They can be used to show a reasonable fear of death, but they aren't determinative. Does anyone sincerely believe green shirt was going to kill black shirt? I sure don't. If black shirt didn't fire when he did, green shirt was gonna stand there shouting until the cops arrived. That's what I really believe, so I don't think black shirt was in reasonable fear. He was way too quick on the trigger imo. What's interesting is how split the forum is on this. The Rittenhouse case wasn't nearly this contentious. If charges are filed, I think the best the shooter can hope for is a hung jury. Most likely is some form of compromised conviction on a lesser included imo. Guy is gonna eat a felony if I had to bet. Are you basing it on Ohio laws, that until recently you had to run out a back door of your own home if you feel threatened? True stand your ground laws, even on your own property, don’t alway mean you have to feel your life is ending. Here are states you don’t have run away in. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 4:12:35 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You can tell Black shirt vapor locked. If Green shirt had been committed to the gun grab, then Black shirt would probably have lost it. If Green shirt grabs the barrel and stock then twists instead of rubbing nipples with black shirt, then Black shirt possibly gets shot on his own property. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: He should have walked off the property, he can stand out there and rant for hours if he wants. Shooter should have stayed inside, called his girlfriend inside and called the cops. Both could have been much smarter. This If nothing else this video is another good example that just pulling a gun will not deescalate a situation like it does in the movies. You can tell Black shirt vapor locked. If Green shirt had been committed to the gun grab, then Black shirt would probably have lost it. If Green shirt grabs the barrel and stock then twists instead of rubbing nipples with black shirt, then Black shirt possibly gets shot on his own property. If a threat is close enough to grab their gun they are way too close. Stupid folks do stupid shit. That part of Lubbock is a white-ghetto, not a good part of town |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 4:13:02 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That question has no bearing on legal/not legal shoot. It’s, “at the time of the shoot, was the shooter in reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm or death?” If someone disengages the fight, no matter how many times they attacked you, then you don’t get to shoot them simply because they attacked you at some time in the past. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Best video by far - the sided by side is helpful, but especially the frame by frame. He very clearly is taking a step forward just before the shots with his left foot going from stationary to raised. How many times do you have to let your attacker attack you before you can shoot them? That question has no bearing on legal/not legal shoot. It’s, “at the time of the shoot, was the shooter in reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm or death?” If someone disengages the fight, no matter how many times they attacked you, then you don’t get to shoot them simply because they attacked you at some time in the past. He threw Carruth off the porch. How are you getting "disengages the fight" from that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 4:13:32 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Green shirt sure the fuck said he was gonna fuck him up with his own gun. Hard to fight a dead man's own words. That will certainly be part of the case, no doubt. There are also things like blustering. The jury will have to consider the veracity of green shirt's words. Was he bloviating? The way he chested the guy and they took the familiar male macho stare down would suggest he was doing just that to me. He was bloviating imo. If I'm on that jury, I don't see how black shirt could seriously think he was in danger. In fact he engaged in the time honored tradition of chest puffing. He then fired a shot that was unjustified imo. He provoked it. So, the words being uttered are evidence, not determinative. that's the point of my prior post. Words being uttered don't seal the deal. Was it a reasonable fear of death? Do you really green shirt was going to murder him? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 4:16:23 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Are you basing it on Ohio laws, that until recently you had to run out a back door of your own home if you feel threatened? True stand your ground laws, even on your own property, don’t alway mean you have to feel your life is ending. No, I'm basing it on general self defense privileges. Stand your ground just means no duty to retreat. It doesn't negate the requirement that one have a reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm. I'm certainly no national expert on self defense, but I'd be shocked to learn any state allows deadly force self defense for something appreciably less that reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm....even Texas. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 4:19:03 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That will certainly be part of the case, no doubt. There are also things like blustering. The jury will have to consider the veracity of green shirt's words. Was he bloviating? The way he chested the guy and they took the familiar male macho stare down would suggest he was doing just that to me. He was bloviating imo. If I'm on that jury, I don't see how black shirt could seriously think he was in danger. In fact he engaged in the time honored tradition of chest puffing. He then fired a shot that was unjustified imo. He provoked it. So, the words being uttered are evidence, not determinative. that's the point of my prior post. Words being uttered don't seal the deal. Was it a reasonable fear of death? Do you really green shirt was going to murder him? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Green shirt sure the fuck said he was gonna fuck him up with his own gun. Hard to fight a dead man's own words. That will certainly be part of the case, no doubt. There are also things like blustering. The jury will have to consider the veracity of green shirt's words. Was he bloviating? The way he chested the guy and they took the familiar male macho stare down would suggest he was doing just that to me. He was bloviating imo. If I'm on that jury, I don't see how black shirt could seriously think he was in danger. In fact he engaged in the time honored tradition of chest puffing. He then fired a shot that was unjustified imo. He provoked it. So, the words being uttered are evidence, not determinative. that's the point of my prior post. Words being uttered don't seal the deal. Was it a reasonable fear of death? Do you really green shirt was going to murder him? Reasonable fear of death is not required my friend. Shooters state of mind will be a factory, but all we know was green shirt was a hothead who didn't know when to quit. I'd be surprised if a grand jury didn't no bill this as self defense |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 4:20:43 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He threw Carruth off the porch. How are you getting "disengages the fight" from that? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Best video by far - the sided by side is helpful, but especially the frame by frame. He very clearly is taking a step forward just before the shots with his left foot going from stationary to raised. How many times do you have to let your attacker attack you before you can shoot them? That question has no bearing on legal/not legal shoot. It’s, “at the time of the shoot, was the shooter in reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm or death?” If someone disengages the fight, no matter how many times they attacked you, then you don’t get to shoot them simply because they attacked you at some time in the past. He threw Carruth off the porch. How are you getting "disengages the fight" from that? Black shirt was out of Green shirt’s reach, and Black shirt has a firearm shouldered. The statute is reasonable fear of imminent harm. How does Green shirt harm Black shirt absent a projectile weapon? Green shirt has to close the distance. The fight was over unless Green shirt moves to close it. Thus Black shirt’s lawyer making statements to the press about Black shirt seeing Green shirt raise his leg. He’s trying to establish the fight wasn’t over. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 4:21:22 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If you go and get a gun (perfectly legal to do) while I'm talking to my ex-wife (screaming at my girlfriend while you are trespassing), then fire that gun at me (after you closed the distance, threatened to take my gun and kill me with it, battered me and tried to take my gun twice), I'm grabbing it as soon as I can reach it... as would anyone else in that situation. (If you think that others would have taken the same actions that you're claiming you would take, and that Read took, you're a special kind of special.) Little dude is going to jail for his actions that day. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Best video by far - the sided by side is helpful, but especially the frame by frame. He very clearly is taking a step forward just before the shots with his left foot going from stationary to raised. How many times do you have to let your attacker attack you before you can shoot them? That question has no bearing on legal/not legal shoot. It’s, “at the time of the shoot, was the shooter in reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm or death?” If someone disengages the fight, no matter how many times they attacked you, then you don’t get to shoot them simply because they attacked you at some time in the past. If you had your hands on my gun 2 seconds before you are an imminent threat If you go and get a gun (perfectly legal to do) while I'm talking to my ex-wife (screaming at my girlfriend while you are trespassing), then fire that gun at me (after you closed the distance, threatened to take my gun and kill me with it, battered me and tried to take my gun twice), I'm grabbing it as soon as I can reach it... as would anyone else in that situation. (If you think that others would have taken the same actions that you're claiming you would take, and that Read took, you're a special kind of special.) Little dude is going to jail for his actions that day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 4:21:57 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Black shirt was out of Green shirt’s reach, and Black shirt has a firearm shouldered. The statute is reasonable fear of imminent harm. How does Green shirt harm Black shirt absent a projectile weapon? Green shirt has to close the distance. The fight was over unless Green shirt moves to close it. Thus Black shirt’s lawyer making statements to the press about Black shirt seeing Green shirt raise his leg. He’s trying to establish the fight wasn’t over. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Best video by far - the sided by side is helpful, but especially the frame by frame. He very clearly is taking a step forward just before the shots with his left foot going from stationary to raised. How many times do you have to let your attacker attack you before you can shoot them? That question has no bearing on legal/not legal shoot. It’s, “at the time of the shoot, was the shooter in reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm or death?” If someone disengages the fight, no matter how many times they attacked you, then you don’t get to shoot them simply because they attacked you at some time in the past. He threw Carruth off the porch. How are you getting "disengages the fight" from that? Black shirt was out of Green shirt’s reach, and Black shirt has a firearm shouldered. The statute is reasonable fear of imminent harm. How does Green shirt harm Black shirt absent a projectile weapon? Green shirt has to close the distance. The fight was over unless Green shirt moves to close it. Thus Black shirt’s lawyer making statements to the press about Black shirt seeing Green shirt raise his leg. He’s trying to establish the fight wasn’t over. You mean like getting close enough to smell his breath? Like he was doing immediately before the scuffle and shooting? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 4:23:21 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He was having a conversation with his ex-wife that resides there. Little shooter doesn't own the property, his parents do. One roommate can't trespass a roommates guest just because they feel like it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted:If you go and get a gun while I'm talking to my ex-wife, then fire that gun at me, I'm grabbing it as soon as I can reach it... as would anyone else in that situation. Little dude is going to jail for his actions that day. Smart people quit trespassing when they're told to. The property owner/legal resident can legally remove you from the property, it's on you if you advance on him while he's armed. He was having a conversation with his ex-wife that resides there. Little shooter doesn't own the property, his parents do. One roommate can't trespass a roommates guest just because they feel like it. Do you have evidence of this, you know, that the ex wife invited Read onto the property? Or do you just like making stuff up? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 4:25:08 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Reasonable fear of death is not required my friend. Shooters state of mind will be a factory, but all we know was green shirt was a hothead who didn't know when to quit. I'd be surprised if a grand jury didn't no bill this as self defense Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Green shirt sure the fuck said he was gonna fuck him up with his own gun. Hard to fight a dead man's own words. That will certainly be part of the case, no doubt. There are also things like blustering. The jury will have to consider the veracity of green shirt's words. Was he bloviating? The way he chested the guy and they took the familiar male macho stare down would suggest he was doing just that to me. He was bloviating imo. If I'm on that jury, I don't see how black shirt could seriously think he was in danger. In fact he engaged in the time honored tradition of chest puffing. He then fired a shot that was unjustified imo. He provoked it. So, the words being uttered are evidence, not determinative. that's the point of my prior post. Words being uttered don't seal the deal. Was it a reasonable fear of death? Do you really green shirt was going to murder him? Reasonable fear of death is not required my friend. Shooters state of mind will be a factory, but all we know was green shirt was a hothead who didn't know when to quit. I'd be surprised if a grand jury didn't no bill this as self defense Yes it is: Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another: (1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 4:26:16 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Do you have evidence of this, you know, that the ex wife invited Read onto the property? Or do you just like making stuff up? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:If you go and get a gun while I'm talking to my ex-wife, then fire that gun at me, I'm grabbing it as soon as I can reach it... as would anyone else in that situation. Little dude is going to jail for his actions that day. Smart people quit trespassing when they're told to. The property owner/legal resident can legally remove you from the property, it's on you if you advance on him while he's armed. He was having a conversation with his ex-wife that resides there. Little shooter doesn't own the property, his parents do. One roommate can't trespass a roommates guest just because they feel like it. Do you have evidence of this, you know, that the ex wife invited Read onto the property? Or do you just like making stuff up? The evidence is that they are all standing outside talking to him. Please stop asking stupid questions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 4:27:58 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Are all court orders invalidated by an order to get off the property? Somebody with an arrest warrant out for them will love this news. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Being on private property after being told to leave is trespassing. The custody agreement doesn't change that. Post up the law that you believe makes your position correct. I'll wait while you do your research. Are all court orders invalidated by an order to get off the property? Somebody with an arrest warrant out for them will love this news. If you believe that a custody agreement and visitation order grants trespass rights, post up your evidence. Otherwise, you're just braying in the wind. Have fun with that, but we all know you're full of shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 4:28:54 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, I'm basing it on general self defense privileges. Stand your ground just means no duty to retreat. It doesn't negate the requirement that one have a reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm. I'm certainly no national expert on self defense, but I'd be shocked to learn any state allows deadly force self defense for something appreciably less that reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm....even Texas. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Are you basing it on Ohio laws, that until recently you had to run out a back door of your own home if you feel threatened? True stand your ground laws, even on your own property, don’t alway mean you have to feel your life is ending. No, I'm basing it on general self defense privileges. Stand your ground just means no duty to retreat. It doesn't negate the requirement that one have a reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm. I'm certainly no national expert on self defense, but I'd be shocked to learn any state allows deadly force self defense for something appreciably less that reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm....even Texas. It’s allowed in Texas to prevent the commission of a few enumerated crimes or fleeing from a few enumerated crimes. Yes, you can be shot for fleeing with someone’s property at night in Texas. We’re the only state in the union that allows deadly force to prevent the loss of property. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 4:29:05 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Comes late to the thread, apparently doesn't read it. Nah, he just doesn't care, as it doesn't fit his narrative. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 4:30:14 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He hasn't been charged yet, and Lubbock PD thinks it was self defense. If you're yelling at my wife on my property and try to grab my gun after I tell you multiple times to leave then you're getting shot. What if I'm yelling about suing your girlfriend on your parents' property, and shouting that I'm going to subpoena your wife while pointing at your parents' house when I say her name? That's the part I don't get, is judge wifey in the house while all of this is going down? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 4:36:33 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Are all court orders invalidated by an order to get off the property? Somebody with an arrest warrant out for them will love this news. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Being on private property after being told to leave is trespassing. The custody agreement doesn't change that. Post up the law that you believe makes your position correct. I'll wait while you do your research. Are all court orders invalidated by an order to get off the property? Somebody with an arrest warrant out for them will love this news. A custody agreement has nothing in common with an arrest warrant. Also the parties to a custody agreement/order do not get to also enforce them. They are enforced through the court's contempt powers, following Due Process. An arrest warrant doesn't even entitle LE to enter the residence of anyone other than the subject of the warrant, even if the guy is inside flipping them the bird through a picture window. IOW, they can't trespass if they're told no. They have to go get a search warrant. Just as the party to a custody order has to go complain to a judge, who issues another order enforcing the prior order. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 4:38:40 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nobody should have to go in and hide on their own property, ever, unless they choose to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 4:40:50 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes it is: Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another: (1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Green shirt sure the fuck said he was gonna fuck him up with his own gun. Hard to fight a dead man's own words. That will certainly be part of the case, no doubt. There are also things like blustering. The jury will have to consider the veracity of green shirt's words. Was he bloviating? The way he chested the guy and they took the familiar male macho stare down would suggest he was doing just that to me. He was bloviating imo. If I'm on that jury, I don't see how black shirt could seriously think he was in danger. In fact he engaged in the time honored tradition of chest puffing. He then fired a shot that was unjustified imo. He provoked it. So, the words being uttered are evidence, not determinative. that's the point of my prior post. Words being uttered don't seal the deal. Was it a reasonable fear of death? Do you really green shirt was going to murder him? Reasonable fear of death is not required my friend. Shooters state of mind will be a factory, but all we know was green shirt was a hothead who didn't know when to quit. I'd be surprised if a grand jury didn't no bill this as self defense Yes it is: Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another: (1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. Good thing green shirt was trying to arm himself to kill black shirt just like he said he would. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 4:41:41 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The evidence is that they are all standing outside talking to him. Please stop asking stupid questions. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:If you go and get a gun while I'm talking to my ex-wife, then fire that gun at me, I'm grabbing it as soon as I can reach it... as would anyone else in that situation. Little dude is going to jail for his actions that day. Smart people quit trespassing when they're told to. The property owner/legal resident can legally remove you from the property, it's on you if you advance on him while he's armed. He was having a conversation with his ex-wife that resides there. Little shooter doesn't own the property, his parents do. One roommate can't trespass a roommates guest just because they feel like it. Do you have evidence of this, you know, that the ex wife invited Read onto the property? Or do you just like making stuff up? The evidence is that they are all standing outside talking to him. Please stop asking stupid questions. Seriously? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 4:44:32 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What if I'm yelling about suing your girlfriend on your parents' property, and shouting that I'm going to subpoena your wife while pointing at your parents' house when I say her name? That's the part I don't get, is judge wifey in the house while all of this is going down? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: He hasn't been charged yet, and Lubbock PD thinks it was self defense. If you're yelling at my wife on my property and try to grab my gun after I tell you multiple times to leave then you're getting shot. What if I'm yelling about suing your girlfriend on your parents' property, and shouting that I'm going to subpoena your wife while pointing at your parents' house when I say her name? That's the part I don't get, is judge wifey in the house while all of this is going down? Once told to leave you're probably escorted to the city jail. I personally also keep my property posted so there is no question about it |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 4:45:26 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I agree. But it's the smart choice over risking court time. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Nobody should have to go in and hide on their own property, ever, unless they choose to. Smart choices aren't a factor in this one |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 4:46:00 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Good thing green shirt was trying to arm himself to kill black shirt just like he said he would. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. He grabbed William and the carbine, and threw both of them as far away from him as possible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 4:46:42 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Black shirt was out of Green shirt's reach, and Black shirt has a firearm shouldered. The statute is reasonable fear of imminent harm. How does Green shirt harm Black shirt absent a projectile weapon? Green shirt has to close the distance. The fight was over unless Green shirt moves to close it. Thus Black shirt's lawyer making statements to the press about Black shirt seeing Green shirt raise his leg. He's trying to establish the fight wasn't over. Is it reasonable black shirt believed green shirt was moving towards him? Is it reasonable black shirt believed green shirt was going to take the gun and use it against him? Green shirt followed after him at the beginning of the video. When black shirt walked away. Green shirt moved toward him threatening to take and use gun against him. Green shirt tried to take gun twice. Why wouldn't Black shirt believe, Green shirt was continuing the attack? Factoring in, They were on the porch, he got thrown off, looks at Green shirt stepping off porch towards him, continuing his raving. and Maybe another step. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 4:47:34 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You can tell Black shirt vapor locked. If Green shirt had been committed to the gun grab, then Black shirt would probably have lost it. If Green shirt grabs the barrel and stock then twists instead of rubbing nipples with black shirt, then Black shirt possibly gets shot on his own property. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: He should have walked off the property, he can stand out there and rant for hours if he wants. Shooter should have stayed inside, called his girlfriend inside and called the cops. Both could have been much smarter. This If nothing else this video is another good example that just pulling a gun will not deescalate a situation like it does in the movies. You can tell Black shirt vapor locked. If Green shirt had been committed to the gun grab, then Black shirt would probably have lost it. If Green shirt grabs the barrel and stock then twists instead of rubbing nipples with black shirt, then Black shirt possibly gets shot on his own property. My guess is that black shirt thought the gun would scare green shirt enough to leave....he found out pretty quickly that it had the opposite effect. Next step was a round at green shirts feet, he probably thought that would scare him enough to leave....that obviously didn't work either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 4:48:26 PM EDT
[#39]
 wow, you guys are really fired up over this one, In my opinion there are 2 themes going on here. 1. This family are all shit heads. Green shirt for not leaving when the gun came out, Black shirt for bringing the gun out, and the dumb thot for not following court orders and getting everyone's panties in a knot. 2. the kid has lost his father and his step father shot and killed him. that's going to be a healthy relationship. you guys keep arguing on whose right but, IMO they are all wrong. and by TX law it probably was a legal shoot, but what a great way to fuck up your family's life. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 4:50:48 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. He grabbed William and the carbine, and threw both of them as far away from him as possible. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Good thing green shirt was trying to arm himself to kill black shirt just like he said he would. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. He grabbed William and the carbine, and threw both of them as far away from him as possible. Good thing he committed a state jail felony in the process. Aggravated assault in a place he had no legal right to be, and got shot. I'm glad your opinion means more than mine |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 4:52:51 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Good thing green shirt was trying to arm himself to kill black shirt just like he said he would. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Green shirt sure the fuck said he was gonna fuck him up with his own gun. Hard to fight a dead man's own words. That will certainly be part of the case, no doubt. There are also things like blustering. The jury will have to consider the veracity of green shirt's words. Was he bloviating? The way he chested the guy and they took the familiar male macho stare down would suggest he was doing just that to me. He was bloviating imo. If I'm on that jury, I don't see how black shirt could seriously think he was in danger. In fact he engaged in the time honored tradition of chest puffing. He then fired a shot that was unjustified imo. He provoked it. So, the words being uttered are evidence, not determinative. that's the point of my prior post. Words being uttered don't seal the deal. Was it a reasonable fear of death? Do you really green shirt was going to murder him? Reasonable fear of death is not required my friend. Shooters state of mind will be a factory, but all we know was green shirt was a hothead who didn't know when to quit. I'd be surprised if a grand jury didn't no bill this as self defense Yes it is: Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another: (1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. Good thing green shirt was trying to arm himself to kill black shirt just like he said he would. (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary. Green shirt is going to arm himself with Black shirts gun from 10 to 15 feet away? How? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 4:55:00 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary. Green shirt is going to arm himself with Black shirts gun from 10 to 15 feet away? How? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Green shirt sure the fuck said he was gonna fuck him up with his own gun. Hard to fight a dead man's own words. That will certainly be part of the case, no doubt. There are also things like blustering. The jury will have to consider the veracity of green shirt's words. Was he bloviating? The way he chested the guy and they took the familiar male macho stare down would suggest he was doing just that to me. He was bloviating imo. If I'm on that jury, I don't see how black shirt could seriously think he was in danger. In fact he engaged in the time honored tradition of chest puffing. He then fired a shot that was unjustified imo. He provoked it. So, the words being uttered are evidence, not determinative. that's the point of my prior post. Words being uttered don't seal the deal. Was it a reasonable fear of death? Do you really green shirt was going to murder him? Reasonable fear of death is not required my friend. Shooters state of mind will be a factory, but all we know was green shirt was a hothead who didn't know when to quit. I'd be surprised if a grand jury didn't no bill this as self defense Yes it is: Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another: (1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. Good thing green shirt was trying to arm himself to kill black shirt just like he said he would. (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary. Green shirt is going to arm himself with Black shirts gun from 10 to 15 feet away? How? Well he grabbed it more than once in the seconds preceding. I won't expect an apology from ya'll when he walks with immunity for self defense |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 4:55:51 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Good thing he committed a state jail felony in the process. Aggravated assault in a place he had no legal right to be, and got shot. I'm glad your opinion means more than mine Wasn’t that after the guy in black committed a state felony and fired a warning shot? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 4:56:54 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A custody agreement has nothing in common with an arrest warrant. Also the parties to a custody agreement/order do not get to also enforce them. They are enforced through the court's contempt powers, following Due Process. An arrest warrant doesn't even entitle LE to enter the residence of anyone other than the subject of the warrant, even if the guy is inside flipping them the bird through a picture window. IOW, they can't trespass if they're told no. They have to go get a search warrant. Just as the party to a custody order has to go complain to a judge, who issues another order enforcing the prior order. Yep, I've been in green shirts position....multiple times I went to pick my daughter up and my ex would tell me...ohh she's not here right now...etc...etc. From that standpoint....I understand his frustration and anger....I know that I raised my voice more than once about my ex being in violation of court orders. The problem is it's costly to fight, and you might not win. In my opinion...everyone involved in this fucked up at some level. Ex wife was playing fuck fuck games with the custody agreement. Green shirt let his anger and frustration go to far....he should have said his peace and leave. Black shirt shouldn't have assumed that pulling a gun would scare him enough to leave....then let green shirt get entirely too close anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 4:59:09 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It’s allowed in Texas to prevent the commission of a few enumerated crimes or fleeing from a few enumerated crimes. Yes, you can be shot for fleeing with someone’s property at night in Texas. We’re the only state in the union that allows deadly force to prevent the loss of property. correct, but nothing about the videos we've seen would suggest defense of property has any relevance here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 5:02:05 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: wow, you guys are really fired up over this one, In my opinion there are 2 themes going on here. 1. This family are all shit heads. Green shirt for not leaving when the gun came out, Black shirt for bringing the gun out, and the dumb thot for not following court orders and getting everyone's panties in a knot. 2. the kid has lost his father and his step father shot and killed him. that's going to be a healthy relationship. you guys keep arguing on whose right but, IMO they are all wrong. and by TX law it probably was a legal shoot, but what a great way to fuck up your family's life. Eh, what you're seeing is one of arfcom's traits. When there's a shooting that's bad there's always a handful of tards that bend over backwards to try to convince people that its a good shoot and will argue with everyone until people just give up because its obvious that there's no convincing them. I don't know if its an identity politics thing where people sympathize with the shooter so they want it to be a good shoot or what, but it happens with every shooting. Happened with the Arbery shooting, the Reeves shooting, the Drejka shooting, and the Crocker shooting that wasn't far from where I grew up. Just one of arfcom's quirks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 5:04:42 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is it reasonable black shirt believed green shirt followed him after the porch throw? Is it reasonable black shirt believed green shirt was moving towards him? Is it reasonable black shirt believed green shirt was going to take the gun and use it against him? Green shirt followed after him at the beginning of the video. When black shirt walked away. Green shirt moved toward him threatening to take and use gun against him. Green shirt tried to take gun twice. Why wouldn't Black shirt believe, Green shirt was continuing the attack? Factoring in, They were on the porch, he got thrown off, looks at Green shirt stepping off porch towards him, continuing his raving. and Maybe another step. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Black shirt was out of Green shirt's reach, and Black shirt has a firearm shouldered. The statute is reasonable fear of imminent harm. How does Green shirt harm Black shirt absent a projectile weapon? Green shirt has to close the distance. The fight was over unless Green shirt moves to close it. Thus Black shirt's lawyer making statements to the press about Black shirt seeing Green shirt raise his leg. He's trying to establish the fight wasn't over. Is it reasonable black shirt believed green shirt was moving towards him? Is it reasonable black shirt believed green shirt was going to take the gun and use it against him? Green shirt followed after him at the beginning of the video. When black shirt walked away. Green shirt moved toward him threatening to take and use gun against him. Green shirt tried to take gun twice. Why wouldn't Black shirt believe, Green shirt was continuing the attack? Factoring in, They were on the porch, he got thrown off, looks at Green shirt stepping off porch towards him, continuing his raving. and Maybe another step. I’m not sure what Black shirt saw or believed and if it was reasonable or not. I’m arguing the same thing I was arguing back on page 10. Possibly legal shoot. Need more info. Additional facts, lawyers, and jury will decide Black shirt’s future. People say they see Green shirt resuming the attack on Black shirt. I don’t see it. Black shirt’s lawyer says Black shirt saw it. What’s the side piece say? What did the side piece and Black shirt talk about while the cops were arriving? Did Black shirt say something to the side piece that will fuck up his case? What about Green shirt’s wife’s statements? What about the people in the house? And on and on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 5:07:13 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: correct, but nothing about the videos we've seen would suggest defense of property has any relevance here. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It’s allowed in Texas to prevent the commission of a few enumerated crimes or fleeing from a few enumerated crimes. Yes, you can be shot for fleeing with someone’s property at night in Texas. We’re the only state in the union that allows deadly force to prevent the loss of property. correct, but nothing about the videos we've seen would suggest defense of property has any relevance here. I was just responding to your comment about the use of deadly force in any other circumstance than to prevent imminent use of unlawful deadly force. I agree none of those statutes apply. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 5:08:54 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I’m not sure what Black shirt saw or believed and if it was reasonable or not. I’m arguing the same thing I was arguing back on page 10. Possibly legal shoot. Need more info. Additional facts, lawyers, and jury will decide Black shirt’s future. People say they see Green shirt resuming the attack on Black shirt. I don’t see it. Black shirt’s lawyer says Black shirt saw it. What’s the side piece say? What did the side piece and Black shirt talk about while the cops were arriving? Did Black shirt say something to the side piece that will fuck up his case? What about Green shirt’s wife’s statements? What about the people in the house? And on and on. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Black shirt was out of Green shirt's reach, and Black shirt has a firearm shouldered. The statute is reasonable fear of imminent harm. How does Green shirt harm Black shirt absent a projectile weapon? Green shirt has to close the distance. The fight was over unless Green shirt moves to close it. Thus Black shirt's lawyer making statements to the press about Black shirt seeing Green shirt raise his leg. He's trying to establish the fight wasn't over. Is it reasonable black shirt believed green shirt was moving towards him? Is it reasonable black shirt believed green shirt was going to take the gun and use it against him? Green shirt followed after him at the beginning of the video. When black shirt walked away. Green shirt moved toward him threatening to take and use gun against him. Green shirt tried to take gun twice. Why wouldn't Black shirt believe, Green shirt was continuing the attack? Factoring in, They were on the porch, he got thrown off, looks at Green shirt stepping off porch towards him, continuing his raving. and Maybe another step. I’m not sure what Black shirt saw or believed and if it was reasonable or not. I’m arguing the same thing I was arguing back on page 10. Possibly legal shoot. Need more info. Additional facts, lawyers, and jury will decide Black shirt’s future. People say they see Green shirt resuming the attack on Black shirt. I don’t see it. Black shirt’s lawyer says Black shirt saw it. What’s the side piece say? What did the side piece and Black shirt talk about while the cops were arriving? Did Black shirt say something to the side piece that will fuck up his case? What about Green shirt’s wife’s statements? What about the people in the house? And on and on. In all honesty we don't know shit beyond the videos and some background info, especially none of that, but I'd expect lawyer connected folks know to STFU and wait for a lawyer. This needs to go to a grand jury, as cases like this usually do. They can no bill them or send it to trial if they feel its warranted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 5:10:03 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yep, I've been in green shirts position....multiple times I went to pick my daughter up and my ex would tell me...ohh she's not here right now...etc...etc. From that standpoint....I understand his frustration and anger....I know that I raised my voice more than once about my ex being in violation of court orders. The problem is it's costly to fight, and you might not win. In my opinion...everyone involved in this fucked up at some level. Ex wife was playing fuck fuck games with the custody agreement. Green shirt let his anger and frustration go to far....he should have said his peace and leave. Black shirt shouldn't have assumed that pulling a gun would scare him enough to leave....then let green shirt get entirely too close anyway. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: A custody agreement has nothing in common with an arrest warrant. Also the parties to a custody agreement/order do not get to also enforce them. They are enforced through the court's contempt powers, following Due Process. An arrest warrant doesn't even entitle LE to enter the residence of anyone other than the subject of the warrant, even if the guy is inside flipping them the bird through a picture window. IOW, they can't trespass if they're told no. They have to go get a search warrant. Just as the party to a custody order has to go complain to a judge, who issues another order enforcing the prior order. Yep, I've been in green shirts position....multiple times I went to pick my daughter up and my ex would tell me...ohh she's not here right now...etc...etc. From that standpoint....I understand his frustration and anger....I know that I raised my voice more than once about my ex being in violation of court orders. The problem is it's costly to fight, and you might not win. In my opinion...everyone involved in this fucked up at some level. Ex wife was playing fuck fuck games with the custody agreement. Green shirt let his anger and frustration go to far....he should have said his peace and leave. Black shirt shouldn't have assumed that pulling a gun would scare him enough to leave....then let green shirt get entirely too close anyway. No doubt that it happens all the time. But just like dealing with bad cops, you deal with it after the fact, using lawyers. The fact is that if you're going to "have" firearms around or on your person for self defense, you really ought to think these things through ahead of time. Lines in the sand. What are my rules? As for myself, my rule is that I'm never going to put myself in the position of having shot an unarmed person. I know that I may be justified in doing so under certain circumstances. But I don't want to create case law. Likewise, I'm never going to introduce a firearm into a situation unless I intend to use it. That's going to keep me out of 99% of these situations. But that's just me. People like me don't stay in business because people think logically and prepare themselves mentally. |
|
|
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.
