User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 3:07:08 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You have no evidence of that. Also, not adhering to custody order is not kidnapping. I think we've learned that from all the other threads where judges have basically called it disobeying court orders. It is not, however, kidnapping. What happens when a dad does not give his kid back the ex. Amber alerts and he would get charged with kidnapping. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 3:28:03 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He has a court order stating he can be there to pick up his child if that was the agreement. He has EVERY right to be there if that was the case and she agreed to it. The shooter cannot legally defy the court agreement all concerned parties agreed to when it was signed by the judge/court and barring any further orders, he should just STFU because he is a non custodial entity with zero legal rights concerning the child or visitation in the eyes of the court. He 100% interfered, broke off, got a gun, escalated it and then shot the father. Unless there is serious hanky panky by the local courts/judge/prosc atty, he is in the wrong and after a fair trial and the actual facts, should be found guilty. He escalated a non violent, non physical disagreement that the father was 100% correct on into a murder. If the father had drawn and shot when he threatened him, he would be legal in the eyes of a legit court. And if it turns out it was not even his house, he is even more in the wrong and I still can't figure that out one way or the other. From what I understand of the case (it's hard to be sure of the details), this is more or less my take. The dead guy wasn't some drugged up vagrant who showed up with a hatchet. He was there to execute a legally binding agreement. The shooter was a party to the breach of that agreement, and in so doing antagonized the dead guy. Everybody's getting hot and bothered about "muh property rights," but the mom and the shooter seem to have been unlawfully preventing him from taking custody of his kid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 3:40:01 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not baby daddy doesn't have ANY role in this that is legit. He is a nothing in the eyes of the court when it comes to child custody/support/visitation. He inserted himself where he had no right to do so legally or civilly. Unless the soon to be ex started physically assaulting the female who wasn't complying with visitation orders, he should have stayed out of it and kept his mouth shut. Yeah it's damn hard to do but that is just the way it is. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Why bring out the gun for a some domestic argument  Also pretty calm for just witnessing your spouse getting murdered. Edit- don't know the history or details but from the video alone I'm going bad shoot for now. Maybe green shirt said, "This doesn't concern you", maybe he said "Fuck you, I'll kick your ass, Come at me", maybe he said "rubber baby buggy bumpers". He refused to leave, was confrontational, and stalked after black shirt. Black shirt decided it was prudent to arm himself, and after Green shirts actions towards an armed man, after refusing to leave and being confrontational maybe it was. This doesn't include green shirts previous history, actual or otherwise. Not baby daddy doesn't have ANY role in this that is legit. He is a nothing in the eyes of the court when it comes to child custody/support/visitation. He inserted himself where he had no right to do so legally or civilly. Unless the soon to be ex started physically assaulting the female who wasn't complying with visitation orders, he should have stayed out of it and kept his mouth shut. Yeah it's damn hard to do but that is just the way it is. Probably covered by now but if he had a court order to pick up his son at 3:15pm as the conversation with baby-mama seems to imply, then that is legally binding. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 3:53:54 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What happens when a dad does not give his kid back the ex. Amber alerts and he would get charged with kidnapping. Depends on the situation/custody agreement (if there is one) |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 3:54:48 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: From what I understand of the case (it's hard to be sure of the details), this is more or less my take. The dead guy wasn't some drugged up vagrant who showed up with a hatchet. He was there to execute a legally binding agreement. The shooter was a party to the breach of that agreement, and in so doing antagonized the dead guy. Everybody's getting hot and bothered about "muh property rights," but the mom and the shooter seem to have been unlawfully preventing him from taking custody of his kid. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: He has a court order stating he can be there to pick up his child if that was the agreement. He has EVERY right to be there if that was the case and she agreed to it. The shooter cannot legally defy the court agreement all concerned parties agreed to when it was signed by the judge/court and barring any further orders, he should just STFU because he is a non custodial entity with zero legal rights concerning the child or visitation in the eyes of the court. He 100% interfered, broke off, got a gun, escalated it and then shot the father. Unless there is serious hanky panky by the local courts/judge/prosc atty, he is in the wrong and after a fair trial and the actual facts, should be found guilty. He escalated a non violent, non physical disagreement that the father was 100% correct on into a murder. If the father had drawn and shot when he threatened him, he would be legal in the eyes of a legit court. And if it turns out it was not even his house, he is even more in the wrong and I still can't figure that out one way or the other. From what I understand of the case (it's hard to be sure of the details), this is more or less my take. The dead guy wasn't some drugged up vagrant who showed up with a hatchet. He was there to execute a legally binding agreement. The shooter was a party to the breach of that agreement, and in so doing antagonized the dead guy. Everybody's getting hot and bothered about "muh property rights," but the mom and the shooter seem to have been unlawfully preventing him from taking custody of his kid. No one is alluding he is. As long as we’re speculating, this could all be over Grandma just ran a little behind. No one knows really, there isn’t that much online concerning facts. If I understand it correctly, details are sealed, I guess till trial(?). In my mind, there’s one action and only one action that could have prevented this outcome. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 4:31:04 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What happens when a dad does not give his kid back the ex. Amber alerts and he would get charged with kidnapping. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You have no evidence of that. Also, not adhering to custody order is not kidnapping. I think we've learned that from all the other threads where judges have basically called it disobeying court orders. It is not, however, kidnapping. What happens when a dad does not give his kid back the ex. Amber alerts and he would get charged with kidnapping. Lol, no. How often does your phone go batshit about ALERT AMBER ALERT ALERT!!!!!1? Maybe once every month or so? Guess what, those "my ex won't give my son back!" cases occur daily in your county, the county next door, and the county two time zones over. It. Is. Not. Criminal. Amber alerts have specific criteria for activation. Generally the only times they're custodial in nature is when a court has said "baby momma may no longer have custody, or ever go near baby again", followed by baby momma going full REEEE, snatching bebe, and going on a multistate roadtrip interrupted by occasional spike strips in the highway. None of that applies here. Which circles back to it becoming trespassing to refuse to get off dude's porch when told to leave. Homeowners might not have a legal right to shoot trespassers on sight, but they certainly have a right to arm themselves when confronting trespassers. Being there trespassing, and then saying you're going to take the gun from the resident and attack him, is what escalates this to justified deadly force. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 4:36:04 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What happens when a dad does not give his kid back the ex. Amber alerts and he would get charged with kidnapping. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You have no evidence of that. Also, not adhering to custody order is not kidnapping. I think we've learned that from all the other threads where judges have basically called it disobeying court orders. It is not, however, kidnapping. What happens when a dad does not give his kid back the ex. Amber alerts and he would get charged with kidnapping.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 4:38:22 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I got full custody of my son and did it without a lawyer to boot. I can be an anal little shit when I need to and I was going to drag down Dr's, her employer, and everyone else I had too if I needed to. I dealt with a psycho bitch ex far longer then any person should ever have to. [and courts suck ass all around, most employees are overpaid by 75% simply because they are assholes at following the law.] [don't steal schedule 1 drugs as a nurse and if you are a Dr, don't cover it up when your employee gets caught, they really don't like that getting out and getting audited] And I will still say the shooter should have shut his mouth and stayed out of it, he is jack and shit to the court where the child is concerned. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The entire custody issue means absolutely jack squat to whether this was a lawful shooting or not. Get over it, move on, let's not waste another word on the custody matter. It has absolutely zero legal weight on whether either party's actions were lawful. It gives no privileges to the decedent, and excuses no actions on the part of the shooter. Interference with custody, parental kidnapping, etc..none of them are legitimate issues in this case. Period. Throw allllllll of that shit out, and watch the video. A resident tells a visitor to leave. Visitor makes it clear he refuses. Resident arms himself. Visitor indicates he intends to take the weapon (armed robbery) and assault the resident (aggravated assault/battery). Resident uses deadly force. It's a justifiable self defense shooting. Move on. He has a court order stating he can be there to pick up his child if that was the agreement. He has EVERY right to be there if that was the case and she agreed to it. The shooter cannot legally defy the court agreement all concerned parties agreed to when it was signed by the judge/court and barring any further orders, he should just STFU because he is a non custodial entity with zero legal rights concerning the child or visitation in the eyes of the court. He 100% interfered, broke off, got a gun, escalated it and then shot the father. Unless there is serious hanky panky by the local courts/judge/prosc atty, he is in the wrong and after a fair trial and the actual facts, should be found guilty. He escalated a non violent, non physical disagreement that the father was 100% correct on into a murder. If the father had drawn and shot when he threatened him, he would be legal in the eyes of a legit court. And if it turns out it was not even his house, he is even more in the wrong and I still can't figure that out one way or the other. How many custody disputes have you been to? How many children have you personally seized from their parents, under color of law? None? So *maybe* you might consider that you're out of your lane on this one. Granted, I have not served in the state of Texas, and its *possible* they have some sort of wildly different laws than the other states where I've been a LEO, but I'm doubting it. If there are any TX LEOs here I'd be curious to confirm that it's the same as elsewhere. Generally speaking, custody agreements are a civil matter. The parents go before a judge and bitch about each other, then get an agreed upon schedule for custody. If they violate it, they pay their lawyers big bucks to go back to court and bitch some more to the judge, who typically doesn't care and keeps the status quo. Usually someone then makes up a BS child abuse claim, which then leads to everyone going back to court for more circus. The father typically (but not always) gets screwed out of custody, and the drama continues on until kiddo becomes an adult. Barring a specific form of court order, in the form of a writ to law enforcement or an injunction against one of the parties, the "court order" means absolutely jack fucking squat in this situation. No judge on the fucking planet is going to write a court order granting one hostile party the right to trespass onto the other party's property. If you think otherwise, I encourage you to go consult a lawyer in your own personal life before proceeding to take actions like the newly ventilated dipshit from this case. A custody agreement does not give one party or the other the right to trespass on the other's property. On the contrary, in my AO I would likely be bound by law to arrest the baby daddy for domestic violence - trespass, had the incident ended just before the first shot. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, like many of the people in this thread, so please stop spouting incorrect bullshit and do some research. I got full custody of my son and did it without a lawyer to boot. I can be an anal little shit when I need to and I was going to drag down Dr's, her employer, and everyone else I had too if I needed to. I dealt with a psycho bitch ex far longer then any person should ever have to. [and courts suck ass all around, most employees are overpaid by 75% simply because they are assholes at following the law.] [don't steal schedule 1 drugs as a nurse and if you are a Dr, don't cover it up when your employee gets caught, they really don't like that getting out and getting audited] And I will still say the shooter should have shut his mouth and stayed out of it, he is jack and shit to the court where the child is concerned. So, you grant that your knowledge of criminal law in this regard is nearly zero. Let's just keep this simple, and imagine for a second that I'm holding a magic crystal ball, containing the pronouncement on this case from 2022. You're going to be upset because the shooter didn't get sent to prison, and want to know why. The biggest reason you're not getting this is because you think the decision has anything to do with custody. It doesn't. That's the hint I'm giving you from the crystal ball. Who gets which kid, and where, and what time, and whose name is on a custody agreement...none of this matters one damm bit in a proper analysis under the law. Was the shooter in reasonable fear for his life? Was his use of force reasonable in response to the threat? That's all that matters. Get your head unwrapped from the custody questions, and focus on the actual physical fight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 5:27:13 AM EDT
[#9]
What takes precedent, a landowner vs. trespasser or a child visitation, custody dispute between parents.
If the Father, the deceased hadn't acted so irate and instead complied with land owner and left the premise after stating his objection and complaint to the custodial parents actions, he'd still be alive. His irate behavior and threatening body language along with the rushing up and into the face of the land owner is what deaded his ass. Dad's who've grown accustomed to this tactic from the mothers of their children realize nothing will ever be enough. The only way to out manuever their week attacks is to stay calm, lawyer up and let the dogs loose. Even if it costs, demand repayment for legal fees, lost wages, and other damages related to their contempt. Do not let them win. Take the moral and legal high ground and out manuever them or walk away! Anything else is foolish and will land you in jail and red flagged or dead. Loud talk and loosely veiled threats of an emotionally unstable irate parent will almost bear these results. How our shooter conducted himself is another shit show in itself. I feel If the shooter indeed owned the property or had the legal right to stand his ground then he should walk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 5:36:49 AM EDT
[#10]
Sounds like shes gonna be single again.... any takers?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 6:15:28 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Generally speaking, custody agreements are a civil matter. I don't disagree with most of what you're posting, but I do want to point out some states have sent people to prison over custody agreements. There may be a criminal violation depending on the facts of the situation. Here is one from Ohio in which a mother was convicted and sentenced to 90 days for Interference of Custody because she kept the child one day over her agreement: https://law.justia.com/cases/ohio/twelfth-district-court-of-appeals/2007/2007-ohio-4967.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 6:27:40 AM EDT
[#12]
I only read the first page, so this might be covered already.
Castle Doctrine doesn't apply to your front porch. Someone has to actually enter your place of habitat for that to kick in. However, there's a second, clearer video at this link that shows Chad very forcefully attempting to gain control of Kyle's gun. Kyle yanks it out of his hands, backs up a step and shoots him. If I'm seeing this correctly, it would be considered a justified homicide in Texas. https://www.everythinglubbock.com/news/local-news/kyle-carruth-attorney-makes-case-for-self-defense-after-deadly-shooting-of-chad-read/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 7:36:37 AM EDT
[#13]
Another lesson in why guys don't like dating chicks with kids.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 7:36:46 AM EDT
[#14]
I kinda like reading replies before watching the video to see what people have come up with... the fact is, homeowner has a hard battle ahead. The victim had a lawful reason to be there. While he certainly could have left, he was there in accordance with a presumed court order to get his son. While Mr Homeowner has property rights, so does the wife and victim's son.
Fast forward to introducing a firearm to the situation... Mr Homeowner indeed escalated the encounter by wielding a firearm when there was no threat. When Mr Pushing up Daisies got in his face, that dynamic may have changed, though, now Mr Homeowner has to convince 12 people that he had reason to believe he was a imminent risk. His actions don't portray that, rather, his actions suggest he was pissed that Mr Pushing up Daisies wasn't leaving. Mr Homeowner clearly fired the first shot before Mr Pushing up Daisies tried to grab the gun. I'm guessing convicted in the end for premeditated murder. Retrieved a gun to respond to a specific person and used that gun to kill him. This, of course, is absent any other unknowns like Mr Pushing up Daisies was an uber bad ass MMA fighter or had a history of whoopin people in bar fights or something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 7:58:27 AM EDT
[#15]
After reading all of the "He's guilty, fry him" posts from fellow Texans in this thread, I now understand why she will be turning blue sooner rather than later.
Dad was a big, pissed off bully. Shooter was a small guy that had ran out of fucks to give. Big guy made a bad call to go hands-on. Little guy solved the problem. Good shoot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 8:00:29 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What takes precedent, a landowner vs. trespasser or a child visitation, custody dispute between parents. If the Father, the deceased hadn't acted so irate and instead complied with land owner and left the premise after stating his objection and complaint to the custodial parents actions, he'd still be alive. His irate behavior and threatening body language along with the rushing up and into the face of the land owner is what deaded his ass. Dad's who've grown accustomed to this tactic from the mothers of their children realize nothing will ever be enough. The only way to out manuever their week attacks is to stay calm, lawyer up and let the dogs loose. Even if it costs, demand repayment for legal fees, lost wages, and other damages related to their contempt. Do not let them win. Take the moral and legal high ground and out manuever them or walk away! Anything else is foolish and will land you in jail and red flagged or dead. Loud talk and loosely veiled threats of an emotionally unstable irate parent will almost bear these results. How our shooter conducted himself is another shit show in itself. I feel If the shooter indeed owned the property or had the legal right to stand his ground then he should walk. The shooter doesn't have to "own" the property he is shooting on. Jesus H. Christ you people just make shit up to fit your argument. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 8:20:45 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Shooter is on his own property. Obviously legal. Shooter tells deceased to leave. Legal Deceased doesn't leave. Illegal. Shooter retrieves firearm. Legal. Shooter expresses his desire to protect life and property. Legal. Deceased threatens shooter. Not illegal, but justifies shoot some. Deceased starts physical altercation, thus proving his threat to life and property. More justification. Shooter shoots. Legal. Excellent synopsis, Whiskers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 8:37:05 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What happens when a dad does not give his kid back the ex. Amber alerts and he would get charged with kidnapping. Child snatching is the term for parental abduction (in most states) not kidnapping. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 8:46:26 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If Kyle had not got a gun then shot at him the situation would not have escalated. The guy didn’t grab the gun until he was shot at. He was close enough to grab it but didn’t until Kyle tried to shoot him in the leg. Now dead guy had a fight for his life on his hands. He was at the home at the court appointed hand off time and she did not have the kid. From the victims remarks this was not the first time. Threatening to take you to court isn’t the same as threatening to kill. And I don’t think you get to kill someone because you want them to leave your lawn. Kyle came out with a gun, shot at him then killed him. I’m all for self defense but you don’t don’t get to kill people because they yell on your lawn looking for their child. This is a very succinct theory of the case that the prosecution will use. He didn’t touch it until after he was shot at. I said much earlier in this thread, that will be the key to the case imo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 8:56:49 AM EDT
[#20]
This will not end well for the shooter.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 8:57:03 AM EDT
[#21]
stay away from crazy bitches with kids.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 9:06:59 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Interesting statements from the ex wife judge. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/200878/7C1C44B7-D03A-4E02-A619-22C995603296_jpe-2181217.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/200878/BEC9016C-D2F4-42FB-8C1B-B98FCFA3BA03_jpe-2181218.JPG An estranged wife talking poorly of her estranged husband, who just killed his girlfriends ex-husband. Say it ain't so! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 9:09:26 AM EDT
[#23]
That second video shows the father was not attacking, just standing there when the shooter spun around, aimed, and fired a shot. I'm very torn on this situation because the law provides protection in this type of case but domestic situations always tend to dirty the waters - now I understand why LE hate doing these calls.
Being Lubbock (and reading over the comments here), I predict a hung jury on murder but some type of conviction on the first shot fired. Jurors will see justified anger from the victim so it will be interesting what will be allowed into evidence. I could see enough evidence for the grand jury to recommend this case to be decided by a jury. That's one miserable mother to do this to her child. And based on better information, I wouldn't be surprised that the house is jointly owned by the judge so she's trying to separate herself as fast as she could from a miserable situation & potential lawsuit. Moral of the story - don't get involved with single mothers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 9:37:28 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What happens when a dad does not give his kid back the ex. Amber alerts and he would get charged with kidnapping. Ummmm, no. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 9:46:07 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What happens when a dad does not give his kid back the ex. Amber alerts and he would get charged with kidnapping. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You have no evidence of that. Also, not adhering to custody order is not kidnapping. I think we've learned that from all the other threads where judges have basically called it disobeying court orders. It is not, however, kidnapping. What happens when a dad does not give his kid back the ex. Amber alerts and he would get charged with kidnapping. I think you have no clue about what you're talking about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 9:51:47 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: After reading all of the "He's guilty, fry him" posts from fellow Texans in this thread, I now understand why she will be turning blue sooner rather than later. Dad was a big, pissed off bully. Shooter was a small guy that had ran out of fucks to give. Big guy made a bad call to go hands-on. Little guy solved the problem. Good shoot. Shooter didn't pull his CCW and start blasting, he retreated, retrieved a rifle from inside the house, and returned to resume the confrontation instead of locking the door. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 9:55:07 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So, you grant that your knowledge of criminal law in this regard is nearly zero. Let's just keep this simple, and imagine for a second that I'm holding a magic crystal ball, containing the pronouncement on this case from 2022. You're going to be upset because the shooter didn't get sent to prison, and want to know why. The biggest reason you're not getting this is because you think the decision has anything to do with custody. It doesn't. That's the hint I'm giving you from the crystal ball. Who gets which kid, and where, and what time, and whose name is on a custody agreement...none of this matters one damm bit in a proper analysis under the law. Was the shooter in reasonable fear for his life? Was his use of force reasonable in response to the threat? That's all that matters. Get your head unwrapped from the custody questions, and focus on the actual physical fight. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The entire custody issue means absolutely jack squat to whether this was a lawful shooting or not. Get over it, move on, let's not waste another word on the custody matter. It has absolutely zero legal weight on whether either party's actions were lawful. It gives no privileges to the decedent, and excuses no actions on the part of the shooter. Interference with custody, parental kidnapping, etc..none of them are legitimate issues in this case. Period. Throw allllllll of that shit out, and watch the video. A resident tells a visitor to leave. Visitor makes it clear he refuses. Resident arms himself. Visitor indicates he intends to take the weapon (armed robbery) and assault the resident (aggravated assault/battery). Resident uses deadly force. It's a justifiable self defense shooting. Move on. He has a court order stating he can be there to pick up his child if that was the agreement. He has EVERY right to be there if that was the case and she agreed to it. The shooter cannot legally defy the court agreement all concerned parties agreed to when it was signed by the judge/court and barring any further orders, he should just STFU because he is a non custodial entity with zero legal rights concerning the child or visitation in the eyes of the court. He 100% interfered, broke off, got a gun, escalated it and then shot the father. Unless there is serious hanky panky by the local courts/judge/prosc atty, he is in the wrong and after a fair trial and the actual facts, should be found guilty. He escalated a non violent, non physical disagreement that the father was 100% correct on into a murder. If the father had drawn and shot when he threatened him, he would be legal in the eyes of a legit court. And if it turns out it was not even his house, he is even more in the wrong and I still can't figure that out one way or the other. How many custody disputes have you been to? How many children have you personally seized from their parents, under color of law? None? So *maybe* you might consider that you're out of your lane on this one. Granted, I have not served in the state of Texas, and its *possible* they have some sort of wildly different laws than the other states where I've been a LEO, but I'm doubting it. If there are any TX LEOs here I'd be curious to confirm that it's the same as elsewhere. Generally speaking, custody agreements are a civil matter. The parents go before a judge and bitch about each other, then get an agreed upon schedule for custody. If they violate it, they pay their lawyers big bucks to go back to court and bitch some more to the judge, who typically doesn't care and keeps the status quo. Usually someone then makes up a BS child abuse claim, which then leads to everyone going back to court for more circus. The father typically (but not always) gets screwed out of custody, and the drama continues on until kiddo becomes an adult. Barring a specific form of court order, in the form of a writ to law enforcement or an injunction against one of the parties, the "court order" means absolutely jack fucking squat in this situation. No judge on the fucking planet is going to write a court order granting one hostile party the right to trespass onto the other party's property. If you think otherwise, I encourage you to go consult a lawyer in your own personal life before proceeding to take actions like the newly ventilated dipshit from this case. A custody agreement does not give one party or the other the right to trespass on the other's property. On the contrary, in my AO I would likely be bound by law to arrest the baby daddy for domestic violence - trespass, had the incident ended just before the first shot. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, like many of the people in this thread, so please stop spouting incorrect bullshit and do some research. I got full custody of my son and did it without a lawyer to boot. I can be an anal little shit when I need to and I was going to drag down Dr's, her employer, and everyone else I had too if I needed to. I dealt with a psycho bitch ex far longer then any person should ever have to. [and courts suck ass all around, most employees are overpaid by 75% simply because they are assholes at following the law.] [don't steal schedule 1 drugs as a nurse and if you are a Dr, don't cover it up when your employee gets caught, they really don't like that getting out and getting audited] And I will still say the shooter should have shut his mouth and stayed out of it, he is jack and shit to the court where the child is concerned. So, you grant that your knowledge of criminal law in this regard is nearly zero. Let's just keep this simple, and imagine for a second that I'm holding a magic crystal ball, containing the pronouncement on this case from 2022. You're going to be upset because the shooter didn't get sent to prison, and want to know why. The biggest reason you're not getting this is because you think the decision has anything to do with custody. It doesn't. That's the hint I'm giving you from the crystal ball. Who gets which kid, and where, and what time, and whose name is on a custody agreement...none of this matters one damm bit in a proper analysis under the law. Was the shooter in reasonable fear for his life? Was his use of force reasonable in response to the threat? That's all that matters. Get your head unwrapped from the custody questions, and focus on the actual physical fight. I hope I can find out the outcome when whatever happens. Non custodial fathers get totally fvcked over by the courts way to often in both custody and visitation and that really should change. [along with most of the other parts of divorce] |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 9:58:38 AM EDT
[#28]
Anyone posted the relevant law on kidnapping?
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.20.htm Sec. 20.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter: (1) "Restrain" means to restrict a person's movements without consent, so as to interfere substantially with the person's liberty, by moving the person from one place to another or by confining the person. Restraint is "without consent" if it is accomplished by: (A) force, intimidation, or deception; or (B) any means, including acquiescence of the victim, if: (i) the victim is a child who is less than 14 years of age or an incompetent person and the parent, guardian, or person or institution acting in loco parentis has not acquiesced in the movement or confinement; or (ii) the victim is a child who is 14 years of age or older and younger than 17 years of age, the victim is taken outside of the state and outside a 120-mile radius from the victim's residence, and the parent, guardian, or person or institution acting in loco parentis has not acquiesced in the movement. (2) "Abduct" means to restrain a person with intent to prevent his liberation by: (A) secreting or holding him in a place where he is not likely to be found; or (B) using or threatening to use deadly force. (3) "Relative" means a parent or stepparent, ancestor, sibling, or uncle or aunt, including an adoptive relative of the same degree through marriage or adoption. (4) "Person" means an individual or a corporation, association, limited liability company, or other entity or organization governed by the Business Organizations Code. [...] Sec. 20.03. KIDNAPPING. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly abducts another person. (b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that: (1) the abduction was not coupled with intent to use or to threaten to use deadly force; (2) the actor was a relative of the person abducted; and (3) the actor's sole intent was to assume lawful control of the victim. (c) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree. The shooters actions appear to meet both criteria for abduction, though only one is required. The shooter is not a relative of the child, by the definition in this section, and since it was in violation of a court order, the intent to assume control was not lawful. Sec. 20.04. AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly abducts another person with the intent to: (1) hold him for ransom or reward; (2) use him as a shield or hostage; (3) facilitate the commission of a felony or the flight after the attempt or commission of a felony; (4) inflict bodily injury on him or violate or abuse him sexually; (5) terrorize him or a third person; or (6) interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function. (b) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly abducts another person and uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense. (c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree. (d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he voluntarily released the victim in a safe place. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree. A case could also be made for aggravated kidnapping, by (a)(5) since there seems to be evidence they intended to terrorize the father, and by (b) since the shooter used deadly force during the commission. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 10:09:32 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sounds like shes gonna be single again.... any takers? You get a twofer, both women are single. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 10:25:17 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The shooter doesn't have to "own" the property he is shooting on. Jesus H. Christ you people just make shit up to fit your argument. I stated my opinion only I'm no lawyer and I didn't come to talk shit but I'll play your game.... What grounds would he have to introduce a weapon into the situation if it wasn't a trespasser in this situation? In Texas do you guys shoot everyone for big talk? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 10:27:11 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Amber alerts are for child abductions and are not typically used for child custody issues. There has to be a reasonable belief that the child is in danger of serious bodily harm or death. Child snatching is the term for parental abduction (in most states) not kidnapping. They are used ALL THE FUCKING TIME for custody issues. It's what essentially turned the entire thing from a really useful too to just noise that nobody pays attention to anymore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 10:33:29 AM EDT
[#32]
Plenty of bad decisions were made in this clip. The only question is which ones rose to the level of criminal offense and the only two I see were both the shots. Both men were in the wrong when they started squaring up, the little man shot the other guy's foot, a crime. Chad would have been justified in disarming him at that point, but instead, they spun around and little man got pushed off the porch. He was not threatened at that point but surely felt disrespected and chose to murder the other guy. What does he say afterward? He told them to leave. He wasn't in fear for his life at all. Now boy grows up without a father and his mother is partially to blame, not that anyone in the video was ever putting the boy first. I hope the shooter gets the death penalty.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 10:36:08 AM EDT
[#33]
After seeing the second video I noticed the dead guy asking where his son is again. He came for his son and seemed like that was it. He didn’t charge after Kyle when they had the tussle. The wife was looking at her phone while dead guy was talking so she wasn’t to worried about a deadly threat.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 10:37:36 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Anyone posted the relevant law on kidnapping? https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.20.htm The shooters actions appear to meet both criteria for abduction, though only one is required. The shooter is not a relative of the child, by the definition in this section, and since it was in violation of a court order, the intent to assume control was not lawful. A case could also be made for aggravated kidnapping, by (a)(5) since there seems to be evidence they intended to terrorize the father, and by (b) since the shooter used deadly force during the commission. The kid wasn't even there and he wasn't keeping anyone from anyone. Your analysis is quite literally garbage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 10:44:29 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: After reading all of the "He's guilty, fry him" posts from fellow Texans in this thread, I now understand why she will be turning blue sooner rather than later. Dad was a big, pissed off bully. Shooter was a small guy that had ran out of fucks to give. Big guy made a bad call to go hands-on. Little guy solved the problem. Good shoot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 10:45:26 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Everyone that studies and dissects these shooting knows that justification can change in a few seconds. I have a hard time justifying shooting a man for standing on a porch not advancing even if he was fighting seconds ago. I don't think he needed to shoot. If he had not its quite likely that the guy would have advanced again forcing him to shoot but he didn't give him that chance. Look at the below photo, the distance between them and the guy just standing on the porch. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/249377/Screenshot_20211125-231243_YouTube_jpg-2181546.JPG Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Maybe But just because he was justified to shoot him on the porch when he fired the warning shot doesn't mean he was still justified after he broke away from the scuffle, created distance and shot him from several feet away as on stood on the porch. I think you can argue imminent threat had passed. I think if the dead guy had charged at him again it would have been regained but that didn't have a chance to happen. You think being "several feet" away from a threat means you are no longer in danger? I don't think so, now if he was I side behind a locked door and shot thru a window or barrier then there was no threat. Several feet isn't shit as far as being out of danger. No I don't think you are necessarily out of danger but I think the justification under his circumstances may have passed. He appeared to be unarmed, wasn't advancing on the shooter when shot. If you are able to break contact move away and level the rifle that I think are going to have a hard time arguing justification. It would be different if he was advancing on him. At the time of the shooting he wasn't. Everyone that studies and dissects these shooting knows that justification can change in a few seconds. I have a hard time justifying shooting a man for standing on a porch not advancing even if he was fighting seconds ago. I don't think he needed to shoot. If he had not its quite likely that the guy would have advanced again forcing him to shoot but he didn't give him that chance. Look at the below photo, the distance between them and the guy just standing on the porch. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/249377/Screenshot_20211125-231243_YouTube_jpg-2181546.JPG In this potato pic, it almost looks like green shirt is looking at/ yelling at the woman as he's about to get shot |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 10:46:25 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I stated my opinion only I'm no lawyer and I didn't come to talk shit but I'll play your game.... What grounds would he have to introduce a weapon into the situation if it wasn't a trespasser in this situation? In Texas do you guys shoot everyone for big talk? A guy picked up a gun he owns, on his own property and people are apoplectic about it. At what point would you arm yourself when there's a large, aggressive and threatening person on YOUR property, expressly refusing to leave? People need to stop seeing the legally armed person protecting his person, family and property as the aggressor here. Is a person allowed to possess a firearm on their own property in Texas? I rather think so. This piece of the thought chain is the effect of leftist brainwashing: "He 'introduced a firearm..... ' and that makes him the bad guy right there....." |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 10:47:36 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What happens when a dad does not give his kid back the ex. Amber alerts and he would get charged with kidnapping. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You have no evidence of that. Also, not adhering to custody order is not kidnapping. I think we've learned that from all the other threads where judges have basically called it disobeying court orders. It is not, however, kidnapping. What happens when a dad does not give his kid back the ex. Amber alerts and he would get charged with kidnapping. That happens down here quite a bit. Get an Amber alert and it's one of the parents who disappeared with the kid |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 10:47:51 AM EDT
[#39]
Here I am on page 22 rethinking whether GD should shirk jury duty or not.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 10:49:45 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You get a twofer, both women are single. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Sounds like shes gonna be single again.... any takers? You get a twofer, both women are single. Don't forget the newly single Justice of the Peace. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 10:55:46 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Looks like a good shoot. The shooter appeared to be in fear for his life and the "victim" stood in his path of retreat back into his residence. I don't see how this could have played out any differently. Uh, This fits the definition of premeditated murder. He went inside to get a gun. Time for him to ride old smokie. By retrieving the gun he escalated the confrontation and the now dead guy was within his rights to fight for the gun. He gave up easily and the shooter was just itching to kill him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 11:00:10 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What happens when a dad does not give his kid back the ex. Amber alerts and he would get charged with kidnapping. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You have no evidence of that. Also, not adhering to custody order is not kidnapping. I think we've learned that from all the other threads where judges have basically called it disobeying court orders. It is not, however, kidnapping. What happens when a dad does not give his kid back the ex. Amber alerts and he would get charged with kidnapping. No he wouldn't. Cops all across Texas deal with this crap every single weekend. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 11:01:23 AM EDT
[#43]
With legal issues aside:
Revenge is a dish best served cold. Once he saw the 9mm carbine, he should have smiled politely and left immediately. Should have realized he wasn't gonna win under any circumstances. He could have left, come back with a bigger gun, ambushed them both, took his child and fled in a well planned E&E. Hey, not saying it's right (and not saying I would have done it) but it's a hell of a lot better strategy than fighting for the gun on his porch that can only lead to one thing. If you are gonna go down, might as well take the enemy with you. If you gonna go down, might as well do with it fireworks. He chose the worst possible outcome, a massive sacrifice with nothing to show for it. What a trio of fools. Everyone involved is a military-grade retard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 11:06:43 AM EDT
[#44]
If green shirt really wanted to take that gun, I think he could've. Before the "warning" shot, he brushes away the barrel with the back of his hand.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 11:07:17 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Excellent advice. Excellent. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Some advice for yor guys and gals dating someone with a kid. If the bio-parents are fussing, stay the fuck out of it, unless it get's physical, they fucked, made a kid and are now doing whatever it is they are doing. Not your shit. If your BF/GF insists on you getting involved in it over verbal bullshit, EJECT! I don't care if they using terms like, whore, bastard, bitch, mother fucker etc, stay the fuck out of it. Excellent advice. Excellent. You have no idea how many calls I have been on where one of the bio-parents call the other one a bitch or bastard and the new fuck buddy wants to get involved. Then someone or multiple ones end up in handcuffs. Also these fuck with someone during custody exchanges are total bullshit. Unless there is an actual threat to the safety of the children just do it without the drama. All you are doing by not following the rules is making some lawyers next BMW payment. When I have made such a statement at a scene it's almost like a lightbulb coming on. Some get it, others don't. You could tell by the video shot guy was trying to keep distance between him and baby mama. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 11:08:30 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ok, i can see your point. But, if this goes to trial as a murder charge i can see the jury being swayed that they guy's defense would be basically verbal, brandishing or showing that he is capable of defending with a firearm, to a warning shot to only deadly force after his was thrown around and his weapon was grabbed. I dont think I could fault the guy for that either even when taking into consideration the child custody bs going on which really doesnt mean much to me anyway. For sure this is a "when assholes collide". And we are talking about this situation, as far as i know he didnt get shot in the foot when the shot was fired so we can assume it is buried 2 foot in the dirt at the time so the round is accountable. I would think the worst that could be charged would be discharging a firearm in city limits? But in this case it could show the mindset of "i didn't want to use deadly force and waited until it was absolutely necessary and i had no other choice" type of thing. ETA: But i see the point of after the shot was fired the trespasser i guess could have claimed he was a victim of an attempted shooting and could defend himself. This one is going to be interesting to follow for sure. the situation that would otherwise be simple is complicated by the fact that he was there to pick up the child and had a legit reason to be there. So it's not black and white they were keeping his property, which is what a child is in terms of law |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 11:08:51 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No he wouldn't. Cops all across Texas deal with this crap every single weekend. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: You have no evidence of that. Also, not adhering to custody order is not kidnapping. I think we've learned that from all the other threads where judges have basically called it disobeying court orders. It is not, however, kidnapping. What happens when a dad does not give his kid back the ex. Amber alerts and he would get charged with kidnapping. No he wouldn't. Cops all across Texas deal with this crap every single weekend. As I said about 5 times previous. Custody Disputes are settled at the Civil COURTS, not by the Cops. If you Ex is a Bitch & withholding your child from you, you go before the Judge having documented the breech and the Judge does the Needful on the Ex be it fines or jail. Mad Dad was a Mega-Tard to rage and try to push the issue Vs. Guy with a gun. Guy with a Gun was a Mega-Tard to get sucked into the game and will easily spend a $$$$$ of money to try & stay out of Jail on this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 11:08:55 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is excellent advice and also remember that 99% of the time everything is a civil issue that will have to be taken care of in court. Which is almost always go back to the original order and follow it. The folks who have to do custody exchanges in the police parking lot are idiots. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 11:09:16 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If Kyle had not got a gun then shot at him the situation would not have escalated. The guy didn’t grab the gun until he was shot at. He was close enough to grab it but didn’t until Kyle tried to shoot him in the leg. Now dead guy had a fight for his life on his hands. He was at the home at the court appointed hand off time and she did not have the kid. From the victims remarks this was not the first time. Threatening to take you to court isn’t the same as threatening to kill. And I don’t think you get to kill someone because you want them to leave your lawn. Kyle came out with a gun, shot at him then killed him. I’m all for self defense but you don’t don’t get to kill people because they yell on your lawn looking for their child. Yes, and that is how the jury will see it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 11:09:19 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A guy picked up a gun he owns, on his own property and people are apoplectic about it. |
|
|
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.
