I’m not arguing that green shirt was right or not.  I’m saying that green shirt doesn’t look like he’s trying to grab black shirt’s gun in that sequence of video frames.  That’s all I’m commenting on.

There was enough Foolishness by BOTH of them to get one dead & the other the legal fight for their life - even if he beats the rap, the cost of a good criminal defense is HUGE & will crush most people financially.  (Hello Chase Bank - I'd like to take out a $500,000 loan because I have a trial for murder & I'm the defendant.  If I get convicted - I'll be in prison & can't pay you back that loan.  If I win, It will take a LONG time to reestablish my life, fight off the civil lawsuits and get around to paying you back - when can I come over & pick up that cash?  Hello?  Hello??  Dial tone.... )

Mad Dad should have been smart & left - It's a Civil Court matter & no amount of "Billy Badass" will change that.  Call the Cops to document it & leave.  End of Story.

New Boy Toy should have called woman to go inside and lock door.  Coming back outside with the rifle was just plain stupid & will really work against him in court.  Call the Cops to Document it & End of Story.  File a restraining / protective order & Asshole can't come back.  Problem Solved without dead bodies & huge legal bills.

At this point neither had struck each other or the woman - everyone is just verbally "barking" like a bunch of meth'ed up Chihuahuas.  Then the Gun gets brought out.  Uhhohhh!!

Both got into a "barking" match about whose penis was bigger and both came out the loser.   One Dead (Still can't believe no one seemed upset or concerned or rushed over to him) & the other (even with all his considerable family connections) may be up the creek since the State Attorney General office (not the locals) now has the case.

If you are armed you have more responsibility to deescalate than the other guy. The shooter gives all of us a bad name.  And don't get between a father and his kid.

The chest bumping and verbal exchange after shooter returns with the gun sort of refutes that he was in fear for his life, he appears more ego driven at that moment when things really escalated. The fact that dead guy wasn't apparently advancing when shot also doesn't help. And when shooter raises the gun and fires, it looks very calm and deliberate to me, like he had already decided.

The bare facts of the case, when recited, sound like a justified shooting. But my guess is that if a jury sees the videos, it will be a manslaughter conviction at least.

Like an execution.

Someone tells you to leave their property, you leave their property.

Like the Aubry case, the video in this case is not going to help the shooter.

And when they don't you call the police.

Bingo.
They were trying to push him to cross the line, and in the middle of it her fuckbuddy crossed the line, while daddy's wife recorded it (don't know if daddy knew it was on video).

That's when you call 9-1-1 and report a kidnapping and assault with a deadly weapon, and FOIA the police report for your motion to remove the child from her custody due to her dangerous fuckbuddy.

Wouldn’t be surprised if any of them made the news in similar fashion.

When you say it like that, it sounds like the handicap parking space defender that shot the guy who shoved him to the ground.  That guy was convicted of manslaughter.

Great post and well said brother.

The one I remember (because a small town chief 400 miles away put up a statewide Amber at 1:30 in the AM, and then sent it to me again a half hour later when they recovered the kid, I got back to sleep the first time but not after the second one), the taking was forceful, but the risk of harm seemed more like a risk of absconding. They stopped the dad in a pickup truck a couple miles from the police station and recovered the kid without incident.

The amount of people here simping for the dead guy is crazy.

You all would fit better at DU than here.

I dont have any responsibility of another’s action. His attempt to de-escalate was asking green shirt to leave, more than once.

Two ways to do that:
I have a gun, you're trespassing, don't make me use it.

I got my gun, now I'm tougher than you. You wanna fight? I wanna fight. Let's rumble. (I think this one has a strong potential for involuntary confinement if it results in homicide)




There are multiple escalations here, some by Chad, some by Kyle.
Kyle's problem is that he never attempted to disengage between escalation and shooting.
When you provoke/escalate, you're taking it out of the realm of self defense and need to put it back in that realm.

Like if Kenosha Kyle had provoked JoJo the Insane, he could have regained his self defense privilege by disengaging. (he didn't provoke, he did disengage, and got taken to trial anyway in a jurisdiction with horrible prosecutors)

All the closet liberals are coming out of their shells.

The scary part about this thread, is how many members here want this to be a good shoot.

Gun slinger fantasy dreams...

Incredibly hard to call it that way when the dead guy literally went out of his way to get in the homeowner's face.

Someone comes on your property yelling and threatening you, you run inside? You arm yourself and again tell them to leave repeatedly and they approach you, ultimately physically contacting you wile threatening you. Ohioans run inside?

In the mean time you dont leave your spouse to be yelled and threatened at.

His life was never in danger until he brought a gun into a custody dispute.  Lots of arguing, chest bumping...kinda like high school.

Legal in Texas maybe, but legal don't always make right.  I couldn't shoot a guy for that.

That is murder.

I think it was a bad shoot, but legal is a different enchilada.  I think he is in the clear.

I just thought of an alternate situation.
A 12 year old forgets it's the day dad picks him up and goes off with some friends after school. Maybe he tells mom where he went, maybe he just plans on showing up for supper.

Amber Guyger had premeditation?

I think it was a bad shoot too. But three days later the shooter has not been arrested or charged. That would indicate a good shoot.

Good way to put it.  Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

He also could have won the lotto and was cashing in the winning ticket.

The guy basically walked over to the armed guy, mashing his body against his ultimately throwing him out of front of his door leaving angry guy free access to enter house where obviously a child was in filming. You dont have time or the responsibility to rationalize what angry people are thinking.

You're either ignoring my point on purpose or just are missing it entirely. Assuming the court order stated they were to exchange at that time and place, one party not holding up their end of the deal isn't even in the same universe as kidnapping.

You trying to equate it to aggravated kidnapping is just absolutely garbage.

lol

The defendants in the Aubery case weren't arrested until 10 weeks later.  Rittenhouse was arrested the day after the shooting.

The length of time between the shooting and the arrest means nothing in terms of justification.

No shit. I agree with you 100%.

But hey, anything is possible in this clown world we inhabit now. Besides, if his attorney is anything like our old Barty Boy here, I'm pretty sure he's fooked.

This is literally THE real-time "Get Off My Lawn" scenario that every Arfcommer has mentally masterbated to since the release of Gran Torino. Now they want to crucify Kyle.

Chad is dead. Long live Kyle.

He's reaching for the mag and appears to make contact with it.

It was his girlfriend, not his wife.  Black shirt was still in the middle of his divorce.

So many people here losing sight of this.

Acussing other members of being lunatics.

People are allowed to have different opinions. The law is what it is.

We’ll see what happens to Kyle.

I spend almost all my time here and I don't know what you're talking about.

My unwanted opinion is that, yes he went in to get the gun and they did have a lighthearted pushing contest, but then when guy with gun backs up some seconds go by and the guy SEEMED to be talking to the woman at that point and not even facing him? am I wrong? and then he shoots him dead while hes talking with his exwife. If he was actively charging gunman that would be a different story, or still engaged in mutual combat.

I stand corrected.  The actual statutes allow for 2nd degree crimes of passion.

ETA: Premeditation doesn’t mean you draw up a plan to kill some one.  You shoot someone, and that will qualify.  Most people know shooting a gun at someone will kill them.

PENAL CODE

TITLE 5. OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON

CHAPTER 19. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE

Sec. 19.01.  TYPES OF CRIMINAL HOMICIDE.  (a)  A person commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence causes the death of an individual.
(b)  Criminal homicide is murder, capital murder, manslaughter, or criminally negligent homicide.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  Amended by Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1123, ch. 426, art. 2, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974;  Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Sec. 19.02.  MURDER.  (a)  In this section:
(1)  "Adequate cause" means cause that would commonly produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool reflection.
(2)  "Sudden passion" means passion directly caused by and arising out of provocation by the individual killed or another acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time of the offense and is not solely the result of former provocation.
(b)  A person commits an offense if he:
(1)  intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;
(2)  intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual;  or
(3)  commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.
(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 caused the death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause.  If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree.

What would have happened if Kyle went inside and never came back out?   What would have happened if Kyle never got the gun?  What would have happened if Kyle would have went back inside after he came out with the gun?  Why didn’t they tell dead guy where his child was?   He asked over and over even after the gun came out and chest bumping.  I can’t figure out why she did t just say where her child was, could she get in trouble for that?

So he's in his face, verbally threatening, and clearly attempting to manipulating the firearm, and that's just "brushing it off"?

Would you approach someone with a gun and push it away and think it would turn out okay? Isn't "brushing it off" also how someone would typically go about trying to disarm someone so they can harm them?

The guy’s spouse was a judge he was cheating on, not the mother of the child.

Black shirt doesn't back up. Green shirt grabs rifle a swings black shirt into lawn. Black shirt lands. Hops to gain balance shoots. Sub 2 seconds.

That’s my issue here, we don’t all the facts.

Like let’s say in the KR trial, what if video came out with Kyle saying “look how angry they get when I put out fires they started. I am going to keep putting out fires until someone attacks me, that way I can shoot them.” (Or something similar to this, I am sure you get the idea.) Binger asks him on the stand “So why were you there that night?” Kyle “I hate the rioters and was looking for a reason to kill someone, I wanted them to attack me so I could kill them”

His actions would have been the same as they were in reality, but his intentions would have been different.

So take that example to this case, what if the shooter planned this out, “I am going to not give him his kid and I know he has a temper and won’t leave so I am going to make a situation where I can shoot him”.

The actions are the same either way, but the intentions are different. I know intentions are difficult to prove, but let’s say the girlfriend comes out and says the shooter was looking to create a situation where he could shoot the guy and claim self defense, like those are his explicit intentions.

Can the shooter still claim self defense if he deliberately hid the kid to create a confrontation with the explicit purpose of shooting someone?

I know this is all just speculation on my part, but it’s just an example how background information might change things.

Part of the problem is that this thread is getting longer and more difficult to get the known facts.

Even understanding who is who in the video is confusing.

Quick run down:

- shooter: boyfriend of the woman arguing and husband of the judge at the time
- dead guy: ex-husband of the woman arguing, who he has a son with
- woman filming: current wife of dead guy

- woman filming has said the ex-wife was suppose to drop the son off to them, but didn't. When the dead guy called the ex wife she told him that she wanted him to come over the shooters house and get the son so she could see him (the dead guy). The dead guy gets out to get the son and the ex-wife starts playing games about the whereabouts of the son.

So the dead guy was invited over to the shooters house to get his son only to end up in a position where the son wasn't being given to him and the shooter comes out with a gun.

So how many have you seen that do NOT involve a parent, versus those that do?

I can't remember a single one that didn't.

And the kid is the one that will suffer the most out of all this.