User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:02:56 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Green shirt had no recourse but to leave when he was told the kid wasn’t there and he was ordered to leave. I know you are having a hard time wrapping your head around this mess; but the laws in Texas are much different when it comes to property rights and the application of deadly force than almost every State in the Union. The problem for Green shirt was when he got aggressive and tried to intimidate Black shirt. In the case, Black shirt had every right to retrieve his weapon when he was on his own property; there is no question about this fact in the law in the State of Texas. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Green shirt no longer had a lawful purpose to be there once they told him the kid wasn’t there. Instead, he decided to rant and rave , stomping mud puddles in the the dry South Plains dirt, nipple rubbing the resident of the property while pushing and shoving, and making threats of deadly force. Threats of deadly force before or after the other threatened lethal force? Green shirt had no recourse but to leave when he was told the kid wasn’t there and he was ordered to leave. I know you are having a hard time wrapping your head around this mess; but the laws in Texas are much different when it comes to property rights and the application of deadly force than almost every State in the Union. The problem for Green shirt was when he got aggressive and tried to intimidate Black shirt. In the case, Black shirt had every right to retrieve his weapon when he was on his own property; there is no question about this fact in the law in the State of Texas. All caught on video. “I told you to leave” |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:03:19 AM EDT
[#2]
Anybody bring up the fact that this chick apparently has a thing for hot heads?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:04:41 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Anybody bring up the fact that this chick apparently has a thing for hot heads? Imho, she got the exact reaction she planned. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:05:54 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Does it? Is this the applicable statute? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Are asking if the fender bender is in your front yard? It makes a huge difference. Does it? Is this the applicable statute? A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41 ; ?and (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; ?or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; ?and (3) he reasonably believes that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; ?or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. Huge difference- your looking for 9.31 not 9.41 in this circumstance. Nice try though |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:06:25 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Details on the kid's location may become important. You would think that the ex-wife would call the bio-dad to inform him of a delay if the son was not there. That assumes that she is not a full blown ass. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: And as I now recall, she says he can't have the kid because she wants to see the kid. Sure doesn't make it sound like she's not 100% in control of the kid's whereabouts. Details on the kid's location may become important. You would think that the ex-wife would call the bio-dad to inform him of a delay if the son was not there. That assumes that she is not a full blown ass. Ex wife can be heard on the video saying, “I want to see him.” She also says something about 6 o’clock, which starts green shirt’s rant about he gets the kid at 3:15, she can see him before that time, and she keeps trying to prevent green shirt from seeing his son. Green shirt’s widow says they were there to pick up the kid. It looks like green shirt’s ex wife led him to believe the kid would be there and then tried to change her story. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:07:08 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Imho, she got the exact reaction she planned. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Anybody bring up the fact that this chick apparently has a thing for hot heads? Imho, she got the exact reaction she planned. I think you are right. She'll move on with little green shirt to some new fool. Kids always get the shit. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:07:17 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The ex wife didn’t tell green shirt where the kid was. Green shirt’s widow can be heard yelling, “she should have told that,” in response to black shirt yelling at her, “he’s not here,” after the shooting. Unfortunately, Green shirt’s only recourse is to go to court as it is a civil matter; not to start verbally ranting and raving refusing to leave the property. If the police had been there that is what they would have told Green shirt. It sucks; but that is the way it is. It is just like collecting on a bad debt. If you have a court order to claim the debt, you can’t go over to the dead beats house and start ranting and raveling at them refusing to leave if they tell you they don’t have the money and order you to leave. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:07:18 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Details on the kid's location may become important. You would think that the ex-wife would call the bio-dad to inform him of a delay if the son was not there. That assumes that she is not a full blown ass. At this point, I'm assuming everybody present, with the possible exception of Chad's wife, is a full blown ass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:07:58 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Read the articles- plenty of threats to go around. Even 24 hours prior to the event. You don’t have the totality of the circumstance. Take your own advice Discovery is going to be fun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:08:16 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Green shirt had no recourse but to leave when he was told the kid wasn’t there and he was ordered to leave. I know you are having a hard time wrapping your head around this mess; but the laws in Texas are much different when it comes to property rights and the application of deadly force than almost every State in the Union. The problem for Green shirt was when he got aggressive and tried to intimidate Black shirt. In the case, Black shirt had every right to retrieve his weapon when he was on his own property; there is no question about this fact in the law in the State of Texas. Can you cite the statute that justifies his actions? I don't live in Texas. This being justified makes no sense to me. I welcome more information. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:08:35 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: All caught on video. “I told you to leave” And Tom Binger would say "See, he shot Chad for trespassing". |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:09:37 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Has this been posted here? For what it's worth, it Looks like plenty of distance between parties here.  Wait a minute. Copyright Anne-Marie Carruth? The judge? The wife of the shooter? That is the person behind the screen door? And the cops/DA stated, after how many days/weeks, that because the shooter "may or may not have been related to someone in LE/public office", local LE/prosecution are recusing themselves? Uh... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:10:04 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: 31 pages and some people act like cops wanting to shoot eight week old lab puppies aggressively running towards them. Don't forget, we can use the "It's Coming RIGHT FOR US" Defense ...   BIGGER_HAMMER  @AmericanPeople |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:12:35 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes, that is why they were there. That doesn't mean it was the designated spot. IIRC it was an hour after pick up time. Green shirt didn't know where the kid was, he had police going to grandmas house looking. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Green shirt's widow also says they were there to pick up green shirt's kid from the ex wife. Green shirt didn't know where the kid was, he had police going to grandmas house looking. Right. You don’t see the obvious game green shirt’s ex wife is playing. Skip the usual meeting time and place. Tell green shirt he can pick the kid up at black shirt’s residence. When green shirt gets there, start in with, “I want more time to see him..,” but don’t tell green shirt where the kid is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:13:04 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The ex wife didn’t tell green shirt where the kid was. Green shirt’s widow can be heard yelling, “she should have told that,” in response to black shirt yelling at her, “he’s not here,” after the shooting. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: After he threatened deadly force against someone remaining in his front yard, who was supposedly there for a lawful purpose. You need to look at the totality of the circumstances. You can't defend yourself from a situation you are an aggressor in. Green shirt no longer had a lawful purpose to be there once they told him the kid wasn’t there. Instead, he decided to rant and rave, stomping mud puddles in the dry South Plains dirt, nipple rubbing the resident of the property while pushing and shoving, and making threats of deadly force. The ex wife didn’t tell green shirt where the kid was. Green shirt’s widow can be heard yelling, “she should have told that,” in response to black shirt yelling at her, “he’s not here,” after the shooting. Which leads me into the setup camp. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:13:20 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Discovery is going to be fun. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Read the articles- plenty of threats to go around. Even 24 hours prior to the event. You don’t have the totality of the circumstance. Take your own advice Discovery is going to be fun. At this point I’m praying a bunch of arfcomers from both sides of this thread don’t show up at the verdict and burn Lubbock to the ground when they don’t agree on the outcome. Seems like the thing to do anymore just didn’t want to see this bunch get panties twisted |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:13:52 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Huge difference- your looking for 9.31 not 9.41 in this circumstance. Nice try though Quote HistoryQuoted: Huge difference- your looking for 9.31 not 9.41 in this circumstance. Nice try though Is this what you think is applicable? (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property. Notice it says "force," and not "lethal force." Both are defined by statute. In pretty much every state you can use reasonable force to get someone off your property. You're saying the manager of a grocery store can blast a drunk in the head for refusing to leave the restroom when requested. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:14:03 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So if you get into a fender-bender turned road rage and the guy in the other car grabs a rifle from the trunk, that's all good? Probably just grabbing it to see if it's clean? Please  This isn't a road rage incident. This isn't a guy who got into it with someone in a bar, left, and came back with a gun from their truck. This isn't any scenario that doesn't pertain to being on one's own property the whole time and accessing their gun when faced with a disturbance by a trespasser. Yes it was stupid, but isn't it still your right? Isn't the gun in his possession the whole time if it and he are both on his property? If he's on his porch and has weed in the house, is he not in possession of that either according to the law? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:14:19 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Green shirt had no recourse but to leave when he was told the kid wasn’t there and he was ordered to leave. I know you are having a hard time wrapping your head around this mess; but the laws in Texas are much different when it comes to property rights and the application of deadly force than almost every State in the Union. The problem for Green shirt was when he got aggressive and tried to intimidate Black shirt. In the case, Black shirt had every right to retrieve his weapon when he was on his own property; there is no question about this fact in the law in the State of Texas. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Green shirt no longer had a lawful purpose to be there once they told him the kid wasn’t there. Instead, he decided to rant and rave , stomping mud puddles in the the dry South Plains dirt, nipple rubbing the resident of the property while pushing and shoving, and making threats of deadly force. Threats of deadly force before or after the other threatened lethal force? Green shirt had no recourse but to leave when he was told the kid wasn’t there and he was ordered to leave. I know you are having a hard time wrapping your head around this mess; but the laws in Texas are much different when it comes to property rights and the application of deadly force than almost every State in the Union. The problem for Green shirt was when he got aggressive and tried to intimidate Black shirt. In the case, Black shirt had every right to retrieve his weapon when he was on his own property; there is no question about this fact in the law in the State of Texas. Based on the conversation during the video, green shirt was not told that the kid wasn’t at black shirt’s residence. Ex wife was stonewalling him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:15:25 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The man retrieved a firearm. Green shirt could have lawfully shot him upon him returning out the front door. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The only person who made any threats was green shirt. The man retrieved a firearm. Green shirt could have lawfully shot him upon him returning out the front door. If, like, there was only a fucking judge on hand to explain matters of law and shit ... this never would have happened. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:16:07 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wait a minute. Copyright Anne-Marie Carruth? The judge? The wife of the shooter? That is the person behind the screen door? And the cops/DA stated, after how many days/weeks, that because the shooter "may or may not have been related to someone in LE/public office", local LE/prosecution are recusing themselves? Uh... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Has this been posted here? For what it's worth, it Looks like plenty of distance between parties here.https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/9106/Screenshot_20211126-221832_Samsung_Inter-2182509.JPG Wait a minute. Copyright Anne-Marie Carruth? The judge? The wife of the shooter? That is the person behind the screen door? And the cops/DA stated, after how many days/weeks, that because the shooter "may or may not have been related to someone in LE/public office", local LE/prosecution are recusing themselves? Uh... I think the poster who stated she included it in her divorce documents are probably why it’s copyrighted that way. Her affidavit stated this.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:16:31 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I am not sure threatening legal action qualifies as “aggressive” but ymmv Did he leave the property as he was lawfully ordered to do so? No, he instead started to lose control screaming and pointing his finger moving around the area in an uncontrollable fashion. Texas law requires you to vacate property immediately or as soon as possible. Once Green shirt didn’t leave, black shirt had every right to arm himself on his property which he did. This act enraged Green shirt and is where he stepped over the line by making threats of deadly force against black shirt. I wouldn’t bet any money that Green shirt hadn’t knocked back a few and arrived in a pissed off mood. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:17:30 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Weak strawman. This isn't a road rage incident. This isn't a guy who got into it with someone in a bar, left, and came back with a gun from their truck. This isn't any scenario that doesn't pertain to being on one's own property the whole time and accessing their gun when faced with a disturbance by a trespasser. Yes it was stupid, but isn't it still your right? Isn't the gun in his possession the whole time if it and he are both on his property? If he's on his porch and has weed in the house, is he not in possession of that either according to the law? By Texas statute (from what I've seen), no, it's not your right. I'm happy to be corrected if you can cite the lawful justification. And your possession theory...just stop...please. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:17:51 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Which leads me into the setup camp. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: After he threatened deadly force against someone remaining in his front yard, who was supposedly there for a lawful purpose. You need to look at the totality of the circumstances. You can't defend yourself from a situation you are an aggressor in. Green shirt no longer had a lawful purpose to be there once they told him the kid wasn't there. Instead, he decided to rant and rave, stomping mud puddles in the dry South Plains dirt, nipple rubbing the resident of the property while pushing and shoving, and making threats of deadly force. The ex wife didn't tell green shirt where the kid was. Green shirt's widow can be heard yelling, "she should have told that," in response to black shirt yelling at her, "he's not here," after the shooting. Which leads me into the setup camp. ETA: Green shirt didn't know where the kid was, and assumed he was\could be elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:17:58 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: At this point I’m praying a bunch of arfcomers from both sides of this thread don’t show up at the verdict and burn Lubbock to the ground when they don’t agree on the outcome. Seems like the thing to do anymore just didn’t want to see this bunch get panties twisted Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Read the articles- plenty of threats to go around. Even 24 hours prior to the event. You don’t have the totality of the circumstance. Take your own advice Discovery is going to be fun. At this point I’m praying a bunch of arfcomers from both sides of this thread don’t show up at the verdict and burn Lubbock to the ground when they don’t agree on the outcome. Seems like the thing to do anymore just didn’t want to see this bunch get panties twisted I would put decent odds the Texas AG moved the case given the conflict of interest with the judge and the shooter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:19:33 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Green shirt’s widow also says they were there to pick up green shirt’s kid from the ex wife. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If the court agreement states dad is to pick his kid up, well he can't be trespassing, so bad shoot. Next Yes we do....it's in the audio. Green shirt’s widow also says they were there to pick up green shirt’s kid from the ex wife.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:20:51 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The ex wife didn’t tell green shirt where the kid was. Green shirt’s widow can be heard yelling, “she should have told that,” in response to black shirt yelling at her, “he’s not here,” after the shooting. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: After he threatened deadly force against someone remaining in his front yard, who was supposedly there for a lawful purpose. You need to look at the totality of the circumstances. You can't defend yourself from a situation you are an aggressor in. Green shirt no longer had a lawful purpose to be there once they told him the kid wasn’t there. Instead, he decided to rant and rave, stomping mud puddles in the dry South Plains dirt, nipple rubbing the resident of the property while pushing and shoving, and making threats of deadly force. The ex wife didn’t tell green shirt where the kid was. Green shirt’s widow can be heard yelling, “she should have told that,” in response to black shirt yelling at her, “he’s not here,” after the shooting. Yeah, that's super bad with the (C) A Fucking Judge at the bottom of an evidence photo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:26:06 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think the poster who stated she included it in her divorce documents are probably why it’s copyrighted that way. Her affidavit stated this. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/200878/D16FC663-3F5C-4370-8900-BF501ED65CC4_jpe-2182580.JPG Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Has this been posted here? For what it's worth, it Looks like plenty of distance between parties here.https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/9106/Screenshot_20211126-221832_Samsung_Inter-2182509.JPG Wait a minute. Copyright Anne-Marie Carruth? The judge? The wife of the shooter? That is the person behind the screen door? And the cops/DA stated, after how many days/weeks, that because the shooter "may or may not have been related to someone in LE/public office", local LE/prosecution are recusing themselves? Uh... I think the poster who stated she included it in her divorce documents are probably why it’s copyrighted that way. Her affidavit stated this. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/200878/D16FC663-3F5C-4370-8900-BF501ED65CC4_jpe-2182580.JPG |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:27:47 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Unfortunately, Green shirt’s only recourse is to go to court as it is a civil matter; not to start verbally ranting and raving refusing to leave the property. If the police had been there that is what they would have told Green shirt. It sucks; but that is the way it is. It is just like collecting on a bad debt. If you have a court order to claim the debt, you can’t go over to the dead beats house and start ranting and raveling at them refusing to leave if they tell you they don’t have the money and order you to leave. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The ex wife didn’t tell green shirt where the kid was. Green shirt’s widow can be heard yelling, “she should have told that,” in response to black shirt yelling at her, “he’s not here,” after the shooting. Unfortunately, Green shirt’s only recourse is to go to court as it is a civil matter; not to start verbally ranting and raving refusing to leave the property. If the police had been there that is what they would have told Green shirt. It sucks; but that is the way it is. It is just like collecting on a bad debt. If you have a court order to claim the debt, you can’t go over to the dead beats house and start ranting and raveling at them refusing to leave if they tell you they don’t have the money and order you to leave. True, but you also don’t get to fire warning shots at trespassers as long as all they do is stand there and tell you they aren’t leaving. You get to call the cops and have the cops remove them. Obviously, green shirt did more than just stand there when he started doing the monkey dance with black shirt. It will be interesting to see what shakes out, but this feels like the Florida case where ccw was used by self appointed handicapped parking space monitor. He ended up with a manslaughter conviction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:28:02 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is this what you think is applicable? Notice it says "force," and not "lethal force." Both are defined by statute. In pretty much every state you can use reasonable force to get someone off your property. You're saying the manager of a grocery store can blast a drunk in the head for refusing to leave the restroom when requested. The shooting and self defense claim isn’t about trespassing it is about Green shirt’s threat of illegal serious bodily harm by taking the rifle away from black shirt and shooting him. To compound the problem Green shirt go hands on and black shirt then shots green shirt. Black shirt fires his weapon immediately after the struggle for control of the weapon. An important factor is the Green shirt was much bigger than black shirt creating a disparity of force. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:28:33 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is this what you think is applicable? Notice it says "force," and not "lethal force." Both are defined by statute. In pretty much every state you can use reasonable force to get someone off your property. You're saying the manager of a grocery store can blast a drunk in the head for refusing to leave the restroom when requested. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Huge difference- your looking for 9.31 not 9.41 in this circumstance. Nice try though Is this what you think is applicable? (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property. Notice it says "force," and not "lethal force." Both are defined by statute. In pretty much every state you can use reasonable force to get someone off your property. You're saying the manager of a grocery store can blast a drunk in the head for refusing to leave the restroom when requested. I was never saying anything other than there is a difference between 9.31 and 9.41. I’ll leave it to you to figure it out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:28:51 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wait a minute. Copyright Anne-Marie Carruth? The judge? The wife of the shooter? That is the person behind the screen door? And the cops/DA stated, after how many days/weeks, that because the shooter "may or may not have been related to someone in LE/public office", local LE/prosecution are recusing themselves? Uh... Carruth the judge is the shooter's (at the time, now ex) wife. He's shacked up with dead guy's ex. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:30:44 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The copyrights of evidence of a shooting were signed over to a judge in that jurisdiction? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Has this been posted here? For what it's worth, it Looks like plenty of distance between parties here.https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/9106/Screenshot_20211126-221832_Samsung_Inter-2182509.JPG Wait a minute. Copyright Anne-Marie Carruth? The judge? The wife of the shooter? That is the person behind the screen door? And the cops/DA stated, after how many days/weeks, that because the shooter "may or may not have been related to someone in LE/public office", local LE/prosecution are recusing themselves? Uh... I think the poster who stated she included it in her divorce documents are probably why it’s copyrighted that way. Her affidavit stated this. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/200878/D16FC663-3F5C-4370-8900-BF501ED65CC4_jpe-2182580.JPG I bet her daughter was the one holding the camera. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:31:02 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Based on the conversation during the video, green shirt was not told that the kid wasn’t at black shirt’s residence. Ex wife was stonewalling him. Maybe so, but it was apparent that she was not going to relinquish the child to him. It is a civil matter and Green shirt has no right to use force to retrieve the child; he can only go back to court. Instead he decided to escalate the confrontation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:37:08 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: True, but you also don’t get to fire warning shots at trespassers as long as all they do is stand there and tell you they aren’t leaving. You get to call the cops and have the cops remove them. Obviously, green shirt did more than just stand there when he started doing the monkey dance with black shirt. It will be interesting to see what shakes out, but this feels like the Florida case where ccw was used by self appointed handicapped parking space monitor. He ended up with a manslaughter conviction. You are correct; you can’t use deadly force against trespassing individuals. This isn’t a trespass, case it is a case about the confrontation that took place when black shirt legally appeared with the rifle and green shirt told him he was going to take it away from him and shoot him. Green shirt’s mouth and actions got himself killed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:42:34 AM EDT
[#36]
Can anyone point me towards the part in the Texas penal code where you can shoot people for trespassing? No, you can’t because it isn’t in there.
Shooter chose to give up any advantage he might have under castle doctrine by leaving his castle. So, it being his property has fuck all to do with it. Now it’s just a straight “Did you reasonably have an immediate fear of death or serious bodily injury.” With all the AOJP elements that apply. And that’s why the shooter is well and truly fucked. Which probably suits baby momma just fine and solved both of her problems at one throw. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:54:24 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: By Texas statute (from what I've seen), no, it's not your right. I'm happy to be corrected if you can cite the lawful justification. And your possession theory...just stop...please. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Weak strawman. This isn't a road rage incident. This isn't a guy who got into it with someone in a bar, left, and came back with a gun from their truck. This isn't any scenario that doesn't pertain to being on one's own property the whole time and accessing their gun when faced with a disturbance by a trespasser. Yes it was stupid, but isn't it still your right? Isn't the gun in his possession the whole time if it and he are both on his property? If he's on his porch and has weed in the house, is he not in possession of that either according to the law? By Texas statute (from what I've seen), no, it's not your right. I'm happy to be corrected if you can cite the lawful justification. And your possession theory...just stop...please. I think it is up to you to find a statute that shows you aren't allowed to decide when and where you will have a firearm on your own property because you give up that right if you order someone to leave it and they don't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:55:33 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Can anyone point me towards the part in the Texas penal code where you can shoot people for trespassing? No, you can’t because it isn’t in there. Shooter chose to give up any advantage he might have under castle doctrine by leaving his castle. So, it being his property has fuck all to do with it. Now it’s just a straight “Did you reasonably have an immediate fear of death or serious bodily injury.” With all the AOJP elements that apply. And that’s why the shooter is well and truly fucked. Which probably suits baby momma just fine and solved both of her problems at one throw. I think it caused her a whole bunch of new problems. Green shirt’s son is already saying he doesn’t want to be around black shirt for obvious reasons and is threatening to run away from the ex wife. I think she’s going to get to experience a lifetime of her children treating her like shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 2:13:37 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is this what you think is applicable? Notice it says "force," and not "lethal force." Both are defined by statute. In pretty much every state you can use reasonable force to get someone off your property. You're saying the manager of a grocery store can blast a drunk in the head for refusing to leave the restroom when requested. False inference. If the circumstances change after attempting to use force to escort someone off your property, lethal force isn't unjustified just because it's not there explicitly. He used force, or the threat of force, to get him to vacate. Green shirt made bad choices that led to lethal force to be justified. Play stupid games and all that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 2:22:30 AM EDT
[#40]
And people think Idiocracy was just a movie.............
HAH! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 2:31:32 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This makes absolutely no sense. He was told to leave multiple times and had every opportunity to. Instead he put himself in that exact position by going to that spot where he is standing in the pic, getting in the guy with the gun's face, and tossing the guy with the gun over to where he was standing in the pic. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That perfectly illustrates the point I was making earlier about green shirt trying to leave. Assuming that's his white truck, how is he supposed to leave without black shirt perceiving a threat because he's advancing? When you tell a guy to leave then you have to let him leave. That is the law regarding tresspassers. Black shirt effectively had him captive and then executed him. That's the proverbial smoking gun before the actual smoking gun. It makes absolutely a lot of sense. Look at the pic. Look at where shooter guy is in relation to the green shirt guys path of escape. He is directly between the green shirt guy and green shirt guys truck. Should green shirt guy make his way to his truck? He'll be advancing toward the shooter if he does. As I've said, shooter, IMO, would then be justified in shooting EVEN THOUGH green shirt is actually trying to leave. So what is green shirt to do in that situation? He's a captive of black shirt because he has nowhere to go. He never got a chance to do anything because shooterman was butthurt enough to kill him. The correct thing for black shirt to do is to demand that green shirt prone out, then have the skank beast call the cops and explain everything. Not to kill green shirt unless he advances in a threatening manner. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 2:45:29 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It makes absolutely a lot of sense. Look at the pic. Look at where shooter guy is in relation to the green shirt guys path of escape. He is directly between the green shirt guy and green shirt guys truck. Should green shirt guy make his way to his truck? He'll be advancing toward the shooter if he does. As I've said, shooter, IMO, would then be justified in shooting EVEN THOUGH green shirt is actually trying to leave. So what is green shirt to do in that situation? He's a captive of black shirt because he has nowhere to go. He never got a chance to do anything because shooterman was butthurt enough to kill him. The correct thing for black shirt to do is to demand that green shirt prone out, then have the skank beast call the cops and explain everything. Not to kill green shirt unless he advances in a threatening manner. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 3:04:13 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Can anyone point me towards the part in the Texas penal code where you can shoot people for trespassing? No, you can’t because it isn’t in there. Shooter chose to give up any advantage he might have under castle doctrine by leaving his castle. So, it being his property has fuck all to do with it. Now it’s just a straight “Did you reasonably have an immediate fear of death or serious bodily injury.” With all the AOJP elements that apply. And that’s why the shooter is well and truly fucked. Which probably suits baby momma just fine and solved both of her problems at one throw. Can you point to where in Texas code, an individual is prohibited from openly carrying a firearm on their own property? No? So what right does green shirt have to then begin making (and visibly acting upon) threats to forcibly take black shirt's rifle and attack him? I may not know all the nuances of Texas penal code, but I'm fairly certain that the Lone Star State still considers trying to physically grab an item from another person, against their will and with the threat of force, to be robbery. And now you definitely have AOJP. The P doesn't mean you're not allowed to every assert your other innate rights at any point in time, ever, and to retreat into a hole in the ground at the first sign of aggression from another person. If green shirt hadn't run his suck, and the fight had played out exactly the same, it might be different. But he announced his intent to commit a forcibly felony against a man who was legally armed, in a time and place he was allowed to be, and then began acting on it. Green shirt paid the price for his cockiness. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 3:30:53 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Can you point to where in Texas code, an individual is prohibited from openly carrying a firearm on their own property? No? So what right does green shirt have to then begin making (and visibly acting upon) threats to forcibly take black shirt's rifle and attack him? I may not know all the nuances of Texas penal code, but I'm fairly certain that the Lone Star State still considers trying to physically grab an item from another person, against their will and with the threat of force, to be robbery. And now you definitely have AOJP. The P doesn't mean you're not allowed to every assert your other innate rights at any point in time, ever, and to retreat into a hole in the ground at the first sign of aggression from another person. If green shirt hadn't run his suck, and the fight had played out exactly the same, it might be different. But he announced his intent to commit a forcibly felony against a man who was legally armed, in a time and place he was allowed to be, and then began acting on it. Green shirt paid the price for his cockiness. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Can anyone point me towards the part in the Texas penal code where you can shoot people for trespassing? No, you can’t because it isn’t in there. Shooter chose to give up any advantage he might have under castle doctrine by leaving his castle. So, it being his property has fuck all to do with it. Now it’s just a straight “Did you reasonably have an immediate fear of death or serious bodily injury.” With all the AOJP elements that apply. And that’s why the shooter is well and truly fucked. Which probably suits baby momma just fine and solved both of her problems at one throw. Can you point to where in Texas code, an individual is prohibited from openly carrying a firearm on their own property? No? So what right does green shirt have to then begin making (and visibly acting upon) threats to forcibly take black shirt's rifle and attack him? I may not know all the nuances of Texas penal code, but I'm fairly certain that the Lone Star State still considers trying to physically grab an item from another person, against their will and with the threat of force, to be robbery. And now you definitely have AOJP. The P doesn't mean you're not allowed to every assert your other innate rights at any point in time, ever, and to retreat into a hole in the ground at the first sign of aggression from another person. If green shirt hadn't run his suck, and the fight had played out exactly the same, it might be different. But he announced his intent to commit a forcibly felony against a man who was legally armed, in a time and place he was allowed to be, and then began acting on it. Green shirt paid the price for his cockiness. Hmm, carrying a firearm on your property is a little different than pointing a rifle at someone and yelling, “leave right now,”at them. Texas has the deadly conduct statute below. Black shirt pointing the rifle at green shirt and threatening deadly force with the, “leave right now,” probably qualifies. Taking a shot at his feet definitely qualifies. Texas Penal Code Sec. 22.05 Deadly Conduct (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury. (b) A person commits an offense if he knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of: (1) one or more individuals; or (2) a habitation, building, or vehicle and is reckless as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied. (c) Recklessness and danger are presumed if the actor knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded. (d) For purposes of this section, “building,” “habitation,” and “vehicle” have the meanings assigned those terms by Section 30.01 (Definitions). (e) An offense under Subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor. An offense under Subsection (b) is a felony of the third degree. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 4:08:55 AM EDT
[#45]
Only time will tell how this plays out. Honestly, it can go either way; but at this time it is favoring black shirt guy. Those saying he blocked green shirt guy’s exit path must consider that green shirt guy pushed or shoved black shirt guy to the location where he finally shot green shirt guy. Black shirt guy had no indication the green shirt had stopped fighting when he pulled the trigger.
We will have to wait for the investigation to be completed. A lot depend on which county the decision to prosecute will be made. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 5:03:29 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Did he fire one round into the dead guys foot initially? It was also pretty quite, did that rifle have a suppressor on it? Real life gunshots don't record well - when you hear gunshots in movies and on TV they are sound effects. Things like cell phones have trouble accurately recording such sound pressure level events. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 5:04:36 AM EDT
[#47]
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. Shooter appears to have an accessory to interfering in child custody, so no self-defense for him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 5:05:50 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Hmm, carrying a firearm on your property is a little different than pointing a rifle at someone and yelling, "leave right now,"at them. Texas has the deadly conduct statute below. Black shirt pointing the rifle at green shirt and threatening deadly force with the, "leave right now," probably qualifies. Taking a shot at his feet definitely qualifies. Texas Penal Code Sec. 22.05 Deadly Conduct (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury. (b) A person commits an offense if he knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of: (1) one or more individuals; or (2) a habitation, building, or vehicle and is reckless as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied. (c) Recklessness and danger are presumed if the actor knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded. (d) For purposes of this section, "building," "habitation," and "vehicle" have the meanings assigned those terms by Section 30.01 (Definitions). (e) An offense under Subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor. An offense under Subsection (b) is a felony of the third degree. Texas is wierd... (btw since you quoted texas penal code, check out 9.04...) |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 5:12:25 AM EDT
[#49]
You need a dance card to know the players.
Green shirt’s, Chad Read, new wife, Jennifer Read, on 11/24 filed this 12 page lawsuit seeking custody of the child from green shirt’s ex-wife Christina Read (black shirt’s, Kyle Carruth, new girl friend) Black Shirt’s ex-wife is State Judge Anne-Marie Carruth. She appears to have nothing to do with this case other than having been married to black shirt. It’s odd that Jennifer would request custody of the children, when she is the stepmom. Christina, the real mom, must be a real piece of work. There is a lot more to this story, apart from TX laws, with regards to castle. A lot of cray, assholes and poor decisions on this one. The two boys are the biggest losers in this one. Unless black shirt and Christina planned this, I still believe black shirt will not be charged. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 6:14:22 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How about saying "I'll leave now" if by some miracle his thick head took a notion to it? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It makes absolutely a lot of sense. Look at the pic. Look at where shooter guy is in relation to the green shirt guys path of escape. He is directly between the green shirt guy and green shirt guys truck. Should green shirt guy make his way to his truck? He'll be advancing toward the shooter if he does. As I've said, shooter, IMO, would then be justified in shooting EVEN THOUGH green shirt is actually trying to leave. So what is green shirt to do in that situation? He's a captive of black shirt because he has nowhere to go. He never got a chance to do anything because shooterman was butthurt enough to kill him. The correct thing for black shirt to do is to demand that green shirt prone out, then have the skank beast call the cops and explain everything. Not to kill green shirt unless he advances in a threatening manner. Yeah, that might have worked. Had it been me, I'd have probably put both hands up and made a big half circle around Napoleon and back to my truck. Green shirt never got the chance because Napoleon had already decided that he wasn't respecting the magic shooty stick and needed to die. He picked the worst possible time to shoot. Greenie wasn't advancing or presenting an immediate and imminent threat. He'd have been much better off if he'd shot him when he first came out of the house. |
|
|
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.
