User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:03:43 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Brandishing isn't a thing at all in Texas. It's either Disorderly Conduct or Deadly Conduct. Penal Code Title 5, § 22.05 Deadly Conduct Penal Code Title 9, § 42.01 - Disorderly Conduct https://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/Brandishing_Display_of_Firearm.pdf For what it's worth, that's one of the reasons Texas fought to get open carry. Prior to open carry, you could pick up a disorderly conduct charge for your shirt riding up over your CCW. My CCW instructor had a portion of the class where he dealt with talking to law enforcement if a member of the public calls the cops on you. He specifically demonstrated how bending over a few times will catch your shirt tail and pull it up over your gun if you're not paying attention. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yes, see the Texas deadly conduct statute I copied early. You can catch a misdemeanor for pointing an unloaded gun in a person’s general direction. Ill have to go find that. Does that apply in a situation where force up to but not including deadly force is authorized? Just like you could punch him in the face to get him to fuck off and leave but in other circumstances thatd be assault. I copied it into the thread on page 33. Not sure on how it interacts with trespassing and assault laws. I’m not a lawyer. I just found it while reading up on statutes. Texas also has a mutually agreed combat law, but I don’t think that applies here. Agreed i dont think mutual applies either. My point being if he can use any force up to but NOT including deadly force then I think he was okay to have the gun. Besides the mere presence of a gun to me isnt lethal force. Or every altercation with someone who was open carrying would be considered using lethal force. I dont think brandishing is a thing in texas on your own property but not sure. Brandishing isn't a thing at all in Texas. It's either Disorderly Conduct or Deadly Conduct. Penal Code Title 5, § 22.05 Deadly Conduct Penal Code Title 9, § 42.01 - Disorderly Conduct https://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/Brandishing_Display_of_Firearm.pdf For what it's worth, that's one of the reasons Texas fought to get open carry. Prior to open carry, you could pick up a disorderly conduct charge for your shirt riding up over your CCW. My CCW instructor had a portion of the class where he dealt with talking to law enforcement if a member of the public calls the cops on you. He specifically demonstrated how bending over a few times will catch your shirt tail and pull it up over your gun if you're not paying attention. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:07:26 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I would like to see some codification of orderly conduct. I'm envisioning something like soliloquies of intent given in iambic pentameter., by well groomed, mustachioed me, wielding swords and the like. It would be a refreshing break from all of this trailer park chad and kyle nonsense. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yes, see the Texas deadly conduct statute I copied early. You can catch a misdemeanor for pointing an unloaded gun in a person’s general direction. Ill have to go find that. Does that apply in a situation where force up to but not including deadly force is authorized? Just like you could punch him in the face to get him to fuck off and leave but in other circumstances thatd be assault. I copied it into the thread on page 33. Not sure on how it interacts with trespassing and assault laws. I’m not a lawyer. I just found it while reading up on statutes. Texas also has a mutually agreed combat law, but I don’t think that applies here. Agreed i dont think mutual applies either. My point being if he can use any force up to but NOT including deadly force then I think he was okay to have the gun. Besides the mere presence of a gun to me isnt lethal force. Or every altercation with someone who was open carrying would be considered using lethal force. I dont think brandishing is a thing in texas on your own property but not sure. Brandishing isn't a thing at all in Texas. It's either Disorderly Conduct or Deadly Conduct. Penal Code Title 5, § 22.05 Deadly Conduct Penal Code Title 9, § 42.01 - Disorderly Conduct https://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/Brandishing_Display_of_Firearm.pdf For what it's worth, that's one of the reasons Texas fought to get open carry. Prior to open carry, you could pick up a disorderly conduct charge for your shirt riding up over your CCW. My CCW instructor had a portion of the class where he dealt with talking to law enforcement if a member of the public calls the cops on you. He specifically demonstrated how bending over a few times will catch your shirt tail and pull it up over your gun if you're not paying attention. That's the mutually agreed combat statute.  . Make dueling great again!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:07:59 PM EDT
[#3]
Watching the full high quality video from inside the house black shirts mind was made up to kill green shirt the minute he came out with the gun, he just needed to work up the nerve.
The toss by green shirt was the spark that made him find his courage, without even thinking he just raises the rifle and shoots the guy in the face. What a clusterfuck, he should have stayed inside and called the cops not come back out with a gun, whole bunch of lives ruined there for being hotheads. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:08:17 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The winner here is the ex. She gains sole custody but loses her .gov thefted bloodmoney. She will drop the shooter in jail for life after a few tears and find someone else to parasite off of to make up for lost income after some swiping on tinder.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:11:33 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'd just argue that the dumbass shooter frightened black shirt and made him feel like he had to disarm him. Prior to that there was no reason to even involve a gun in the scenario. He was there to pick up his child. I'd keep going back to that over and over. Why did black shirt even grab the gun? Did he want to kill him? He was just there to pick up his child which is in the court docs (child custody agreements include them). It looks like black shirt planned on killing him. He was very calm and didn't look like he felt like he was in danger at all. Black shirt escalated things provoking green shirt to escalate. Green shirt tried throwing black shirt away to create distance after black shirt fired a warning shot right near him which would freak anyone out. Then after distance was created black shirt murdered green shirt. Green shirt just wanted to pick up his son at the time dictated by the signed child custody agreement. I can assure you if your ex makes you wait all of the fucking time to get your kid at a designated time you'd be pissed too. Black shirt is a murderer. You want to keep gun rights and the left from foaming at the mouth when it comes to taking them away, use some common sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:12:27 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is Arfcom. We could have a 35 page thread arguing about which side of the plate the fork goes on. The fork is moving from the plate to my mouth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:13:25 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is Arfcom. We could have a 35 page thread arguing about which side of the plate the fork goes on. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The fact that this case is a 34 page argument on this site says a lot about how justified this shooting was. This is Arfcom. We could have a 35 page thread arguing about which side of the plate the fork goes on. No we wouldn’t. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:14:28 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Watching the full high quality video from inside the house black shirts mind was made up to kill green shirt the minute he came out with the gun, he just needed to work up the nerve. The toss by green shirt was the spark that made him find his courage, without even thinking he just raises the rifle and shoots the guy in the face. What a clusterfuck, he should have stayed inside and called the cops not come back out with a gun, whole bunch of lives ruined there for being hotheads. Damn good post. I think the guy in black is technically clear of a murder charge, but I think you nailed the scenario exactly. Also, Mr. Blackshirt sure didn't take long to grab a loaded weapon once he was inside. I wonder if it was strategically placed by the door in, uh, suspension and apprehension this situation might get out of hand? Either from previous encounters or consipiracy to murder with the ex-wife? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:16:53 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No we wouldn’t. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: The fact that this case is a 34 page argument on this site says a lot about how justified this shooting was. This is Arfcom. We could have a 35 page thread arguing about which side of the plate the fork goes on. No we wouldn’t. Yes we would. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:17:09 PM EDT
[#10]
Is this an on-going news event in Lubbock. There are lots of odd things about this. Is a reporter trying to find out what happened?
One biggie is the kid. Where was he? Why did Chad (green shirt) show up at Kyle's (Black shirt) house? Did Chad's ex-wife live there? Had he ever picked up or dropped off the kid there before? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:30:32 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And there you have it once again folks. What a lot of people here are saying or at least implying. It was the gun that was at fault. We need common sense and to not use our rights so that the left doesn't take them away. Because that would be common sense for them to do. Having a gun is an act of violence in and of itself and it is what caused the whole thing. We support gun rights, but.... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I'd just argue that the dumbass shooter frightened black shirt and made him feel like he had to disarm him. Prior to that there was no reason to even involve a gun in the scenario. He was there to pick up his child. I'd keep going back to that over and over. Why did black shirt even grab the gun? Did he want to kill him? He was just there to pick up his child which is in the court docs (child custody agreements include them). It looks like black shirt planned on killing him. He was very calm and didn't look like he felt like he was in danger at all. Black shirt escalated things provoking green shirt to escalate. Green shirt tried throwing black shirt away to create distance after black shirt fired a warning shot right near him which would freak anyone out. Then after distance was created black shirt murdered green shirt. Green shirt just wanted to pick up his son at the time dictated by the signed child custody agreement. I can assure you if your ex makes you wait all of the fucking time to get your kid at a designated time you'd be pissed too. Black shirt is a murderer. You want to keep gun rights and the left from foaming at the mouth when it comes to taking them away, use some common sense. You have the right to keep and bear arms. You do not have the right to use those arms to needlessly kill your fellow Americans. Pretending that pointing a rifle at someone isn't an act of violence is ridiculous. Black shirt could have just as easily tucked a pistol into his waistband, threw a shirt over it, and walked back outside to observe his side piece and her ex play child custody power games. He would have been armed, and he likely wouldn't have gotten any reaction from green shirt. He didn't do that because he wanted the threat of deadly force. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:31:20 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And there you have it once again folks. What a lot of people here are saying or at least implying. It was the gun that was at fault. We need common sense and to not use our rights so that the left doesn't take them away. Because that would be common sense for them to do. Having a gun is an act of violence in and of itself and it is what caused the whole thing. We support gun rights, but.... Do you really think he grabbed the gun because he felt it was needed in that very moment to defend his own life? It appeared to me, the purpose of brandishing the weapon was for intimidation, which didn't have the intended reaction apparently.... Obviously the gun wasn't the "problem" , but the firearm wasn't brought into the situation for self defense... the guy walked away and came back with it.. which is an important fact that's gonna fuck this guy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:32:17 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is Arfcom. We could have a 35 page thread arguing about which side of the plate the fork goes on. Handgun on right Long gun across top. Stapler and ruler at your discretion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:32:50 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes we would. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The fact that this case is a 34 page argument on this site says a lot about how justified this shooting was. This is Arfcom. We could have a 35 page thread arguing about which side of the plate the fork goes on. No we wouldn’t. Yes we would.  Now Don't Start THAT again! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:38:46 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Do you really think he grabbed the gun because he felt it was needed in that very moment to defend his own life? It appeared to me, the purpose of brandishing the weapon was for intimidation, which didn't have the intended reaction apparently.... Obviously the gun wasn't the "problem" , but the firearm wasn't brought into the situation for self defense... the guy walked away and came back with it.. which is an important fact that's gonna fuck this guy. Quote HistoryQuoted: Do you really think he grabbed the gun because he felt it was needed in that very moment to defend his own life? It appeared to me, the purpose of brandishing the weapon was for intimidation, which didn't have the intended reaction apparently.... Obviously the gun wasn't the "problem" , but the firearm wasn't brought into the situation for self defense... the guy walked away and came back with it.. which is an important fact that's gonna fuck this guy. Quoted: You have the right to keep and bear arms. You do not have the right to use those arms to needlessly kill your fellow Americans. Pretending that pointing a rifle at someone isn't an act of violence is ridiculous. Black shirt could have just as easily tucked a pistol into his waistband, threw a shirt over it, and walked back outside to observe his side piece and her ex play child custody power games. He would have been armed, and he likely wouldn't have gotten any reaction from green shirt. He didn't do that because he wanted the threat of deadly force. There is a perfectly clear video. Neither of these things happened. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:46:32 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Watching the full high quality video from inside the house black shirts mind was made up to kill green shirt the minute he came out with the gun, he just needed to work up the nerve. The toss by green shirt was the spark that made him find his courage, without even thinking he just raises the rifle and shoots the guy in the face. What a clusterfuck, he should have stayed inside and called the cops not come back out with a gun, whole bunch of lives ruined there for being hotheads. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:47:19 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And to the degree necessary, such as an arm bar, not killing someone. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. And to the degree necessary, such as an arm bar, not killing someone. Thank Christ you two scholars don't live in Texas. But I weep for what you bring to your state. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:47:42 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Shooter appears to have an accessory to interfering in child custody, so no self-defense for him. Child custody is not a criminal matter. The only recourse Green shirt guy had was to file a motion with the court. He can’t legally go hands on in the this situation; because he went hands on, he is the aggressor and he did in fact create the situation that resulted in his death. Black shirt guy had the legal right to have the firearm on his person. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:50:01 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thank Christ you two scholars don't live in Texas. But I weep for what you bring to your state. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. And to the degree necessary, such as an arm bar, not killing someone. Thank Christ you two scholars don't live in Texas. But I weep for what you bring to your state. I weep for your children if you do something as stupid as the shooter did here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:54:12 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Child custody is not a criminal matter. The only recourse Green shirt guy had was to file a motion with the court. He can’t legally go hands on in the this situation; because he went hands on, he is the aggressor and he did in fact create the situation that resulted in his death. Black shirt guy had the legal right to have the firearm on his person. And picking up your son for court ordered visitation is not trespassing, even if black shirt says to leave. Court order > black shirt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:54:37 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Does anyone have link or video description to this, or is it the same short clip already shown? I don't think the site I found it on can be linked in GD. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:57:15 PM EDT
[#22]
Green shirt: trespass, threat, assault, attempts to take gun, flings black shirt.
Black shirt: child custody, armed himself, "warning" shot, shot. Interfered with child custody: Kid wasn't there, civil mater Armed himself: not illegal, didn't point at or make threats "warning" shot: was it a WS\ND or intentional, already met criteria for self defense shot: fired at aggressor who already charged him, threat, assault, attempts to take gun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 12:59:27 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And picking up your son for court ordered visitation is not trespassing, even if black shirt says to leave. Court order > black shirt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:07:37 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That seems like it was a poor life decision for the shooter. And the shootee. See gun, walk away, call cops, get 100% custody. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:08:01 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: BS. What court order would specify the location as the new boyfriend's house? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: And picking up your son for court ordered visitation is not trespassing, even if black shirt says to leave. Court order > black shirt. Easy...the judge says you get to see your son every Saturday at 3:15. Comes Saturday, where ever baby momma is, is now the designated pick up spot. What else is the guy gonna due? It's time to pick up his son. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:09:43 PM EDT
[#26]
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. But did he cross state lines? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:10:31 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Time stamp in the video when he brandished? Time stamp when he points the rifle at the dad (prior to the dad becoming physical)? There is a perfectly clear video. Neither of these things happened. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Do you really think he grabbed the gun because he felt it was needed in that very moment to defend his own life? It appeared to me, the purpose of brandishing the weapon was for intimidation, which didn't have the intended reaction apparently.... Obviously the gun wasn't the "problem" , but the firearm wasn't brought into the situation for self defense... the guy walked away and came back with it.. which is an important fact that's gonna fuck this guy. Quoted: You have the right to keep and bear arms. You do not have the right to use those arms to needlessly kill your fellow Americans. Pretending that pointing a rifle at someone isn't an act of violence is ridiculous. Black shirt could have just as easily tucked a pistol into his waistband, threw a shirt over it, and walked back outside to observe his side piece and her ex play child custody power games. He would have been armed, and he likely wouldn't have gotten any reaction from green shirt. He didn't do that because he wanted the threat of deadly force. There is a perfectly clear video. Neither of these things happened. 58 second mark right when black shirt comes out the door. He comes out with it pointed at the ground. He brings the rifle up to high ready and yells at Green shirt, "Leave right now." Green shirt moves towards him and says, "Do it." Black shirt drops it to low ready pointing at Green shirts feet. Green shirt says, "Use it motherfucker. I'll take it from you." Then they start chest bumping. Green shirt didn't touch anyone prior to the rifle coming out and getting muzzle swept a few times. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:10:31 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: BS. What court order would specify the location as the new boyfriend's house? Why in the world would he be party to a court order on this? Whatever she and the dad are doing there, there's no way the property owner has signed away his rights to tell either or both of them to get off the property. Very good chance they got stood up at the actual location and decided to go there looking for her and the kid on their own. Note five days prior the new wife of the dad claims they just discovered the affair (and hence the new location) and were going to dox them. Not that simple... The mother has to procure the child for the transfer of custody, so where ever she is on the day the father had custody would be an open invitation for the father. If he is asked to leave, he doesn't have a right to stay, but it is a legal matter of the courts... so both of these people could be held in contempt by blocking the courts order of custodial rights.. Considering they did block a court order, and refused to follow it... it would be difficult to say who caused or instigated the conflict to begin with.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:13:25 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If a divorced father dies, does a portion of the estate have to go towards child support? I have no idea how that works. Texas law is comprised of a unique combination of US Constitutional law, British Common law, Spanish common law, Texas state law, and case law. It makes it unique compared to other states. Basically, it all boils down to whether Green shirt guy had a will. If he didn’t, his estate is dived equally among his children and his wife, with the wife maintaining a tendency for life in their shared owned residence. It causes a mess because the wife doesn’t have title to the property. If she wants to live there she must pay the property taxes and up keep; but the children maintain their share of the property ownership. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:13:25 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Do you REALLY think they cloroformed the kid to knock him out, tied him up, stuffed him in the trunk and then sent a jumbled letter ransom note demanding $17 Million Dollars or they'd cut off his ear?? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: They kidnapped his kid. Do you REALLY think they cloroformed the kid to knock him out, tied him up, stuffed him in the trunk and then sent a jumbled letter ransom note demanding $17 Million Dollars or they'd cut off his ear?? Whoa dude, hold up. No one brought up Casey Anthony. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:13:44 PM EDT
[#31]
I wish Anne Marie would tell some details. I know she won't but she does know stuff. When green shirt is yelling I'll subpoena you and your mom and Anne Marie, so obviously these people have all been involved for awhile. I'm still leaning heavily towards it being a setup to "legally" murder the dad.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:14:35 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Child custody is not a criminal matter. The only recourse Green shirt guy had was to file a motion with the court. He can’t legally go hands on in the this situation; because he went hands on, he is the aggressor and he did in fact create the situation that resulted in his death. Black shirt guy had the legal right to have the firearm on his person. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Shooter appears to have an accessory to interfering in child custody, so no self-defense for him. Child custody is not a criminal matter. The only recourse Green shirt guy had was to file a motion with the court. He can’t legally go hands on in the this situation; because he went hands on, he is the aggressor and he did in fact create the situation that resulted in his death. Black shirt guy had the legal right to have the firearm on his person. Interference with child custody is a state jail felony: https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-25-03.html It's just not enforced. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:14:52 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: BS. What court order would specify the location as the new boyfriend's house?. Most custody agreements don’t specify a place for exchanges |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:16:20 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This happened in Texas not some shithole country where this is an thrice hourly occurrence. Exwife & shooter were way too calm during & after the incident, no one rendered aid to victim, not even a gasp or oh my God! Looks like the exwife lured him there and had mr pussywhipped kill him. Something will leak from one of them & it will all fall apart. In Texas a citizen does not have a duty of care to render aid to the guy you shot. He is own his own. The logic being that you don’t know if he is still dangerous because you don’t know if he is alive or dead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:18:31 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Easy...the judge says you get to see your son every Saturday at 3:15. Comes Saturday, where ever baby momma is, is now the designated pick up spot. What else is the guy gonna due? It's time to pick up his son. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: And picking up your son for court ordered visitation is not trespassing, even if black shirt says to leave. Court order > black shirt. Easy...the judge says you get to see your son every Saturday at 3:15. Comes Saturday, where ever baby momma is, is now the designated pick up spot. What else is the guy gonna due? It's time to pick up his son. Pinching one's nut's and taking the room temp challenge on someone else's porch is a terrible example for children so no harm no foul. Hopefully the kid still grows up to cure cancer in spite of this minor setback. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:19:05 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And there you have it once again folks. What a lot of people here are saying or at least implying. It was the gun that was at fault. We need common sense and to not use our rights so that the left doesn't take them away. Because that would be common sense for them to do. Having a gun is an act of violence in and of itself and it is what caused the whole thing. We support gun rights, but.... This is ridiculously idiotic. No one said the gun was at fault except you. Nice reach though. The guy who grabbed said gun when he wasn’t in harms way and walked out like billy badass when he didn’t need to is at fault. Try again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:23:09 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ….snip Also, Mr. Blackshirt sure didn't take long to grab a loaded weapon once he was inside. I wonder if it was strategically placed by the door in, uh, suspension and apprehension this situation might get out of hand? Either from previous encounters or consipiracy to murder with the ex-wife? It would be weird to not have a loaded fire arm at the handy in rural Texas. Out in the sticks police help might be 30 minutes to a couple of hours away. You are on your own. I know lots of farmer and ranchers that drive around with a loaded AK in their tool boxes. It is one of the best coyote pooping rifles on the market. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:25:11 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In Texas a citizen does not have a duty of care to render aid to the guy you shot. He is own his own. The logic being that you don’t know if he is still dangerous because you don’t know if he is alive or dead. What a statute says or doesn’t say isn’t the point being made. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:26:56 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It would be weird to not have a loaded fire arm at the handy in rural Texas. Out in the sticks police help might be 30 minutes to a couple of hours away. You are on your own. I know lots of farmer and ranchers that drive around with a loaded AK in their tool boxes. It is one of the best coyote pooping rifles on the market. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: ….snip Also, Mr. Blackshirt sure didn't take long to grab a loaded weapon once he was inside. I wonder if it was strategically placed by the door in, uh, suspension and apprehension this situation might get out of hand? Either from previous encounters or consipiracy to murder with the ex-wife? It would be weird to not have a loaded fire arm at the handy in rural Texas. Out in the sticks police help might be 30 minutes to a couple of hours away. You are on your own. I know lots of farmer and ranchers that drive around with a loaded AK in their tool boxes. It is one of the best coyote pooping rifles on the market. Well, that's it, lock it down. Poop thread |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:27:10 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And picking up your son for court ordered visitation is not trespassing, even if black shirt says to leave. Court order > black shirt. It is when you were told to vacate the property. Your pick up place is at the curb, not on the property. Once he was told to leave his only recourse was to file a motion with the court. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:27:32 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In Texas a citizen does not have a duty of care to render aid to the guy you shot. He is own his own. The logic being that you don’t know if he is still dangerous because you don’t know if he is alive or dead. You missed the point, most Americans who witness a person being shot dead usually show some emotion, pussywhipped & his whore were calm as can be, very odd unless they expected it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:28:11 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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 Interesting photo |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:28:41 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And there you have it once again folks. What a lot of people here are saying or at least implying. It was the gun that was at fault. We need common sense and to not use our rights so that the left doesn't take them away. Because that would be common sense for them to do. Having a gun is an act of violence in and of itself and it is what caused the whole thing. We support gun rights, but.... I support gun rights but I don't support branding or using them in simple arguments. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:30:31 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You missed the point, most Americans who witness a person being shot dead usually show some emotion, pussywhipped & his whore were calm as can be, very odd unless they expected it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: In Texas a citizen does not have a duty of care to render aid to the guy you shot. He is own his own. The logic being that you don’t know if he is still dangerous because you don’t know if he is alive or dead. You missed the point, most Americans who witness a person being shot dead usually show some emotion, pussywhipped & his whore were calm as can be, very odd unless they expected it. I would've expected the skanky whore mother to have been also videoing with her phone but it appears she is texting or something. Probably telling her mother to hide the kid somewhere else because dad was sending the cops to her house. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:31:12 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And the shootee. See gun, walk away, call cops, get 100% custody. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That seems like it was a poor life decision for the shooter. And the shootee. See gun, walk away, call cops, get 100% custody. Actually, no legal ramifications would have come from that first shot. Wouldn't want this untidy mess to interfere with a judge's political career. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:31:36 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Interference with child custody is a state jail felony: https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-25-03.html It's just not enforced. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Shooter appears to have an accessory to interfering in child custody, so no self-defense for him. Child custody is not a criminal matter. The only recourse Green shirt guy had was to file a motion with the court. He can’t legally go hands on in the this situation; because he went hands on, he is the aggressor and he did in fact create the situation that resulted in his death. Black shirt guy had the legal right to have the firearm on his person. Interference with child custody is a state jail felony: https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-25-03.html It's just not enforced. It is only a felony once the court has ruled; that is why you have to file the motion to get a determination of fact. He was told the kid wasn’t there. He didn’t have the authority or the right to search the property or remain on the property. If the police had been there they could have made inquiries; but they would have told Green shirt guy to leave. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:31:38 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It is when you were told to vacate the property. Your pick up place is at the curb, not on the property. Once he was told to leave his only recourse was to file a motion with the court. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: And picking up your son for court ordered visitation is not trespassing, even if black shirt says to leave. Court order > black shirt. It is when you were told to vacate the property. Your pick up place is at the curb, not on the property. Once he was told to leave his only recourse was to file a motion with the court. The court order says to stay on the curb? I kinda doubt that. It most likely say to meet up with baby momma every Saturday at 3:15. Guy was legally following the court, it's time to get his kid. No way he would have been guilty of trespassing. Next. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:31:43 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You missed the point, most Americans who witness a person being shot dead usually show some emotion, pussywhipped & his whore were calm as can be, very odd unless they expected it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: In Texas a citizen does not have a duty of care to render aid to the guy you shot. He is own his own. The logic being that you don't know if he is still dangerous because you don't know if he is alive or dead. You missed the point, most Americans who witness a person being shot dead usually show some emotion, pussywhipped & his whore were calm as can be, very odd unless they expected it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:35:09 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Interesting photo 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 Interesting photo *at about the same distance apart |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:38:13 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The court order says to stay on the curb? I kinda doubt that. It most likely say to meet up with baby momma every Saturday at 3:15. Guy was legally following the court, it's time to get his kid. No way he would have been guilty of trespassing. Next. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: And picking up your son for court ordered visitation is not trespassing, even if black shirt says to leave. Court order > black shirt. It is when you were told to vacate the property. Your pick up place is at the curb, not on the property. Once he was told to leave his only recourse was to file a motion with the court. The court order says to stay on the curb? I kinda doubt that. It most likely say to meet up with baby momma every Saturday at 3:15. Guy was legally following the court, it's time to get his kid. No way he would have been guilty of trespassing. Next. Sequence of events dude. Green shirt guy showed up and was told to leave. Green shirt guy satisfied his responsibility. Green shirt guy was told to leave the property. At that point his only recourse would be to go to the property line and wait for the cops, but instead he decides to take the matter into his own hands. Which was a monumentally bad idea. |
|
|
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.
