User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:40:11 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What do people think this picture shows? Dad trapped on the porch...with no exit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:44:02 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Dad trapped on the porch...with no exit. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: What do people think this picture shows? Dad trapped on the porch...with no exit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:44:19 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. I’ve a few more pages to catch up on but in bold is part of what I’ve been saying. This stopped being an issue over trespass. That time has come and gone when green shirt ran at black shirt. Being in the porch is icing on the cake. This is now an assault after being told to leave. The spoken threat(s) of physical action against black shirt, the contact. When he touched black shirt’s firearm, he showed his intent to follow through with those spoken threat(s). |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:45:01 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: 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. That is why the back story is important here. Green shirt could of been a maniac or maybe they been playing games? From the video alone I don't think it's a clear cut self defense unless the green shirt guy is known to go nuts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:46:11 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. Agreed. It’s no longer just a trespass. No matter what either of them could’ve/should’ve/would’ve done beforehand is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:49:32 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's like stepping out in front of a car and shooting the driver because he was going to run you over. If dumb fuck wouldn't have ran inside and got the rifle, there would be no "imminent deadly threat". Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Classic example of “you can’t provoke the situation and claim self defense” Nothing in that video warranted him to bring a gun out. You can’t use deadly force to threaten somebody who’s not been aggressive to leave your property. He showed utter disregard for human life by just bringing a gun into a verbal argument. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. He’s going to prison. Oh hell yes you can threaten deadly force after repeatedly telling somebody to leave. When somebody tells you to get off, you better leave the property. If you don’t, you just opened all kinds of lawful use of force to remove you. Try getting into an argument on a bouncer when he demands you leave. You don’t? They can use all force up to but not including deadly to remove you. Bullshit. You cannot shoot someone for refusing to leave. You guys are dense. THREATEN use of deadly force after being repeatedly told to leave. That’s lawful. The instant dead guy grabbed the gun, immediate, imminent, capable deadly threat with verbal assault. A lot of folks in this thread posting authoritatively about Texas law, without actually knowing Texas law. You can't use deadly force against a trespasser in Texas, day or night. Not unless they breach the envelope of your home. The threat to use deadly force can hence be viewed as assault. Got damn you guys are dense. He didn’t use deadly force against a trespasser. He used deadly force against an immediate threat that verbally said I’m going to take it and use against you. Clear, capable, imminent deadly threat with means to do so. That's like stepping out in front of a car and shooting the driver because he was going to run you over. If dumb fuck wouldn't have ran inside and got the rifle, there would be no "imminent deadly threat". If, if, if… He had every right to arm himself. There is a person refusing to leave his property after multiple demands to leave are given. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:51:29 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I’ve a few more pages to catch up on but in bold is part of what I’ve been saying. This stopped being an issue over trespass. That time has come and gone when green shirt ran at black shirt. Being in the porch is icing on the cake. This is now an assault after being told to leave. The spoken threat(s) of physical action against black shirt, the contact. When he touched black shirt’s firearm, he showed his intent to follow through with those spoken threat(s). Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. I’ve a few more pages to catch up on but in bold is part of what I’ve been saying. This stopped being an issue over trespass. That time has come and gone when green shirt ran at black shirt. Being in the porch is icing on the cake. This is now an assault after being told to leave. The spoken threat(s) of physical action against black shirt, the contact. When he touched black shirt’s firearm, he showed his intent to follow through with those spoken threat(s). Bringing out a gun to threaten a guy, who had legal right to be there (visitation order), is something a grand jury will hopefully deal with. Between Texas law and human opinions, it will be interesting how this plays out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:51:44 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm betting this is not the first time she has played fuck-fuck games during visitation times. Everybody has their cellphones out. I’m betting both green shirt and the ex-wife were both always doing something to piss each other off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:52:07 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Agreed. It’s no longer just a trespass. No matter what either of them could’ve/should’ve/would’ve done beforehand is irrelevant. You can't instigate a situation and claim self defense (as far as i know) maybe they kept messing around with the guy? Maybe the guy has been messing with them? Backstory is important here. If it's just a mistake the kid wasn't there i don't see how this randomly gets out of hand. Chest bumping and pride got these people dead and soon to be in prison. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:52:08 PM EDT
[#10]
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. Fuck Rural texas. I want a gun if I go anywhere in Lubbock. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:52:13 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That is why the back story is important here. Green shirt could of been a maniac or maybe they been playing games? From the video alone I don't think it's a clear cut self defense unless the green shirt guy is known to go nuts. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. That is why the back story is important here. Green shirt could of been a maniac or maybe they been playing games? From the video alone I don't think it's a clear cut self defense unless the green shirt guy is known to go nuts. We don't know the response, we don't know the history. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:54:50 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Bringing out a gun to threaten a guy, who had legal right to be there (visitation order), is something a grand jury will hopefully deal with. Between Texas law and human opinions, it will be interesting how this plays out. or is that something you are assuming? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:57:42 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Bringing out a gun to threaten a guy, who had legal right to be there (visitation order), is something a grand jury will hopefully deal with. Between Texas law and human opinions, it will be interesting how this plays out. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. I’ve a few more pages to catch up on but in bold is part of what I’ve been saying. This stopped being an issue over trespass. That time has come and gone when green shirt ran at black shirt. Being in the porch is icing on the cake. This is now an assault after being told to leave. The spoken threat(s) of physical action against black shirt, the contact. When he touched black shirt’s firearm, he showed his intent to follow through with those spoken threat(s). Bringing out a gun to threaten a guy, who had legal right to be there (visitation order), is something a grand jury will hopefully deal with. Between Texas law and human opinions, it will be interesting how this plays out. Green shirt did not have every right to be there. Any permission to be that property was null and void the instance black shirt told him to leave. At that point, green shirt is supposed to leave, do not pass go and do not collect two hundred dollars. Green shirt had ample opportunity to leave but instead showed his intention was not to leave. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 1:58:16 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: History is a factor. Somewhere it was posted, Green shirt texted black shirt needed his ass kicked or some such. Maybe he was a hot head, Black shirt tells him to leave, green shirts responds, Black shirt decides to arm himself. We don't know the response, we don't know the history. Now that might be the reason he gets off (after going broke). You can't make threats to people over the phone or text and come around them not expecting them to be some sort of prepared. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 2:00:06 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You can't instigate a situation and claim self defense (as far as i know) maybe they kept messing around with the guy? Maybe the guy has been messing with them? Backstory is important here. If it's just a mistake the kid wasn't there i don't see how this randomly gets out of hand. Chest bumping and pride got these people dead and soon to be in prison. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Agreed. It’s no longer just a trespass. No matter what either of them could’ve/should’ve/would’ve done beforehand is irrelevant. You can't instigate a situation and claim self defense (as far as i know) maybe they kept messing around with the guy? Maybe the guy has been messing with them? Backstory is important here. If it's just a mistake the kid wasn't there i don't see how this randomly gets out of hand. Chest bumping and pride got these people dead and soon to be in prison. That’s private property, not some parking spot at some 7-Eleven. When you’re told to leave, you leave. Black shirt had every right to arm himself. If there’s any instigation, it’s by green shirt by his refusal to leave after multiple demands were made he do so. ETA: Any custody issue violation(s) made by either the father or mother are settled by the family courts, not on somebody’s porch. If this reaches a court and I were on the defense team, I’d make my number one priority the removal of any potential jurors who are ex-husbands that had been involved in custody battles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 2:02:54 PM EDT
[#16]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 2:06:00 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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 2:06:18 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Green shirt did not have every right to be there. Any permission to be that property was null and void the instance black shirt told him to leave. At that point, green shirt is supposed to leave, do not pass go and do not collect two hundred dollars. Green shirt had ample opportunity to leave but instead showed his intention was not to leave. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. I’ve a few more pages to catch up on but in bold is part of what I’ve been saying. This stopped being an issue over trespass. That time has come and gone when green shirt ran at black shirt. Being in the porch is icing on the cake. This is now an assault after being told to leave. The spoken threat(s) of physical action against black shirt, the contact. When he touched black shirt’s firearm, he showed his intent to follow through with those spoken threat(s). Bringing out a gun to threaten a guy, who had legal right to be there (visitation order), is something a grand jury will hopefully deal with. Between Texas law and human opinions, it will be interesting how this plays out. Green shirt did not have every right to be there. Any permission to be that property was null and void the instance black shirt told him to leave. At that point, green shirt is supposed to leave, do not pass go and do not collect two hundred dollars. Green shirt had ample opportunity to leave but instead showed his intention was not to leave. We have different opinions, and at this point that's all they are, opinions. I think trespassing is going to be a stretch with the visitation order. Again, I will welcome the grand juries decision. I can see the argument on both sides. I also bet there's way more to the story. If it ends up being a bait / setup, it could get really weird. Real loser is the poor kid.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 2:09:06 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why did you trim out most of my post in the quote? The boyfriend, whose property he is being asked to leave, is not a party to any such agreement. I was only addressing your question about the location being specified or not. I apologize if you feel I was trying to manipulate your words, it was never my intention. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 2:09:09 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We have different opinions, and at this point that's all they are, opinions. I think trespassing is going to be a stretch with the visitation order. Again, I will welcome the grand juries decision. I can see the argument on both sides. I also bet there's way more to the story. If it ends up being a bait / setup, it could get really weird. Real loser is the poor kid. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. I’ve a few more pages to catch up on but in bold is part of what I’ve been saying. This stopped being an issue over trespass. That time has come and gone when green shirt ran at black shirt. Being in the porch is icing on the cake. This is now an assault after being told to leave. The spoken threat(s) of physical action against black shirt, the contact. When he touched black shirt’s firearm, he showed his intent to follow through with those spoken threat(s). Bringing out a gun to threaten a guy, who had legal right to be there (visitation order), is something a grand jury will hopefully deal with. Between Texas law and human opinions, it will be interesting how this plays out. Green shirt did not have every right to be there. Any permission to be that property was null and void the instance black shirt told him to leave. At that point, green shirt is supposed to leave, do not pass go and do not collect two hundred dollars. Green shirt had ample opportunity to leave but instead showed his intention was not to leave. We have different opinions, and at this point that's all they are, opinions. I think trespassing is going to be a stretch with the visitation order. Again, I will welcome the grand juries decision. I can see the argument on both sides. I also bet there's way more to the story. If it ends up being a bait / setup, it could get really weird. Real loser is the poor kid. Agree about the kid(s). |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 2:09:49 PM EDT
[#21]
I really like this pic
 ETA: For all the posters saying green shirt didn’t continue advancing. Here is a much better, UNCROPPED image. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 2:11:43 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I support gun rights but I don't support branding or using them in simple arguments. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. How about in cases where your girlfriends ex who is bigger, angry, trespassing on your property, and refuses to leave? Plenty of examples of situations like that ending up in murder-suicides. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 2:17:28 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. What in the actual fuck is the point of having the right to have a gun on your property if you aren't allowed to get it out when someone is making a disturbance on your property and refuses to leave? If you don't have this right, you don't have rights at all. And you're arguing to take that away. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 2:20:56 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well Green shirts people didn't show any emotion either, so she must have been in on it as well.  If you bothered to read the article you would have read that she stated that the shots were so quiet she thought it was a paint ball gun, she only realized he was shot after she walked over to him. Long barreled PCC's are very quiet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 2:21:22 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: High ready is not "pointing it at", which is what you said. Walking through the direction the muzzle is pointed while aggressively advancing on an armed individual and forcing them to adjust their position is not "getting swept", if that even happened. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. Now you’re just arguing semantics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 2:29:41 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: That’s private property, not some parking spot at some 7-Eleven. When you’re told to leave, you leave. Black shirt had every right to arm himself. If there’s any instigation, it’s by green shirt by his refusal to leave after multiple demands were made he do so. ETA: Any custody issue violation(s) made by either the father or mother are settled by the family courts, not on somebody’s porch. If this reaches a court and I were on the defense team, I’d make my number one priority the removal of any potential jurors who are ex-husbands that had been involved in custody battles. Good point I was meaning maybe they were playing with the guy constantly. I went through (albeit level headed) with my kids mom making me late for work or wasting my time often. I don't think she was doing it intentionally other then being a bonehead but people do play games and poke at people. Quoted: How about in cases where your girlfriends ex who is bigger, angry, trespassing on your property, and refuses to leave? Plenty of examples of situations like that ending up in murder-suicides. Absolutely maybe green shirt is a nutcase although I'd stand by my door with everyone in the house and tell him to leave. Maybe if he went crazy and started destroying my property or tried something besides standing there yelling. Great points guys We can debate without calling each other pussy or telling you to stay out muh state
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 2:29:42 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If you bothered to read the article you would have read that she stated that the shots were so quiet she thought it was a paint ball gun, she only realized he was shot after she walked over to him. Long barreled PCC's are very quiet. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Well Green shirts people didn't show any emotion either, so she must have been in on it as well. If you bothered to read the article you would have read that she stated that the shots were so quiet she thought it was a paint ball gun, she only realized he was shot after she walked over to him. Long barreled PCC's are very quiet. Maybe they deal with his BS all the time, and know he will end up losing control. Which does help with the whole intentional setup, but also justifies arming\defending themselves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 2:29:44 PM EDT
[#28]
Has this version been posted?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 2:31:55 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: BS, a large number of people are saying that simply arming himself on his own property is provocation. What is the difference between someone who is armed and someone who is not? The only difference is the presence of the gun. Calling someone who has the legal right to arm themselves a billy badass for doing so is the reach. You do get to act like billy badass when someone won't leave your property (previously posted you can use force). You do get to defend yourself if attacked in the process, and you might need a gun to do so. What in the actual fuck is the point of having the right to have a gun on your property if you aren't allowed to get it out when someone is making a disturbance on your property and refuses to leave? If you don't have this right, you don't have rights at all. And you're arguing to take that away. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. What in the actual fuck is the point of having the right to have a gun on your property if you aren't allowed to get it out when someone is making a disturbance on your property and refuses to leave? If you don't have this right, you don't have rights at all. And you're arguing to take that away. The law is pretty clear that the point is to prevent loss of property, life, or limb. The only thing black shirt was losing was face in front of his side piece. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 2:36:04 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Now you're just arguing semantics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 2:42:28 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Has this version been posted?
It's definitely a tough case. I would've handled things differently if i was dad or boyfriend in this scenario. If im banging a chick with kids i stay out of the situation and avoid the drama. If she was my GF I'd probably tell her to give the guy his kid but it looks like he was intimidated by dead guy. What did Mr. Wallace say about pride? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 2:43:58 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Green shirt did not have every right to be there. Any permission to be that property was null and void the instance black shirt told him to leave. At that point, green shirt is supposed to leave, do not pass go and do not collect two hundred dollars. Green shirt had ample opportunity to leave but instead showed his intention was not to leave. If someone has YOUR kid when a court dictated he/she is supposed to be in your care you’re damn right you don’t leave. It’s funny how you’re painting him out to be some random guy. He was a dad picking up his kid and yelling how they were withholding his child from him. He wasn’t some random who wandered up onto his property. I’m all for gun rights but I swear some people are just straight pussies and are frightened by the littlest shit and go running for their mommy(their gun). Black shirt had nothing to be afraid. That video shows 0 threat when he went to get a gun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 2:45:30 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If you think this I have no reply because I can't begin to understand how pointing a gun at someone is the same as not pointing a gun at someone, and it's a really big difference for legal purposes. He did not point the gun at him until after the dad made physical contact. He was squirming around in fact, apparently to keep it not pointed at him. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Now you're just arguing semantics. Quoted: Quoted: 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. I’m not the arguing that having a gun pointed at you is not having a gun pointed that you. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 2:49:20 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I really like this pic https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/9106/Screenshot_20211126-221832_Samsung_Inter-2182509.JPG ETA: For all the posters saying green shirt didn’t continue advancing. Here is a much better, UNCROPPED image. You can like that photo all you want, but the swiftness in which he dropped and his final body position hint at a different tale (as seen in the video from the truck). And, when you play the video from inside the house, the video doesn't show that he was advancing, and if anything to the contrary. He was backing up. That's why his body fell the way it did. The bullet didn't do that. The bullet can't do that. His body position was the result of what he was doing prior to being hit with a CNS shot. If he was advancing, he would have fallen forward. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 2:50:08 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The law is pretty clear that the point is to prevent loss of property, life, or limb. The only thing black shirt was losing was face in front of his side piece. You don't have to have already lost life or limb to prepare yourself to prevent it. No one can do anything but speculate as to his frame of mind leading up to shooting especially without the background on their history. Change the actor to anyone who you don't have this weird context of thinking he needed to get out his dick to prove superiority though. E.g. it's the grandmother and they're at the grandmother's house, he's acting like that, she orders him to leave, he replies "make me" or whatever we can't hear he said, she gets a gun. Is that okay? Of course it is. The same rules have to apply to everyone, even shitbags like the shooter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 2:50:15 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: BS, a large number of people are saying that simply arming himself on his own property is provocation. What is the difference between someone who is armed and someone who is not? The only difference is the presence of the gun. Calling someone who has the legal right to arm themselves a billy badass for doing so is the reach. You do get to act like billy badass when someone won't leave your property (previously posted you can use force). You do get to defend yourself if attacked in the process, and you might need a gun to do so. What in the actual fuck is the point of having the right to have a gun on your property if you aren't allowed to get it out when someone is making a disturbance on your property and refuses to leave? If you don't have this right, you don't have rights at all. And you're arguing to take that away. Again, this was a dad trying to pick up his kid. He had a right to be there. Take away peoples kids and see what happens. Every single parent would react the same way, especially if it’s happening repeatedly. Also, I’m sorry but if you were afraid of that man before the gun was retrieved you’re a GIANT fucking pussy. He had shown 0 reason to fetch a gun. Notice how it all escalated once a gun was retrieved. Maybe gun laws should change since so many pussies are so quick to retreat to shooting someone on here then. You have the vast majority of people saying bad shoot and then softies screaming “he was threatened!!! He had to kill him!!” Sorry, but you’re wimpy and instigate you don’t get to hide behind murdering someone because you got scared. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 2:52:52 PM EDT
[#37]
One guy dead, another going broke. The bitch sure fucked the dog on this one. Sucks all around. Poor kid.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 2:52:56 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm not the arguing that having a gun pointed at you is not having a gun pointed that you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 2:54:04 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I really like this pic https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/9106/Screenshot_20211126-221832_Samsung_Inter-2182509.JPG ETA: For all the posters saying green shirt didn’t continue advancing. Here is a much better, UNCROPPED image. That pic says Anne Marie as if she took the video. So black shirts ex wife was inside the house filming and his side piece is out front. WTF kind of trailer park love triangle shit is going on. I really can't wait for this trial so we can get the whole story |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 2:55:13 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm betting both green shirt and the ex-wife were both always doing something to piss each other off.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 2:57:24 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Again, this was a dad trying to pick up his kid. He had a right to be there. Take away peoples kids and see what happens. Every single parent would react the same way, especially if it's happening repeatedly. Also, I'm sorry but if you were afraid of that man before the gun was retrieved you're a GIANT fucking pussy. He had shown 0 reason to fetch a gun. Notice how it all escalated once a gun was retrieved. Maybe gun laws should change since so many pussies are so quick to retreat to shooting someone on here then. You have the vast majority of people saying bad shoot and then softies screaming "he was threatened!!! He had to kill him!!" Sorry, but you're wimpy and instigate you don't get to hide behind murdering someone because you got scared. (ETA - quote part in red) |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 2:58:24 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Has this version been posted?
Black shirt it looks like an execution. The fact everyone walked away so casual with phones out screams set up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 2:58:51 PM EDT
[#43]
GS to ex: Where's my son?
Ex:?? GS to BS: Shut you're fucking mouth and stay out of it. BS: Get off of my property. GS to BS: ?????? BS: OK GS following BS:That's right. GS to ex: Where's my son? Ex: I'm about to go get him. GS:I'll go get him, I'm supposed to have him at 3:15. Your playing games. ........ .. .. . |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 3:01:00 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If someone has YOUR kid when a court dictated he/she is supposed to be in your care you’re damn right you don’t leave. It’s funny how you’re painting him out to be some random guy. He was a dad picking up his kid and yelling how they were withholding his child from him. He wasn’t some random who wandered up onto his property. I’m all for gun rights but I swear some people are just straight pussies and are frightened by the littlest shit and go running for their mommy(their gun). Black shirt had nothing to be afraid. That video shows 0 threat when he went to get a gun. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Green shirt did not have every right to be there. Any permission to be that property was null and void the instance black shirt told him to leave. At that point, green shirt is supposed to leave, do not pass go and do not collect two hundred dollars. Green shirt had ample opportunity to leave but instead showed his intention was not to leave. If someone has YOUR kid when a court dictated he/she is supposed to be in your care you’re damn right you don’t leave. It’s funny how you’re painting him out to be some random guy. He was a dad picking up his kid and yelling how they were withholding his child from him. He wasn’t some random who wandered up onto his property. I’m all for gun rights but I swear some people are just straight pussies and are frightened by the littlest shit and go running for their mommy(their gun). Black shirt had nothing to be afraid. That video shows 0 threat when he went to get a gun. They’re both random dudes to me. Notice - “Green shirt” and “Black shirt”. I know their names, I’m just not going to use them because they are both random to me. As far as “right” to be on property, the only one who has that right to be there is/are the residents. Everyone else has permission to be their and that permission is subject to the property owner or resident. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 3:02:54 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm sorry that video alone I'd find the shooter guilty. Black shirt it looks like an execution. The fact everyone walked away so casual with phones out screams set up. That video makes it look rrrreeeeaaaallly bad for black shirt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 3:03:22 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Again, this was a dad trying to pick up his kid. He had a right to be there. Take away peoples kids and see what happens. Every single parent would react the same way, especially if it’s happening repeatedly. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: BS, a large number of people are saying that simply arming himself on his own property is provocation. What is the difference between someone who is armed and someone who is not? The only difference is the presence of the gun. Calling someone who has the legal right to arm themselves a billy badass for doing so is the reach. You do get to act like billy badass when someone won't leave your property (previously posted you can use force). You do get to defend yourself if attacked in the process, and you might need a gun to do so. What in the actual fuck is the point of having the right to have a gun on your property if you aren't allowed to get it out when someone is making a disturbance on your property and refuses to leave? If you don't have this right, you don't have rights at all. And you're arguing to take that away. Again, this was a dad trying to pick up his kid. He had a right to be there. Take away peoples kids and see what happens. Every single parent would react the same way, especially if it’s happening repeatedly. He had a right to his kid, but not a right to be there after he was told to leave. Also, I’m sorry but if you were afraid of that man before the gun was retrieved you’re a GIANT fucking pussy. He had shown 0 reason to fetch a gun. Notice how it all escalated once a gun was retrieved. Some folks think they are bad asses and think nothing about getting into arguments and fights. Texas is a mutual combat state, but just because one party wants to fight it doesn't obligate the other party to oblige them. No one is obligated to take a beating, and the dead guy was obviously bigger than the guy with the gun. Maybe gun laws should change since so many pussies are so quick to retreat to shooting someone on here then. You have the vast majority of people saying bad shoot and then softies screaming “he was threatened!!! He had to kill him!!” Sorry, but you’re wimpy and instigate you don’t get to hide behind murdering someone because you got scared. That is lefty talk, the feels and emotions are winning you over. In the grand scheme of things a life here and there doesn't matter, but our rights do. Better than 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned. In edge cases the benefit of the doubt should go to any accused. If any family members feel so strongly about this issue they should handle it themselves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 3:03:33 PM EDT
[#47]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 3:05:17 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Has this version been posted?
Even with the video from the truck, alone, a bio-mech could have demonstrated what happened outside of the field of view of the video. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 3:08:29 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Everyone else has permission to be their and that permission is subject to the property owner or resident. Unless there is a court order stating otherwise. Like maybe a warrant, or court ordered visitation agreement. Property owners rights don't trump the courts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2021 3:10:02 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He's stepping backwards, away from Carruth when he was shot. That's why he collapsed onto the porch. Even with the video from the truck, alone, a bio-mech could have demonstrated what happened outside of the field of view of the video. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Has this version been posted?
Even with the video from the truck, alone, a bio-mech could have demonstrated what happened outside of the field of view of the video. |
|
|
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.
Attached File