User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 5:14:24 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wasn't that after the guy in black committed a state felony and fired a warning shot? It is treated such that it is no different than shooting at someone. It isn't automatically a felony just because you don't hit them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 5:17:29 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In all honesty we don't know shit beyond the videos and some background info, especially none of that, but I'd expect lawyer connected folks know to STFU and wait for a lawyer. This needs to go to a grand jury, as cases like this usually do. They can no bill them or send it to trial if they feel its warranted. That’s all I’m saying. And Black shirt has a record of not making good decisions prior to shooting his side piece’s ex husband. I wouldn’t put much faith in him suddenly growing a brain. Texas AG has the case, so we’ll see what happens. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 5:19:37 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No doubt that it happens all the time. But just like dealing with bad cops, you deal with it after the fact, using lawyers. The fact is that if you're going to "have" firearms around or on your person for self defense, you really ought to think these things through ahead of time. Lines in the sand. What are my rules? As for myself, my rule is that I'm never going to put myself in the position of having shot an unarmed person. I know that I may be justified in doing so under certain circumstances. But I don't want to create case law. Likewise, I'm never going to introduce a firearm into a situation unless I intend to use it. That's going to keep me out of 99% of these situations. But that's just me. People like me don't stay in business because people think logically and prepare themselves mentally. Agreed....I think most people agree that there can be a difference between a legal shoot and a good shoot. I hope I never have to use a gun in self defense.....but if I do and their is video.....I hope it's a clear enough good shoot that there won't even be an argument in GD about it 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 5:20:28 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That’s all I’m saying. And Black shirt has a record of not making good decisions prior to shooting his side piece’s ex husband. I wouldn’t put much faith in him suddenly growing a brain. Texas AG has the case, so we’ll see what happens. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: In all honesty we don't know shit beyond the videos and some background info, especially none of that, but I'd expect lawyer connected folks know to STFU and wait for a lawyer. This needs to go to a grand jury, as cases like this usually do. They can no bill them or send it to trial if they feel its warranted. That’s all I’m saying. And Black shirt has a record of not making good decisions prior to shooting his side piece’s ex husband. I wouldn’t put much faith in him suddenly growing a brain. Texas AG has the case, so we’ll see what happens. Doesn't seem to have much, if any movement by the AGs office. IF black shirt said something stupid he might get hung out for it. Nobody wants to take a loser case to trial if his story is solid. Tragic dumb shits letting their emotions dictate their lives or lack thereof |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 5:20:59 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Agreed....I think most people agree that there can be a difference between a legal shoot and a good shoot. I hope I never have to use a gun in self defense.....but if I do and their is video.....I hope it's a clear enough good shoot that there won't even be an argument in GD about it Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: No doubt that it happens all the time. But just like dealing with bad cops, you deal with it after the fact, using lawyers. The fact is that if you're going to "have" firearms around or on your person for self defense, you really ought to think these things through ahead of time. Lines in the sand. What are my rules? As for myself, my rule is that I'm never going to put myself in the position of having shot an unarmed person. I know that I may be justified in doing so under certain circumstances. But I don't want to create case law. Likewise, I'm never going to introduce a firearm into a situation unless I intend to use it. That's going to keep me out of 99% of these situations. But that's just me. People like me don't stay in business because people think logically and prepare themselves mentally. Agreed....I think most people agree that there can be a difference between a legal shoot and a good shoot. I hope I never have to use a gun in self defense.....but if I do and their is video.....I hope it's a clear enough good shoot that there won't even be an argument in GD about it 100% chance half of GD calls you a murderer |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 6:16:42 PM EDT
[#6]
 Chad Read Shooting: Evidence Supports Manslaughter, Not Justification |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 6:22:00 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He threw Carruth off the porch. How are you getting "disengages the fight" from that? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Best video by far - the sided by side is helpful, but especially the frame by frame. He very clearly is taking a step forward just before the shots with his left foot going from stationary to raised. How many times do you have to let your attacker attack you before you can shoot them? That question has no bearing on legal/not legal shoot. It’s, “at the time of the shoot, was the shooter in reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm or death?” If someone disengages the fight, no matter how many times they attacked you, then you don’t get to shoot them simply because they attacked you at some time in the past. He threw Carruth off the porch. How are you getting "disengages the fight" from that? There was no fight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 6:24:02 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 100% chance half of GD calls you a murderer Probably true.....I'm pretty sure GD being in agreement on something is like the 9th sign of the end of the world
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 6:31:44 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There was no fight. There was an assault, in Texas. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 6:33:58 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There was an assault, in Texas. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: There was no fight. There was an assault, in Texas. Words have meaning outside GD |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 6:38:12 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Words have meaning outside GD The problem with this case, and I saw it at work discussing this yesterday, is the feelings it evokes because the child custody issue. Everyone in gd would not let a 2 time felon show up at their house and argue with a chick you happened to bang before and refuse to leave after being told the large 2 time felon was going to kill you with your own gun and then assault you. If you don't let emotion rule your decision making its pretty clear cut. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 7:09:43 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What are my rules? As for myself, my rule is that I'm never going to put myself in the position of having shot an unarmed person. Like Kyle Rittenhouse, and unlike William "Kyle", I'm running away from unarmed attackers outside my home or car. If I'm in my home or car and they come in after me, that's different. One thing I'd never, ever do, is challenge the unarmed guy to a guns vs fists fight. I'm Mr Meek, until Meek doesn't work and I have to kill you. What I saw here, after Billy got his gun: A couple of roosters strutting and bumping each other, daring the other guy to take the first swing. Then the little birdbrain takes a step back and shoots at/near the big birdbrain. Big birdbrain tosses little birdbrain across the yard, and stands posing on the porch like "I'm King of the Mountain". Little birdbrain double taps big birdbrain. The whole damn encounter is for the birds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 7:12:14 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There was an assault, in Texas. When they were bumping boobies, it sure looked like mutual agreement to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 7:12:35 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Like Kyle Rittenhouse, and unlike William "Kyle", I'm running away from unarmed attackers outside my home or car. If I'm in my home or car and they come in after me, that's different. One thing I'd never, ever do, is challenge the unarmed guy to a guns vs fists fight. I'm Mr Meek, until Meek doesn't work and I have to kill you. What I saw here, after Billy got his gun: A couple of roosters strutting and bumping each other, daring the other guy to take the first swing. Then the little birdbrain takes a step back and shoots at/near the big birdbrain. Big birdbrain tosses little birdbrain across the yard, and stands posing on the porch like "I'm King of the Mountain". Little birdbrain double taps big birdbrain. The whole damn encounter is for the birds. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: What are my rules? As for myself, my rule is that I'm never going to put myself in the position of having shot an unarmed person. Like Kyle Rittenhouse, and unlike William "Kyle", I'm running away from unarmed attackers outside my home or car. If I'm in my home or car and they come in after me, that's different. One thing I'd never, ever do, is challenge the unarmed guy to a guns vs fists fight. I'm Mr Meek, until Meek doesn't work and I have to kill you. What I saw here, after Billy got his gun: A couple of roosters strutting and bumping each other, daring the other guy to take the first swing. Then the little birdbrain takes a step back and shoots at/near the big birdbrain. Big birdbrain tosses little birdbrain across the yard, and stands posing on the porch like "I'm King of the Mountain". Little birdbrain double taps big birdbrain. The whole damn encounter is for the birds. It certainly seemed like a they were trying to figure out whose cock was bigger. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 7:16:54 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It certainly seemed like a they were trying to figure out whose cock was bigger. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: What are my rules? As for myself, my rule is that I'm never going to put myself in the position of having shot an unarmed person. Like Kyle Rittenhouse, and unlike William "Kyle", I'm running away from unarmed attackers outside my home or car. If I'm in my home or car and they come in after me, that's different. One thing I'd never, ever do, is challenge the unarmed guy to a guns vs fists fight. I'm Mr Meek, until Meek doesn't work and I have to kill you. What I saw here, after Billy got his gun: A couple of roosters strutting and bumping each other, daring the other guy to take the first swing. Then the little birdbrain takes a step back and shoots at/near the big birdbrain. Big birdbrain tosses little birdbrain across the yard, and stands posing on the porch like "I'm King of the Mountain". Little birdbrain double taps big birdbrain. The whole damn encounter is for the birds. It certainly seemed like a they were trying to figure out whose cock was bigger. Sexual assault considering black shirt was telling him to leave Then get dry humped |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 7:22:13 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: When they were bumping boobies, it sure looked like mutual agreement to me. You should watch the video that was just posted again with the legal analysis from Branca. Green shirt was the aggressor and provoked black shirt. It's literally like five posts above yours. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 10:44:28 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The case will still potentially go to a grand jury in Lubbock, and if goes to trial it will be in Lubbock, TX 0.0% chance of conviction IMHO. Now ya'll can jump in and tell me why my opinion is wrong and ya'lls are right I doubt it will happen in Lubbock. With Black Shirt's wife being a judge, and the state taking everything over; look for a significant change in venue. Locals are all out of this. States investigation, state prosecutor (think Austin), Grand Jury (Austin !!!!!, that would be bad for Black Shirt) |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 10:49:01 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's literally maybe the worst example possible to use. Luckily ya'lls opinions matter as much as mine. Citizens in Lubbock Texas will decide this, and yes I know them better than anyone posting in this thread. You keep saying this without thinking through the fact that the State AG has this whole case now. Lubbock no longer matters here. No Lubbock PD, No Lubbock Prosecutor, likely no Lubbock GJ. The decisions will be made In Austin for reasons that make sense in Austin. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 10:52:09 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No. It simply makes it not trespassing. But you edge lords are going to keep spamming the same nonsense over and over again as if saying it enough times, makes it true. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Your court order that specifies your ex-wife must share custody of your children has zero effect on your ability to remain on my property, If your shack job is the ex-wife, and she is present at or after the time the children are supposed to be handed over, that's grounds to be there - like it or not. You can't have a co-resident make an appointment and then shoot them when they show up for "TRESPASSIN!!!" You really believe that gives you trespassing rights, rather than you waiting on the sidewalk, or in your car on the street?  That's a lot of herp and derp right there. . . No. It simply makes it not trespassing. But you edge lords are going to keep spamming the same nonsense over and over again as if saying it enough times, makes it true. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 10:52:40 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There was no fight. Words are literally rape. Would you really stand there and let someone rape you on your front porch?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 10:53:57 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So what's the limit of the the court order? Can be enter the house without permission? If starts searching each room flipping over furniture, can be be told to leave? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Your court order that specifies your ex-wife must share custody of your children has zero effect on your ability to remain on my property, If your shack job is the ex-wife, and she is present at or after the time the children are supposed to be handed over, that's grounds to be there - like it or not. You can't have a co-resident make an appointment and then shoot them when they show up for "TRESPASSIN!!!" You really believe that gives you trespassing rights, rather than you waiting on the sidewalk, or in your car on the street? That's a lot of herp and derp right there. . . No. It simply makes it not trespassing. But you edge lords are going to keep spamming the same nonsense over and over again as if saying it enough times, makes it true. That would be a pretty wild court order. But I have no clue. I haven't seen the court order. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 10:54:56 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Words are literally rape. Would you really stand there and let someone rape you on your front porch?? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: There was no fight. Words are literally rape. Would you really stand there and let someone rape you on your front porch?? This made me laugh more than it should have. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 10:56:56 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Words are literally rape. Would you really stand there and let someone rape you on your front porch?? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: There was no fight. Words are literally rape. Would you really stand there and let someone rape you on your front porch?? lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 11:05:02 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Agreed....I think most people agree that there can be a difference between a legal shoot and a good shoot. I hope I never have to use a gun in self defense.....but if I do and their is video.....I hope it's a clear enough good shoot that there won't even be an argument in GD about it I think this sums it up for me. At first I thought it was clear cut murder, but after reading everyone's thoughts, I can see how the guy might walk as well. Ill be interested to see it play out in front of a grand jury or a jury at trial |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 11:17:32 PM EDT
[#25]
I’d be curious to know the make up of people who are one other side of the discussion as to their experience in deadly force confrontations or gunfights.
The shooter was never in jeopardy in my opinion….which is based of actual experience. I believe manslaughter at a minimum is appropriate if not second degree murder. Being stupid is not justification for killing someone. If it were the USA would have a population of right around 900k……China would have thousands of residents and the Middle East would be a barren wasteland. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 11:29:24 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes it is: Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another: (1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. Sec. 29.02. ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if, in the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he: (1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or (2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death. (b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. Sec. 29.03. AGGRAVATED ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if he commits robbery as defined in Section 29.02, and he: (1) causes serious bodily injury to another; (2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon; or (3) causes bodily injury to another person or threatens or places another person in fear of imminent bodily injury or death, if the other person is: (A) 65 years of age or older; or (B) a disabled person. (b) An offense under this section is a felony of the first degree. (c) In this section, "disabled person" means an individual with a mental, physical, or developmental disability who is substantially unable to protect himself from harm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 11:30:28 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I’d be curious to know the make up of people who are one other side of the discussion as to their experience in deadly force confrontations or gunfights. The shooter was never in jeopardy in my opinion….which is based of actual experience. I believe manslaughter at a minimum is appropriate if not second degree murder. Being stupid is not justification for killing someone. If it were the USA would have a population of right around 900k……China would have thousands of residents and the Middle East would be a barren wasteland. Apparently they're made up of a bunch of gymnasts (but not the physical kind.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 11:35:03 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think this sums it up for me. At first I thought it was clear cut murder, but after reading everyone's thoughts, I can see how the guy might walk as well. Ill be interested to see it play out in front of a grand jury or a jury at trial Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Agreed....I think most people agree that there can be a difference between a legal shoot and a good shoot. I hope I never have to use a gun in self defense.....but if I do and their is video.....I hope it's a clear enough good shoot that there won't even be an argument in GD about it I think this sums it up for me. At first I thought it was clear cut murder, but after reading everyone's thoughts, I can see how the guy might walk as well. Ill be interested to see it play out in front of a grand jury or a jury at trial It has never looked like, nor will it ever be a good shoot. It is a bad shoot. It very well could be a legal shoot. At this point, I can see it going either way. If legal, it is still a bad shoot that was completely preventable. Black shirt is the only reason this became a shooting at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 11:45:42 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Too many folks are making this about "get off my property" and other such nuances. While the nuances will matter, the simple question is whether or not a reasonable person would believe their life was in danger or that grave bodily harm was imminent. That's what a jury would be asked to decide. The guy got a gun over a custody issue with someone he knew well. This isn't a stranger or something like that; it was a dude and his ex wife having a pissing match about custody. No threats before the gun came out. No nothing other than loud voices before shooter went and got the gun. All of this will be used at a trial. Words don't necessarily mean anything. They can be used to show a reasonable fear of death, but they aren't determinative. That he was told to leave and didn't is irrelevant in considering the reasonableness of the shooters fear. Does anyone sincerely believe green shirt was going to kill black shirt? I sure don't. If black shirt didn't fire when he did, green shirt was gonna stand there shouting until the cops arrived. If black shirt never got the gun, green shirt might still be mad on the porch for all I know. That's what I really believe, so I don't think black shirt was in reasonable fear. He was way too quick on the trigger imo. What's interesting is how split the forum is on this. The Rittenhouse case wasn't nearly this contentious. If charges are filed, I think the best the shooter can hope for is a hung jury. Most likely is some form of compromised conviction on a lesser included imo. Guy is gonna eat a felony if I had to bet. Good breakdown. I agree that the split over this case is nuts. It isn't just here. 87% of the internet is split over this case |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 11:54:03 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If your shack job is the ex-wife, and she is present at or after the time the children are supposed to be handed over, that's grounds to be there - like it or not. You can't have a co-resident make an appointment and then shoot them when they show up for "TRESPASSIN!!!" Your right; but that is not what happened. Green shirt guy was shot for going hands on after he was lawfully told to leave the property. By not leaving and attacking Black shirt guy, Black shirt guy has the right to defend himself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2021 11:54:28 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The evidence is that they are all standing outside talking to him. Please stop asking stupid questions. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:If you go and get a gun while I'm talking to my ex-wife, then fire that gun at me, I'm grabbing it as soon as I can reach it... as would anyone else in that situation. Little dude is going to jail for his actions that day. Smart people quit trespassing when they're told to. The property owner/legal resident can legally remove you from the property, it's on you if you advance on him while he's armed. He was having a conversation with his ex-wife that resides there. Little shooter doesn't own the property, his parents do. One roommate can't trespass a roommates guest just because they feel like it. Do you have evidence of this, you know, that the ex wife invited Read onto the property? Or do you just like making stuff up? The evidence is that they are all standing outside talking to him. Please stop asking stupid questions. So, no evidence. Just as we all knew. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2021 12:02:48 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There was no fight. There is under Texas law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2021 12:12:11 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: [Edited] It appears that green shirt was trying to take black shirts gun (thus black shirts preventing of imminent commission of (possibly Aggravated) Robbery from green shirt ..). Per Texas' definition of Robbery and Aggravated Robbery, thus allowing Deadly Force: Sec. 29.02. ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if, in the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he: (1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or (2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death. (b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. Sec. 29.03. AGGRAVATED ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if he commits robbery as defined in Section 29.02, and he: (1) causes serious bodily injury to another; (2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon; or (3) causes bodily injury to another person or threatens or places another person in fear of imminent bodily injury or death, if the other person is: (A) 65 years of age or older; or (B) a disabled person. (b) An offense under this section is a felony of the first degree. (c) In this section, "disabled person" means an individual with a mental, physical, or developmental disability who is substantially unable to protect himself from harm. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Yes it is: Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another: (1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. Sec. 29.02. ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if, in the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he: (1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or (2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death. (b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. Sec. 29.03. AGGRAVATED ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if he commits robbery as defined in Section 29.02, and he: (1) causes serious bodily injury to another; (2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon; or (3) causes bodily injury to another person or threatens or places another person in fear of imminent bodily injury or death, if the other person is: (A) 65 years of age or older; or (B) a disabled person. (b) An offense under this section is a felony of the first degree. (c) In this section, "disabled person" means an individual with a mental, physical, or developmental disability who is substantially unable to protect himself from harm. Robbery is theft with the addition of the conditions mentioned above. Sec. 31.03. THEFT. (a) A person commits an offense if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property. (b) Appropriation of property is unlawful if: (1) it is without the owner's effective consent; (2) the property is stolen and the actor appropriates the property knowing it was stolen by another; or (3) property in the custody of any law enforcement agency was explicitly represented by any law enforcement agent to the actor as being stolen and the actor appropriates the property believing it was stolen by another. The definition of deprive is: (2) "Deprive" means: (A) to withhold property from the owner permanently or for so extended a period of time that a major portion of the value or enjoyment of the property is lost to the owner; (B) to restore property only upon payment of reward or other compensation; or (C) to dispose of property in a manner that makes recovery of the property by the owner unlikely. I don’t think Green shirt’s attempt to take Black shirt’s rifle meets the theft statute, which means it doesn’t meet the robbery statute. I don’t think his expressed intent was to deprive Black shirt of the rifle in the legal sense defined above. I’m not a lawyer though, so who knows? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2021 12:18:11 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You keep saying this without thinking through the fact that the State AG has this whole case now. Lubbock no longer matters here. No Lubbock PD, No Lubbock Prosecutor, likely no Lubbock GJ. The decisions will be made In Austin for reasons that make sense in Austin. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That's literally maybe the worst example possible to use. Luckily ya'lls opinions matter as much as mine. Citizens in Lubbock Texas will decide this, and yes I know them better than anyone posting in this thread. You keep saying this without thinking through the fact that the State AG has this whole case now. Lubbock no longer matters here. No Lubbock PD, No Lubbock Prosecutor, likely no Lubbock GJ. The decisions will be made In Austin for reasons that make sense in Austin. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2021 12:28:30 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I doubt it will happen in Lubbock. With Black Shirt's wife being a judge, and the state taking everything over; look for a significant change in venue. Locals are all out of this. States investigation, state prosecutor (think Austin), Grand Jury (Austin !!!!!, that would be bad for Black Shirt) Black shirt ex wife is a judge (most ex wife’s don’t help you out when you are the one who dumped them). All that the state does is bring in another judge from a different county to preside over the case. It isn’t a big deal. It would be Black shirt’s motion to move the case to a different county. Lubbock PD will be involved if there is a trial because they were the original investigator and report writers. Anything the state investigators do isn’t original source material. They will just validate the existing reports to insure accuracy and if there is sufficient evidence to bring it in front of a grand jury. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2021 1:14:56 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Robbery is theft with the addition of the conditions mentioned above. Sec. 31.03. THEFT. (a) A person commits an offense if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property. (b) Appropriation of property is unlawful if: (1) it is without the owner's effective consent; (2) the property is stolen and the actor appropriates the property knowing it was stolen by another; or (3) property in the custody of any law enforcement agency was explicitly represented by any law enforcement agent to the actor as being stolen and the actor appropriates the property believing it was stolen by another. The definition of deprive is: (2) "Deprive" means: (A) to withhold property from the owner permanently or for so extended a period of time that a major portion of the value or enjoyment of the property is lost to the owner; (B) to restore property only upon payment of reward or other compensation; or (C) to dispose of property in a manner that makes recovery of the property by the owner unlikely. I don't think Green shirt's attempt to take Black shirt's rifle meets the theft statute, which means it doesn't meet the robbery statute. I don't think his expressed intent was to deprive Black shirt of the rifle in the legal sense defined above. I'm not a lawyer though, so who knows? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2021 1:22:30 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was not a felony. He was justified to shoot green shirt at that point. It is treated such that it is no different than shooting at someone. It isn't automatically a felony just because you don't hit them. I googled warning shots in Texas and I found many lawyers saying they are illegal, and that was definitely a warning shot. You either need to use deadly force or you don’t. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2021 1:35:16 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I googled warning shots in Texas and I found many lawyers saying they are illegal, and that was definitely a warning shot. You either need to use deadly force or you don’t. Shooting at someone and missing hitting them is deadly force also. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2021 1:40:47 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Shooting at someone and missing hitting them is deadly force also. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I googled warning shots in Texas and I found many lawyers saying they are illegal, and that was definitely a warning shot. You either need to use deadly force or you don’t. Shooting at someone and missing hitting them is deadly force also. That was a warning shot. I am not sure why so many posters are changing the event to defend the guy in the black shirt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2021 1:46:50 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I googled warning shots in Texas and I found many lawyers saying they are illegal, and that was definitely a warning shot. You either need to use deadly force or you don’t. Warning shots are illegal if you don’t have cause for the use of deadly force. In this case Black shirt guy has just cause for deadly force so it was a shot that didn’t hit Green shirt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2021 1:54:27 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 31.03 (a) + (b) + (1) = Theft. Green shirt stated that he intended to "deprive" if he took it. It has been about 15 years, but my TX CHL course made a big deal of taking from your premises vs. taking from your possession (the latter allowed for lethal force). Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Robbery is theft with the addition of the conditions mentioned above. Sec. 31.03. THEFT. (a) A person commits an offense if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property. (b) Appropriation of property is unlawful if: (1) it is without the owner's effective consent; (2) the property is stolen and the actor appropriates the property knowing it was stolen by another; or (3) property in the custody of any law enforcement agency was explicitly represented by any law enforcement agent to the actor as being stolen and the actor appropriates the property believing it was stolen by another. The definition of deprive is: (2) "Deprive" means: (A) to withhold property from the owner permanently or for so extended a period of time that a major portion of the value or enjoyment of the property is lost to the owner; (B) to restore property only upon payment of reward or other compensation; or (C) to dispose of property in a manner that makes recovery of the property by the owner unlikely. I don't think Green shirt's attempt to take Black shirt's rifle meets the theft statute, which means it doesn't meet the robbery statute. I don't think his expressed intent was to deprive Black shirt of the rifle in the legal sense defined above. I'm not a lawyer though, so who knows? Like I said. I’m not a lawyer, so I have no idea. Is it enough that Green shirt says he’s going to take it if Black shirt doesn’t use it? Seems like green shirt isn’t demanding the firearm, but rather telling Black shirt he’s going to assault him with his own firearm. Seems like he doesn’t actually make an attempt to take it until after the warning shot. I’d say it’s a gray area. ETA: I would think most strong arm robbery attempts don’t include a bunch of mean mugging and chest bumping. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2021 2:00:49 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I googled warning shots in Texas and I found many lawyers saying they are illegal, and that was definitely a warning shot. You either need to use deadly force or you don't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2021 2:03:21 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Like I said. I'm not a lawyer, so I have no idea. Is it enough that Green shirt says he's going to take it if Black shirt doesn't use it? Seems like green shirt isn't demanding the firearm, but rather telling Black shirt he's going to assault him with his own firearm. Seems like he doesn't actually make an attempt to take it until after the warning shot. I'd say it's a gray area. ETA: I would think most strong arm robbery attempts don't include a bunch of mean mugging and chest bumping. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2021 6:53:03 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryThis pretty much sums up what's seen in the 2 available videos, but the non-lawyer gymnasts will continue with their gymnastics. It's the sport they've spent their whole lives training in after all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2021 1:17:52 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That was a warning shot. I am not sure why so many posters are changing the event to defend the guy in the black shirt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2021 2:24:56 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The warning shot counts as deadly force - it is illegal if deadly force was not justified. Nobody is changing the event. Every LTC class says otherwise. Hell even Law Shield covers warning shots under their three myths of self defense in TX and says they are a no go. Now I have no idea how this case will go but warning shots are not a thing you should do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2021 2:25:13 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Words are literally rape. Would you really stand there and let someone rape you on your front porch?? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: There was no fight. Words are literally rape. Would you really stand there and let someone rape you on your front porch?? I'll repost the summary here for those too lazy to watch the video, and so the end of the thread isn't just full of this gibberish that means nothing & sliding. If you ask the wrong questions, you get the wrong answers. Quoted:So Cliff notes on Branca: Has to be an imminent threat at the moment, not seconds before. Too far away and from the video he can't see any movement forward. Basically nothing else we talked about matters much barring an imminent threat. Discusses Tueller drill, not applicable because gun is already up, would scale to 2.75' However, prior actions are context and not in his green's favor (opposite to what so many here were arguing). If he even slightly shifted weight toward black shirt it is justified because of his chest bumping and grabbing the gun and threats. May be other evidence introduced that he did, but he doesn't see it just going on the video (I do think I see it). And here's a big one - if he had shot him at the time of the warning shot it would be justified because of the threat and the grab. At that moment green was an unlawful imminent deadly threat. Murder unless the conduct of green amounts to provocation of black, if so could be just voluntary manslaughter. Not justifiable as protection of highly defensible property because black is out in the yard and green doesn't appear to try to enter the house. Is within the curtilage though. Castle doctrine applies, but only means no duty to retreat - he already had no duty to retreat anyways. Protection of mere personal property does not apply either. Not arson, robbery, or at night. Discusses the previous context at the very end - relevant to whether it is murder or voluntary homicide. Green did adequately provoke black for a reasonable jury to accept voluntary manslaughter not murder. Black provoking green is NOT mentioned as an issue. Black leaving and coming back with the gun is not mentioned anywhere as working against him in the context prior to the shooting. Not mentioned as legal provocation or otherwise relevant at all, not mentioned as being illegal to do, or a bad idea. No mention of him brandishing, pointing, warning shot (other than saying he could have shot him right then and been justified) or doing anything wrong with the gun other than killing him at the end. Reiterates it is just based on the videos and regardless of all that he said, it doesn't mean they will or have to prosecute - totally their decision whether charges are brought. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2021 2:37:49 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Black shirt was provoked by green shirt, plain and simple, and this is directly covered by Branca. You folks that couldn't bother to read the thread are really amusing for calling other people out as gymnasts. I'll repost the summary here for those too lazy to watch the video, and so the end of the thread isn't just full of this gibberish that means nothing & sliding. If you ask the wrong questions, you get the wrong answers. WTF is a Branca? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2021 2:41:48 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Words are literally rape. Would you really stand there and let someone rape you on your front porch?? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: There was no fight. Words are literally rape. Would you really stand there and let someone rape you on your front porch?? Thanks for lulz |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2021 2:42:22 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: WTF is a Branca? A self defense attorney that reviewed the two videos and gave an assessment of the situation from those. |
|
|
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.
