Yes.  That's definitely whats happening.  

Internet commandos are here to tell you why you're wrong

From  guy on my ignore list, from NC.

It was sarcasm, I asked the same thing quote a few pages back and was told ccw instructors say not to do it so it's illegal.

LTC instructors are the keeper of all laws.

Missed shot, negligent discharge, or warning shot

I did a video on this a couple days ago where it was suggested that it could have been a ND. After slowing it down, it definitely appeared to me to be a warning shot. Which ironically didn't go as intended, probably because it was a suppressed 9mm that sounded like a pellet gun. My law office defense gun OTOH is a 12 inch unsuppressed .556, in which case a warning shot might stop the earth's rotation for a split second.....

I tried a case once w/ two warning shots and got an acquittal. Just depends on state law. I would never do it except where deadly force is justified. It's generally a really bad idea IMO, but who knows since there are endless hypothetical scenarios which could occur.

Its either justified or murder in TC

(lady cop in dallas got 10 years for shooting her upstairs neighbor while he at ice cream in his own apt - guilty for murder)

But going in the house and getting one and returning with it does signal intent. If it was in his hands the whole time since before the argument started it would be less damning.

No he wasn’t attacked.  He was confronted.  He was yelled at. He wasn’t attacked.

In Texas, you’re either justified to use deadly force, or you’re not justified to use deadly force.  Warning shots are a bad idea because it gives the appearance that your use of deadly force is not justified.  It’s not justified because it doesn’t meet the, “reasonable belief the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the imminent use of unlawful deadly force by another,” standard.

If you have time for a warning shot, then the threat isn’t imminent.  If you believe a warning shot is ok, then you don’t believe you’re at risk from another.  That’s the logic.  It’s not that warning shots are illegal.  It’s that they’re stupid because they open you up to all sorts of negative arguments.  Also if you don’t actually end up killing the guy, then you may get charged for something like assault with a deadly weapon or  deadly conduct.

That doesn't show intent either.  He got the gun after repeatedly telling Read to leave.  He also didn't walk out and shoot him.  

Shoulda shot him when read rushed towards him

Looked like an attack to me

Thanks for opinion once again

Looked like he tried to headbutt the shooter.  The video I saw was from someone inside the house.  It didn't look like it made contact but he did attack the guy.

Hell, those same comments are right here in this thread.

It’s the same opinion given by multiple attorney commentaries linked in the thread and an attorney in the thread a few posts above mine.

Reddit also believes the guy is a murderer...... I usually 100% of the time do not agree with redditors.  Arf had certainly changed is appears.

Could also show that he didn't want to use deadly force at all and was trying to do everything possible to end the situation without blood shed until it was completely forced on him to have to use deadly force.

Shooting at someone is deadly force.  It doesn’t matter if you don’t mean to hit the person.  The law doesn’t differentiate.  It’s either justified, or it’s not.  There isn’t a, “I was shooting at him to scare him,” clause in the justified use of deadly force statute.

ETA: Black shirt should have shot Green shirt the second Green shirt charged a drawn firearm.  It would have been tactically and legally safer.

But from the jury point of view.  Also, we just had a thread of the AZ cop shooting the wheel chair fleeing felon and when in there guys were saying stupid shit to do instead of using justified deadly force.

Texas law considers brandishing a firearm to be use of force, but not use of deadly force. Kyle is justified in using force to stop Chad's trespassing.

It's completely legal to grab a firearm in Texas and tell people to get off your property. You can't point it at them or shoot them just for trespassing, but retrieving a firearm and making its presence known is completely legal in this scenario.

In TX, physical contact is legally assualt if the person doing the touching knows the other person doesn't want to be touched.

If you've just been told to leave the property, you know the other person doesn't want to be touched. Therefore Chad legally commits assault in TX by walking up and making physical contact.

Agree, there’s the statute, and then there is what the jury will actually do.

https://www.uslawshield.com/warning-shots-texas/

The people posting "Texas is weird" over and over were really aggravating me.  I'm so glad I haven't read that stupid line in so many pages.

I think some people would rather people go inside and cower in their own home to save the life of some random felon.

That's absolutely the best thing to do though.

The problem with your statement is that the dead guy WAS NOT SOME RANDOM FELON, he was the exhusband of the shooters girlfriend who was legally there to pick up his child for his court assigned visitation, to many people it appears that they BAITED him into a position where "Using Texas Law to their advantage" So they could legally kill him. Remember the girlfriend was married to him for a while & surely knew exactly what buttons to push on him to get his blood boiling!
I guess we'll see how this works out!

To the homeowner it was some random felon that used to be married to a chick he is banging.

Gd was saying the exact opposite with the mccloskys(?)  I think when an armed mob showed up and was saying good baseball bat swing when the owner of the cookie shop tried to throw out the mask less trespassers but when it comes to an ex and child custody gd says the father has every right to trespass and is in the right because kids are involved etc....  which is it?

Rekieta parsed the statute and said a porch was part of the residence, not curtilage.
Other attorneys on the panel were skeptical about it really helping William"Kyle" in court.

But do we know if he had any real authority over the property?

Things I think I know about the property:

1. His parents own it.

2. It is a place of business.

3. Slutmama is considered his coworker, not his employee.

If he's not the business owner or manager, and if he doesn't live on the premises (it looks like maybe his guns are there, does he live there?), is "get off my property" any more meaningful coming from his mouth than from the greeter at WalMart?

What was the reasoning?  I’m honestly curious.  So if I put concrete over my entire lot,  and it’s attached to my slab, then my entire lot is inside my habitation?  It would all be my porch.  It’s attached to the habitation.  I just don’t seeing that holding up.  Andrew Branca seemed to think it was a gray area if the shooting even happened on highly defensible property, ie Black shirt’s home.

Conversely, it appears that some folks tend to believe that they're justified in doing anything they want because it's their property.

We've had threads where folks were talking about shooting trespassers because, "Muh property..." despite the fact that the law (including TX law prohibits using lethal force simply for stopping trespassing).

IANAL and I'm not completely familiar with TX law (though I make it a point to ensure I'm familiar with my local laws, especially wrt what's legal or not in use of force/deadly force), so I defer to people who actually ARE lawyers. It appears that the folks who are emotionally invested in their position, continually prefer to ignore the links and assessments from actual lawyers though.

I'm with Andrew Branca in that if black shirt had shot green shirt instead of the porch at that instant, he probably would've been fine, but unless there's some new footage or the defense manages to convince a jury that green shirt had made some move towards black shirt at the moment the fatal shots were fired, the distance/separation between the two that's clearly displayed in the video from inside the house will likely get black shirt convicted.

At that point, it no longer looks like defense against the imminent possibility of death or grievous harm, but an angry execution over being disrespected. As Andrew Branca detailed, what came before (green shirt slinging him off the porch) isn't directly applicable to whether the use of deadly force was legal at the instant the fatal shots were fired (anymore than that fast food guy was justified when some thugs beat him up in the store, and he then grabbed his handgun, went outside and shot one of them).

Deadly force in self defense is generally only legally applicable when used to stop an imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm. Black shirt's defense will have to convince a jury that despite that distance/separation clearly visible in the inaide view video at the moment the fatal shots were fired, that black shirt reasonably believed that he needed to use deadly force to stop an imminent (not just possible, but IMMINENT) danger of death or grievous harm by green shirt

I guess I'll see if I can go 3 for 3 in guesses for recent high profile cases.

Kyle Rittenhouse: justifiable self defense/not guilty = 1 for 1 (actually surprised by the levelheaded jury here)
Ahmaud Arbery shooters: guilty = 2 for 2
Black shirt: I'm predicting he's going to get a guilty verdict

Kyle Rittenhouse - not guilty
Ahmaud Arbery - didn't follow it closely but thought it would be guilty.
Kyle/black shirt - I'm going with not guilty, possibly hung jury. If his lawyers any good he won't be convicted.

And now Carruth is getting preferential treatment because he is white.

Remember when he actually shot him. It wasn’t when they bumped together. It was after the dead guy forcibly separated them. (After the first shot) At that time the dead man was not a threat to the shooter.

It is very easy to make the point that the shooter went inside and got the gun with the intention of killing someone and then shot him at a time where he was not in danger.

A case could be made for self defense at the time they were bumping bellies but I would not buy it if I was on a jury.

"To the homeowner it was some random felon that used to be married to a chick he is banging."

No it was not.. If you ACTUALLY believe that you are fucking SIMPLE... It WAS murder... Not sure if it was a setup but sure could have been.... With that being said.. It may have been LEGAL murder in Texas... The dude was there to pickup his child.. Had they delivered that child NONE of that would have occurred. I hope black shirt goes to PRISON... I will say however, if someone goes into the house and retrieves a firearm, then tells me to leave I would leave ASAP!, IN ANY STATE!

There are a lot of people twisting the story.  

Yet another reason that ventilating your side piece’s ex husband over not respecting your authoritah is a bad idea.  I’ll bet the city leadership and law enforcement is going to love the media attention Black shirt’s drama is pulling.

I figured out from a 2 minute video who all 3 parties are, their relationship to each other and why green shirt was at the house....if black shirt doesn't know all of that then he should probably be fitted for helmet and kept away from sharp objects.

Absolutely Ridiculous statement, dead guy was well known by homeowner (shooter),
the homeowner  (Shooter) was having a long affair with dead guys exwife, dead guy told whore that he was sending proof of affair to Homeowners (shooter) current wife who just happens to be a Judge, guy ends up dead! Just a coincidence?

12 / 12 Jurors find your logic....lacking.

I don't remember the wording of the code, but as Nick read it out loud, he claimed it included an attached porch as part of the dwelling, and theorized that on the porch was technically the same as in the living room.

As for the shooting, I'm with Branca on the idea that timing matters, but not necessarily in agreement on when it would be good shoot.

For me: good shoot right after the gun came out, Chad got mad, and approached "Kyle". That's pretty much the only time I'd call good shoot. And IIRC not one of the moments Branca liked. Negated when "Kyle" chose to stand his ground and lean back into Chad instead of firing. Now we have two aggressors instead of just one, and "Kyle" needs to regain unwilling participant status. Feeling Chad move the gun might come close, and maybe it excuses taking a step back and firing one shot. OK, I'll give him the moment he fired that shot, and I think Branca gave it to him too. Chad didn't actually grab the gun, but "Kyle" could have legitimately believed he did.

Now, the grab and throw, I think that depends on whether the first shot was self defense or assault. Moot point anyway, "Kyle" had zero ability to bring the gun to bear on Chad at that moment.

Moment of actual double-tap killing: I'm with Branca, too much force exerted too late. The imminent threat has passed, with no indication of a new one forming.

Oops, motive.

ETA: Not saying it’s a conspiracy.  Forgot to add a .

What is the legal difference, if any, between having a gun on one's person, and leaving an argument to go fetch a gun which you later use to shoot near, and then later kill, a party to the argument?  Kinda different - isn't it?

On the shooting, I’m pretty much at the same spot.  With respect to the statute:

Sec. 30.01.  DEFINITIONS.  In this chapter:

(1)  "Habitation" means a structure or vehicle that is adapted for the overnight accommodation of persons, and includes:
(A)  each separately secured or occupied portion of the structure or vehicle;  and
(B)  each structure appurtenant to or connected with the structure or vehicle.
(2)  "Building" means any enclosed structure intended for use or occupation as a habitation or for some purpose of trade, manufacture, ornament, or use.

I know people are leaning on (1) (B) to call the porch part of the habitation.  To me, (2) seems to indicate that enclosed structures are what was intended.  IANAL though, so my opinion doesn’t matter any more than any other layman’s.

Stepping back from the whole thing, Black shirt should have gone in the house and called the cops on his side piece’s ex-husband.  The juice isn’t worth the squeeze to get wrapped up in someone else’s child custody drama.

Nevermind. I forgot to not wrestle with pigs…

Don’t be ridiculous.  Black shirt isn’t a hero for shooting Green shirt even if he is possibly legally justified.  He’s an absolute reckless moron for pulling a gun in an attempt to end an argument that didn’t involve him between his side piece and her ex over child custody.  Green shirt is also an absolute reckless moron for not walking back to his truck and calling the cops when Black shirt pulled a gun on him.  These people are all selfish trash that couldn’t get past their own egos and desires to do what is best, namely work things out in a civil manner.

I agree with you, but that doesn't mean the shoot was bad and I'm not crying over spilled 2x California felons.  Especially when the shooter had nothing to do with the problem at hand (he had no fight in the custody agreement)

I lean this way as well.  My only question (and it honestly is a question) is what impact decision lag has in the analysis.  The decision to shoot was made some amount of time (psychological testing would suggest 350 to 450 ms) prior to the gun being raised and the trigger being pulled.  In a frame-by-frame I count less than 15 from the time Chad releases the rifle to the moment Kyle raises it to bear; then there are less than 10 frames before the first shot is fired.  If the decision to shoot was made when Chad went hands on then it's at least plausible that the actual moment of the first shot was already a biological inevitability.  It also could be argued that Kyle's conduct after shooting is consistent with having reassessed the threat without sufficient time to override the prior decision to shoot.

Don't flame me for excusing the shooter's actions, if that's your take.  It wouldn't bother me too much if he was charged--this definitely isn't a clean shoot, but I'm not yet convinced it was a bad one either.