User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/3/2021 2:33:43 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I agree with you, but that doesn't mean the shoot was bad and I'm not crying over spilled 2x California felons. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. I’ve said I think the shoot was possibly legally justified by Texas statute. I said it way back on page 10 when this thread was getting started. I’m also not crying over these idiots. That’s why they’re Black shirt and Green shirt to me. I don’t want to get to know them. I don’t even really want to classify them as human because they acted like a bunch of stupid monkeys throwing shit at each other. At least monkeys are smart enough to resolve territory and social disputes without killing each other. This is an exercise in exploring self defense legalities for me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2021 2:33:54 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. "Biological inevitability". Consider that term appropriated for incorporation into my concealed carry class. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2021 2:36:34 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "Biological inevitability". Consider that term appropriated for incorporation into my concealed carry class. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. "Biological inevitability". Consider that term appropriated for incorporation into my concealed carry class. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2021 2:38:52 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I’ve said I think the shoot was possibly legally justified by Texas statute. I said it way back on page 10 when this thread was getting started. I’m also not crying over these idiots. That’s why they’re Black shirt and Green shirt to me. I don’t want to get to know them. I don’t even really want to classify them as human because they acted like a bunch of stupid monkeys throwing shit at each other. At least monkeys are smart enough to resolve territory and social disputes without killing each other. This is an exercise in exploring self defense legalities for me. Yea same, I'm really tired of these questionable self defense shoots also. It seems the more there are the more people are going to want to change laws because their feelings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2021 2:40:07 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Geez; the mental gymnastics Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Having a gun does not prove intent. You can open carry any gun on your own property Geez; the mental gymnastics  |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2021 2:57:12 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Show me the penal code for warning shot "While you could spend hours searching for the term "warning shot" in the Texas Penal Code, we are here to tell you it is not there. And while there is not a clear statement of Texas law that says, "Fire a warning shot and go to prison," some courts have determined that they are considered deadly force, and your actions will be judged accordingly." |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2021 3:01:02 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What was the reasoning? 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. 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. 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. On those points, I’m going to plead ignorance. It’s way down in the legal gamesmanship space. As a GD keyboard warrior with no credentials: If I’m a prosecutor, I stick to statute and say the law says the self defense claim must prove reasonable fear of imminent use of unlawful deadly force against oneself. Then I go about picking apart the claim with things like distance between the shooters, time to close distance, inconclusiveness of the video showing Green shirt pressing the attack etc. There isn’t a part of the statute that says, “if the decision to fire is already made, then it’s reasonable to shoot.” If I’m a defender, I stick to totality of circumstances providing the defendant’s reasonable fear along with an observation that Green shirt was still pressing the attack by lifting his foot. I don’t think I would want to try using the OODA loop as a defense. “I made the decision to shoot some time in the recent past, and then I shot him,” would sound an awful lot like murder to me even though biologically these decisions don’t happen instantaneously. Much better to say, “I saw him lift his leg, realized he was pressing the attack, so I fired.” Just IMO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2021 3:14:18 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yea same, I'm really tired of these questionable self defense shoots also. It seems the more there are the more people are going to want to change laws because their feelings. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I’ve said I think the shoot was possibly legally justified by Texas statute. I said it way back on page 10 when this thread was getting started. I’m also not crying over these idiots. That’s why they’re Black shirt and Green shirt to me. I don’t want to get to know them. I don’t even really want to classify them as human because they acted like a bunch of stupid monkeys throwing shit at each other. At least monkeys are smart enough to resolve territory and social disputes without killing each other. This is an exercise in exploring self defense legalities for me. Yea same, I'm really tired of these questionable self defense shoots also. It seems the more there are the more people are going to want to change laws because their feelings. Pretty much how I see it. Video makes this kind of stuff visceral in a way reading the news doesn’t. Then you drag in human factors like the kids crying about their dead dad, and it’s a human interest story. That’s GD blasphemy though. You’re not supposed to think through the fact that you’re going to be bankrupted by defending a self defense case, lose all your assets when your business implodes, lose your love interest when her kids with the ex husband turn on her, lose your community when they get tired of being put under the microscope, etc. That’s best case. Worst case is you lose your freedom and your gun rights. All that thinking means you’re a pussy. Too much brains, not enough cock and balls. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2021 3:15:43 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: To the homeowner it was some random felon that used to be married to a chick he is banging. 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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2021 3:22:59 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Exactly. People are either purposefully, or are too arrogant, to acknowledge how black shirt leaving an argument and returning to it with a gun escalated the situation. Throwing up lines about Rittenhouse, how you can legally be armed, etc is simple excuse making and a refusal to see how introducing a gun into a situation where a gun wasnt needed can, and in this case did, lead to life altering circumstances that are easily avoidable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2021 3:34:04 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Exactly. People are either purposefully, or are too arrogant, to acknowledge how black shirt leaving an argument and returning to it with a gun escalated the situation. Throwing up lines about Rittenhouse, how you can legally be armed, etc is simple excuse making and a refusal to see how introducing a gun into a situation where a gun wasnt needed can, and in this case did, lead to life altering circumstances that are easily avoidable. The argument with black shirt was black - "Leave", green - "NO". Very much appropriate to get a gun in such a case. So how exactly would you codify your feels into legal wording? You're clearly arguing that there should be restrictions on people's ability to arm themselves on their own property that don't currently exist. Sounds a lot like "Nobody needs a silencer, or a FA". "Nobody needs more than 5 rounds." "Nobody needs a gun, let the police handle it (which you obviously are one of)." |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2021 3:43:13 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So how exactly would you codify your feels into legal wording? You're clearly arguing that there should be restrictions on people's ability to arm themselves on their own property that don't currently exist. Sounds a lot like "Nobody needs a silencer, or a FA". "Nobody needs more than 5 rounds." "Nobody needs a gun, let the police handle it (which you obviously are one of)." There was no need for a firearm to be introduced, hence the unnecessary escalation. You can't escalate a situation and then claim self defense. Like I said earlier, if open carry is allowed in your state and you get into a road rage incident is it lawful to go to your trunk and pull out your gun against an unarmed person? It will be up to a grand jury to decide most likely. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2021 3:52:00 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Very much appropriate to get a gun in such a case. Quote HistoryQuoted: Very much appropriate to get a gun in such a case. No it wasnt and thats why black shirt is sitting in the middle of the shit storm that he is. There was 0 need to get a gun in that situation. There were zero threats of assaults or anything prior to the gun coming out of the house so why was it appropriate; just because a statute says that you can? This is where the ability to critically think and recognize appropriate actions comes into play. Sadly GD demonstrates on a damn near daily basis that the ability to do that is a foreign concept to many. So how exactly would you codify your feels into legal wording? You're clearly arguing that there should be restrictions on people's ability to arm themselves on their own property that don't currently exist. Sounds a lot like "Nobody needs a silencer, or a FA". "Nobody needs more than 5 rounds." "Nobody needs a gun, let the police handle it (which you obviously are one of)." Again, we are right back to the same excuse making about "well the statute says..." People need to be using their heads for something other than being examples of the densest object in a room. Just because you are allowed to do something by law doesnt mean it is the course of action that should be taken. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2021 3:53:44 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Exactly. People are either purposefully, or are too arrogant, to acknowledge how black shirt leaving an argument and returning to it with a gun escalated the situation. Throwing up lines about Rittenhouse, how you can legally be armed, etc is simple excuse making and a refusal to see how introducing a gun into a situation where a gun wasnt needed can, and in this case did, lead to life altering circumstances that are easily avoidable. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Exactly. People are either purposefully, or are too arrogant, to acknowledge how black shirt leaving an argument and returning to it with a gun escalated the situation. Throwing up lines about Rittenhouse, how you can legally be armed, etc is simple excuse making and a refusal to see how introducing a gun into a situation where a gun wasnt needed can, and in this case did, lead to life altering circumstances that are easily avoidable. I pointed out early on that him bringing the gun out escalated the situation, and got called Binger for it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2021 3:55:41 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nobody can help you to grasp the concept that interjecting yourself into a situation then going to obtain a firearm because the other party won't listen to you isn't the same as someone being legally armed previously on their property. There was no need for a firearm to be introduced, hence the unnecessary escalation. You can't escalate a situation and then claim self defense. Like I said earlier, if open carry is allowed in your state and you get into a road rage incident is it lawful to go to your trunk and pull out your gun against an unarmed person? It will be up to a grand jury to decide most likely. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So how exactly would you codify your feels into legal wording? You're clearly arguing that there should be restrictions on people's ability to arm themselves on their own property that don't currently exist. Sounds a lot like "Nobody needs a silencer, or a FA". "Nobody needs more than 5 rounds." "Nobody needs a gun, let the police handle it (which you obviously are one of)." There was no need for a firearm to be introduced, hence the unnecessary escalation. You can't escalate a situation and then claim self defense. Like I said earlier, if open carry is allowed in your state and you get into a road rage incident is it lawful to go to your trunk and pull out your gun against an unarmed person? It will be up to a grand jury to decide most likely. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2021 3:58:29 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nobody can help you to grasp the concept that interjecting yourself into a situation then going to obtain a firearm because the other party won't listen to you isn't the same as someone being legally armed previously on their property. There was no need for a firearm to be introduced, hence the unnecessary escalation. You can't escalate a situation and then claim self defense. Like I said earlier, if open carry is allowed in your state and you get into a road rage incident is it lawful to go to your trunk and pull out your gun against an unarmed person? It will be up to a grand jury to decide most likely. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So how exactly would you codify your feels into legal wording? You're clearly arguing that there should be restrictions on people's ability to arm themselves on their own property that don't currently exist. Sounds a lot like "Nobody needs a silencer, or a FA". "Nobody needs more than 5 rounds." "Nobody needs a gun, let the police handle it (which you obviously are one of)." There was no need for a firearm to be introduced, hence the unnecessary escalation. You can't escalate a situation and then claim self defense. Like I said earlier, if open carry is allowed in your state and you get into a road rage incident is it lawful to go to your trunk and pull out your gun against an unarmed person? It will be up to a grand jury to decide most likely. Sometimes people can turn things into goatse-level stretches. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2021 4:00:54 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No it wasnt and thats why black shirt is sitting in the middle of the shit storm that he is. There was 0 need to get a gun in that situation. There were zero threats of assaults or anything prior to the gun coming out of the house so why was it appropriate; just because a statute says that you can? This is where the ability to critically think of recognize appropriate actions comes into play. Sadly GD demonstrates on a damn near daily basis that the ability to do that is a foreign concept to many. Again, we are right back to the same excuse making about "well the statute says..." People need to be using their heads for something other than being examples of the densest object in a room. Just because you are allowed to do something by law doesnt mean it is the course of action that should be taken. Let me ask you, would you charge up and butt chests and jostle someone's gun around, whether they just retrieved it or not, if you were unarmed? How can you not consider that the actual escalation? What if that hadn't happened? Isn't that a lot dumber than going to get a gun on your own property? It sure as hell is a lot less legal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2021 4:05:05 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: On those points, I’m going to plead ignorance. It’s way down in the legal gamesmanship space. As a GD keyboard warrior with no credentials: If I’m a prosecutor, I stick to statute and say the law says the self defense claim must prove reasonable fear of imminent use of unlawful deadly force against oneself. Then I go about picking apart the claim with things like distance between the shooters, time to close distance, inconclusiveness of the video showing Green shirt pressing the attack etc. There isn’t a part of the statute that says, “if the decision to fire is already made, then it’s reasonable to shoot.” If I’m a defender, I stick to totality of circumstances providing the defendant’s reasonable fear along with an observation that Green shirt was still pressing the attack by lifting his foot. I don’t think I would want to try using the OODA loop as a defense. “I made the decision to shoot some time in the recent past, and then I shot him,” would sound an awful lot like murder to me even though biologically these decisions don’t happen instantaneously. Much better to say, “I saw him lift his leg, realized he was pressing the attack, so I fired.” Just IMO. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What was the reasoning? 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. 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. 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. On those points, I’m going to plead ignorance. It’s way down in the legal gamesmanship space. As a GD keyboard warrior with no credentials: If I’m a prosecutor, I stick to statute and say the law says the self defense claim must prove reasonable fear of imminent use of unlawful deadly force against oneself. Then I go about picking apart the claim with things like distance between the shooters, time to close distance, inconclusiveness of the video showing Green shirt pressing the attack etc. There isn’t a part of the statute that says, “if the decision to fire is already made, then it’s reasonable to shoot.” If I’m a defender, I stick to totality of circumstances providing the defendant’s reasonable fear along with an observation that Green shirt was still pressing the attack by lifting his foot. I don’t think I would want to try using the OODA loop as a defense. “I made the decision to shoot some time in the recent past, and then I shot him,” would sound an awful lot like murder to me even though biologically these decisions don’t happen instantaneously. Much better to say, “I saw him lift his leg, realized he was pressing the attack, so I fired.” Just IMO. Regarding the bold: I don't disagree, but that's not quite what I was saying. More like "If it was reasonable to shoot at the time the decision was made then anything that happens in the 350-450ms following that decision doesn't matter." Or put another way "Was it reasonable to shoot at the time the decision to fire was made, considering that such time isn't the same as and indeed precedes the actual moment of firing?" Generally I'm with you. I feel like I could make a case either way, and as a prosecutor my argument would center on the first altercation where they appeared to engage in mutual assault (aka, a fight). But I wouldn't lay good odds on a conviction. Right now I wouldn't even put money on an indictment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2021 4:11:12 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Just because we are arguing for what is rightfully legal, because it has to apply to anyone including an old lady, doesn't mean we'd be so stupid to do that ourselves. Quote HistoryQuoted: Just because we are arguing for what is rightfully legal, because it has to apply to anyone including an old lady, doesn't mean we'd be so stupid to do that ourselves. Oddly enough I'm pretty sure more than one poster thinks what was done was the legal and appropriate action to be taken hence the rabid defense of it. Let me ask you, would you charge up and butt chests and jostle someone's gun around, whether they just retrieved it or not, if you were unarmed? How can you not consider that the actual escalation? What if that hadn't happened? Isn't that a lot dumber than going to get a gun on your own property? It sure as hell is a lot less legal. Of course it is dumb, no one has said it wasnt. But moving away from a hypothetical and back to the actual situation; how much chest bumping and manlet tossing happened before the gun came out? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2021 4:24:26 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Regarding the blue: that's not quite what the TX statute says. The defendant (should he ever be tried) is given the presumption that his fear of imminent harm was reasonable. The state bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was absolutely not in fear of imminent harm. Moreover, the jury (should he ever be tried) will be specifically instructed that they are only permitted to consider such reasonableness from the perspective of the defendant himself. It's a huge hill to climb. Regarding the bold: I don't disagree, but that's not quite what I was saying. More like "If it was reasonable to shoot at the time the decision was made then anything that happens in the 350-450ms following that decision doesn't matter." Or put another way "Was it reasonable to shoot at the time the decision to fire was made, considering that such time isn't the same as and indeed precedes the actual moment of firing?" Generally I'm with you. I feel like I could make a case either way, and as a prosecutor my argument would center on the first altercation where they appeared to engage in mutual assault (aka, a fight). But I wouldn't lay good odds on a conviction. Right now I wouldn't even put money on an indictment. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What was the reasoning? 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. 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. 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. On those points, I’m going to plead ignorance. It’s way down in the legal gamesmanship space. As a GD keyboard warrior with no credentials: If I’m a prosecutor, I stick to statute and say the law says the self defense claim must prove reasonable fear of imminent use of unlawful deadly force against oneself. Then I go about picking apart the claim with things like distance between the shooters, time to close distance, inconclusiveness of the video showing Green shirt pressing the attack etc. There isn’t a part of the statute that says, “if the decision to fire is already made, then it’s reasonable to shoot.” If I’m a defender, I stick to totality of circumstances providing the defendant’s reasonable fear along with an observation that Green shirt was still pressing the attack by lifting his foot. I don’t think I would want to try using the OODA loop as a defense. “I made the decision to shoot some time in the recent past, and then I shot him,” would sound an awful lot like murder to me even though biologically these decisions don’t happen instantaneously. Much better to say, “I saw him lift his leg, realized he was pressing the attack, so I fired.” Just IMO. Regarding the bold: I don't disagree, but that's not quite what I was saying. More like "If it was reasonable to shoot at the time the decision was made then anything that happens in the 350-450ms following that decision doesn't matter." Or put another way "Was it reasonable to shoot at the time the decision to fire was made, considering that such time isn't the same as and indeed precedes the actual moment of firing?" Generally I'm with you. I feel like I could make a case either way, and as a prosecutor my argument would center on the first altercation where they appeared to engage in mutual assault (aka, a fight). But I wouldn't lay good odds on a conviction. Right now I wouldn't even put money on an indictment. You’re referring to the bolded part of the statute. There have been a few different explanations of what the purpose of the structure was. I’ve seen it was his habitation, and I’ve seen it was his ex wife’s business. If it’s his ex wife’s business and he doesn’t work there, can he claim it as his business or place of employment? Was he actually using it as a habitation? Also, does stepping onto the porch and throwing him off the porch qualify as entering and removing him from habitation, place of business, or employment? I’ve seen a few different arguments about it. For my part, I think it’s the same as if the argument happened in the front yard, and he loses that presumption. 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. (b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor: (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used: (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or (C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B); (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used. ETA: I would tend to agree except now it’s a circus show with national media chiming in about racism and inequities of law enforcement in Lubbock and whitey always gets a free ride. I think the Texas AG may want to throw it at a grand jury to prove the system works. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2021 4:27:40 PM EDT
[#21]
Wish OP put up a poll since this is a very divided community. That's why I think it will be impossible to convict on murder. The shooter will have a difficult time because this leans more to a domestic situation than a traditional trespass/burglary. Too bad they can't charge the mother with murder since she's to blame for all of this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2021 4:30:39 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wish OP put up a poll since this is a very divided community. That's why I think it will be impossible to convict on murder. The shooter will have a difficult time because this leans more to a domestic situation than a traditional trespass/burglary. Too bad they can't charge the mother with murder since she's to blame for all of this. Yup, she should have had the kids ready to go on time instead of playing games. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2021 4:36:42 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oddly enough I'm pretty sure more than one poster thinks that was done was the legal and appropriate action to be taken hence the rabid defense of it. Of course it is dumb, no one has said it wasnt. But moving away from a hypothetical and back to the actual situation; how much chest bumping and manlet tossing happened before the gun came out? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2021 4:48:39 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Doesn't matter. Your use of manlet shows why you aren't getting it, because it shows how biased you are. The legality of the situation doesn't depend on him having a bigger dick or not. What if it was the grandmother on her property and green shirt acted that way? Could she get a gun? How much chest bumping would she be expected to engage in? It is actually absolutely no different and not an unreasonable hypothetical. I've asked it before and get no response. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Oddly enough I'm pretty sure more than one poster thinks that was done was the legal and appropriate action to be taken hence the rabid defense of it. Of course it is dumb, no one has said it wasnt. But moving away from a hypothetical and back to the actual situation; how much chest bumping and manlet tossing happened before the gun came out? Eh, slightly different because an old woman and a middle age man are not the same thing. Even the law differentiates. Thus all the statutes escalating penalties to aggravated penalties for engaging in the same behavior when an elder is involved. I’m not saying he has to take a beating. I’m not saying that Black shirt can’t go get a gun. I am saying use of force considerations aren’t the same for a man and a woman and an elder and a non elder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2021 4:54:40 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You're referring to the bolded part of the statute. There have been a few different explanations of what the purpose of the structure was. I've seen it was his habitation, and I've seen it was his ex wife's business. If it's his ex wife's business and he doesn't work there, can he claim it as his business or place of employment? Was he actually using it as a habitation? Also, does stepping onto the porch and throwing him off the porch qualify as entering and removing him from habitation, place of business, or employment? I've seen a few different arguments about it. For my part, I think it's the same as if the argument happened in the front yard, and he loses that presumption. 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. (b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor: (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used: (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or (C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B); (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used. ETA: I would tend to agree except now it's a circus show with national media chiming in about racism and inequities of law enforcement in Lubbock and whitey always gets a free ride. I think the Texas AG may want to throw it at a grand jury to prove the system works. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2021 4:55:46 PM EDT
[#26]
I don't think either were civilized enough to be productive members of society. One definitely won't be and the other probably won't be too much longer.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2021 5:11:06 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Eh, slightly different because an old woman and a middle age man are not the same thing. Even the law differentiates. Thus all the statutes escalating penalties to aggravated penalties for engaging in the same behavior when an elder is involved. I'm not saying he has to take a beating. I'm not saying that Black shirt can't go get a gun. I am saying use of force considerations aren't the same for a man and a woman and an elder and a non elder. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Oddly enough I'm pretty sure more than one poster thinks that was done was the legal and appropriate action to be taken hence the rabid defense of it. Of course it is dumb, no one has said it wasnt. But moving away from a hypothetical and back to the actual situation; how much chest bumping and manlet tossing happened before the gun came out? Eh, slightly different because an old woman and a middle age man are not the same thing. Even the law differentiates. Thus all the statutes escalating penalties to aggravated penalties for engaging in the same behavior when an elder is involved. I'm not saying he has to take a beating. I'm not saying that Black shirt can't go get a gun. I am saying use of force considerations aren't the same for a man and a woman and an elder and a non elder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2021 5:40:41 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Fair enough, that well may be so. I am particularly criticizing the idea he wasn't legal to go get the gun, and that it's the gun's fault, or his fault for getting it, that it escalated. That has been my only real point of contention the whole thread. I think the scenario I proposed applies directly to that. Green shirt provoked black, and just the act of getting the gun doesn't justify that. The gun should have had the opposite effect on any reasonable nonviolent person. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Oddly enough I'm pretty sure more than one poster thinks that was done was the legal and appropriate action to be taken hence the rabid defense of it. Of course it is dumb, no one has said it wasnt. But moving away from a hypothetical and back to the actual situation; how much chest bumping and manlet tossing happened before the gun came out? Eh, slightly different because an old woman and a middle age man are not the same thing. Even the law differentiates. Thus all the statutes escalating penalties to aggravated penalties for engaging in the same behavior when an elder is involved. I'm not saying he has to take a beating. I'm not saying that Black shirt can't go get a gun. I am saying use of force considerations aren't the same for a man and a woman and an elder and a non elder. You’re not living in reality if you think that someone going to get a gun shouldn’t provoke a reasonable non violent person. It’s a provocative action in itself. Arguing that it isn’t is silly. It’s not like Black shirt and Green shirt are buddies, and Black shirt says, “Wait right here man. I’ve got something cool to show you.” No, they’re in an argument, and Black shirt leaves to go grab a gun. He does this so he can end the argument with a display of force. He just miscalculated the effect his display would have. That’s all totally separate from, is it legal for him to arm himself. Yes, it’s totally legal to arm oneself on their own property. However, just because it’s legal doesn’t mean the way he did it was smart. How many times have innocent homeowners been shot through their front doors by cops because they answered the door with a firearm in hand? I know we’ve done a few of those. ETA: And all that is separate from was Green shirt within his rights to charge Black shirt. Again, the answer is no. He should have left. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2021 5:52:17 PM EDT
[#29]
You know, if black shirt & ex-wife were trying to setup green shirt, getting the gun was stupid.
Green shirt has already been trespassed. Green shirt laying in to black shirt on camera, likely would've accomplished their goal. That said, it's hard for me to believe, if this was planned, they were planning to kill him. Stranger things and all that, tho. From what I've seen (videos & lawyer vlogs), my 2 pfennings are this wasn't a clean shoot but will end up being cleared. ------------------------ Also, read/heard(?) that the ex-wife was also videoing the incident, so there's likely clear video of the moment before the fatal shots. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2021 6:35:08 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Sorry I'm new to guns  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 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. Thanks for opinion once again 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. Attorneys are always right |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2021 6:42:54 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Attorneys are always right Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Sorry I'm new to guns 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 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. Thanks for opinion once again 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. Attorneys are always right At this point, you’re just trolling and shit posting. You do you. Have a nice day. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2021 6:43:06 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Having a gun does not prove intent. You can open carry any gun on your own property Geez; the mental gymnastics Its called projection |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2021 6:47:22 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: At this point, you’re just trolling and shit posting. You do you. Have a nice day. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Sorry I'm new to guns 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 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. Thanks for opinion once again 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. Attorneys are always right At this point, you’re just trolling and shit posting. You do you. Have a nice day. Yeah its me trolling, huh?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2021 10:37:53 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You're not living in reality if you think that someone going to get a gun shouldn't provoke a reasonable non violent person. It's a provocative action in itself. Arguing that it isn't is silly. It's not like Black shirt and Green shirt are buddies, and Black shirt says, "Wait right here man. I've got something cool to show you." No, they're in an argument, and Black shirt leaves to go grab a gun. He does this so he can end the argument with a display of force. He just miscalculated the effect his display would have. That's all totally separate from, is it legal for him to arm himself. Yes, it's totally legal to arm oneself on their own property. However, just because it's legal doesn't mean the way he did it was smart. How many times have innocent homeowners been shot through their front doors by cops because they answered the door with a firearm in hand? I know we've done a few of those. ETA: And all that is separate from was Green shirt within his rights to charge Black shirt. Again, the answer is no. He should have left. I honestly do not know one single person who when confronted with a gun unarmed would charge into it like that over a domestic issue. Not referring to people willing to be a real hero against an active shooter, or in war etc.. I don't think you do either. If I knew such a person, I would unknow them and distance my self from them. I sure as hell wouldn't consider them reasonable and non-violent ever again. Objectively. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2021 11:38:32 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Your use of manlet shows why you aren't getting it, because it shows how biased you are. The legality of the situation doesn't depend on him having a bigger dick or not. Quote HistoryQuoted: Your use of manlet shows why you aren't getting it, because it shows how biased you are. The legality of the situation doesn't depend on him having a bigger dick or not. Thanks for continually proving my point concerning the difference of something being legal and something being appropriate. What if it was the grandmother on her property and green shirt acted that way? Could she get a gun? How much chest bumping would she be expected to engage in? It is actually absolutely no different and not an unreasonable hypothetical. I've asked it before and get no response. If you are going to be making comparisons; they need to be remotely close in what happened so your examples most certainly are different than what happened. Plus you have been getting answers, you simply dont like what you're being told. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2021 12:22:59 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thanks for continually proving my point concerning the difference of something being legal and something being appropriate. If you are going to be making comparisons; they need to be remotely close in what happened so your examples most certainly are different than what happened. Plus you have been getting answers, you simply dont like what you're being told. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Your use of manlet shows why you aren't getting it, because it shows how biased you are. The legality of the situation doesn't depend on him having a bigger dick or not. Thanks for continually proving my point concerning the difference of something being legal and something being appropriate. What if it was the grandmother on her property and green shirt acted that way? Could she get a gun? How much chest bumping would she be expected to engage in? It is actually absolutely no different and not an unreasonable hypothetical. I've asked it before and get no response. If you are going to be making comparisons; they need to be remotely close in what happened so your examples most certainly are different than what happened. Plus you have been getting answers, you simply dont like what you're being told. It is a far better comparison (on the topic of what is legal) than an unarmed person grabbing a gun from a trunk in a road rage incident, as proposed by another person saying, like you are, that the gun is at fault - and yet you haven't answered still. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2021 12:30:27 AM EDT
[#37]
I would love to see ex wife and anyone who helped keep the kid from dad charged with contempt of court.
That would be an awesome slap in the face. Whole thing could have been avoided if the kid was produced at 3:15 as agreed upon and ordered by the court. Simple. Before we talk about anything else, let me hear the defenders justify why the kid wasn’t in dad’s custody at 3:15pm Until,I hear a good reason I don’t want to hear your excuses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2021 12:49:45 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Except black shirt was attacked by green shirt and lethal force was legal for self defense at that instance. The fact the shot he fired missed does not make that shot meet the defination of a "warning shot".  Lol he was attacked? Surely you at least see why everyone is laughing about the mental gymnastics being performed in this thread, don’t you? You cannot kill someone for a chest bump during an argument, even here in Texas. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2021 12:52:32 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You're the one jumping around. I've only ever been interested in what is legal in this shitty situation after the fact. It is a far better comparison (on the topic of what is legal) than an unarmed person grabbing a gun from a trunk in a road rage incident, as proposed by another person saying, like you are, that the gun is at fault - and yet you haven't answered still. Jumping around? LOL, thats not even close to being the case. My view from the get-go has been that bringing the gun into the situation was unwarranted and that I dont give a shit about what the statute says is legal since my view isnt on the legality of the bringing the gun into play, but whether or not it was needed. I havent said the gun was at fault; thats your phrase. I will say that black shirt is at fault for bringing the gun out of the house which escalated the situation. You know....the same thing Ive been saying throughout the thread and I have zero issues with having that view. Now go ahead and regurgitate some tripe about what the statute says, Rittenhouse, or open carry on private property since thats the general schtick thats at play. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2021 1:06:37 AM EDT
[#40]
Pussy make a man stupid.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2021 1:09:17 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Jumping around? LOL, thats not even close to being the case. My view from the get-go has been that bringing the gun into the situation was unwarranted and that I dont give a shit about what the statute says is legal since my view isnt on the legality of the bringing the gun into play, but whether or not it was needed. I havent said the gun was at fault; thats your phrase. I will say that black shirt is at fault for bringing the gun out of the house which escalated the situation. You know....the same thing Ive been saying throughout the thread and I have zero issues with having that view. Now go ahead and regurgitate some tripe about what the statute says, Rittenhouse, or open carry on private property since thats the general schtick thats at play. You left out curtilage. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2021 1:22:34 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Jumping around? LOL, thats not even close to being the case. My view from the get-go has been that bringing the gun into the situation was unwarranted and that I dont give a shit about what the statute says is legal since my view isnt on the legality of the bringing the gun into play, but whether or not it was needed. I havent said the gun was at fault; thats your phrase. I will say that black shirt is at fault for bringing the gun out of the house which escalated the situation. You know....the same thing Ive been saying throughout the thread and I have zero issues with having that view. Now go ahead and regurgitate some tripe about what the statute says, Rittenhouse, or open carry on private property since thats the general schtick thats at play. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You're the one jumping around. I've only ever been interested in what is legal in this shitty situation after the fact. It is a far better comparison (on the topic of what is legal) than an unarmed person grabbing a gun from a trunk in a road rage incident, as proposed by another person saying, like you are, that the gun is at fault - and yet you haven't answered still. Jumping around? LOL, thats not even close to being the case. My view from the get-go has been that bringing the gun into the situation was unwarranted and that I dont give a shit about what the statute says is legal since my view isnt on the legality of the bringing the gun into play, but whether or not it was needed. I havent said the gun was at fault; thats your phrase. I will say that black shirt is at fault for bringing the gun out of the house which escalated the situation. You know....the same thing Ive been saying throughout the thread and I have zero issues with having that view. Now go ahead and regurgitate some tripe about what the statute says, Rittenhouse, or open carry on private property since thats the general schtick thats at play. The point your weighing in on over and over does have legal bearing - it is basically the same as a quote from the civil attorney seeking the $50 mil. "He unnecessarily brought a gun. Kyle Carruth needlessly escalated the situation. " https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/texas-widow-who-recorded-husbands-shooting-death-files-50-million-wrongful-death-claim-against-gunman/ My issue is that you're saying the whole problem boils down to a gun owner (and publicly outspoken gun rights supporter*) exercising their gun rights. Up until he took the first shot it is unarguable that that is all that he did, and you say it was wrong. Not sure what your bias is there, but there are two obvious possibilities. Regardless, it wasn't and it is detrimental to gun rights to say it was. You're ignoring all of the legal analysis that "told" you the retrieval of the gun wasn't the issue, because you don't want to hear it. You aren't arguing the actual point of the case, which will be whether he was justified at the final moment. *Also from that article above from today - "Carruth is a longtime pro-gun activist who has represented the Lubbock 2nd Amendment Coalition. In 2015, he went on a local radio talk show to discuss possible gun regulations that were on an upcoming city council agenda. "Many people view this as a type of incrementalism. I mean, they're chipping away at our Constitutional rights, little by little," Carruth said. "They do not have the right to deny citizens the ability to protect themselves in there."" |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2021 1:25:57 AM EDT
[#43]
I watched the video days ago at this point.
I'm not going to join in the chimp fight that is going on here, just post my thoughts. I'm willing to listen to reasoned arguments but there's a lot of retard speak going on. 1: If he had no right to be there because trespassing - why doesn't every divorcee in Texas immediately claim trespassing when their ex shows up to pick their kid up? If they're "trespassing" and take your kid - that's kidnapping according to some of the retard logic I've seen floated in the past week - so you could just shoot your Ex and avoid all that child support/alimony 2: If it was a verbal argument, and there wasn't a threat of physical harm; trespassing or not - how does self dismissal and reintroduction with a firearm not escalate the situation. He may have a legal right to escalate Force, but not to deadly force. Furthermore - how does reckless endangerment with a firearm ("warning shots") - not constitute Lethal Force - in a situation that did not prompt Lethal Force (this is where I personally think Black Shirt fucked himself - and establishing that this was warranted lethal force will probably be the crux of the case) 3: I will be interested to find out how this situation arose. If Ex wife said "come get your kid" - and then he was not there, that's going to complicate things significantly. That starts to look a whole lot more like "hunting over bait". If there was a court ordered time, that's a civil matter and will have other implications. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2021 1:26:59 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nope. They recused themselves as their colleague would be called to testify and that's a reason to let another district Court deal with it Quote HistoryQuoted: Nope. They recused themselves as their colleague would be called to testify and that's a reason to let another district Court deal with it Their colleague wasn’t involved. They were separated and not living together. This isn’t a child custody case, it isn’t a trespassing case. It is a simple assault case on an individual at his residence by a third party. District Judges are elected officials in Texas. Court records show that the suspect in a fatal shooting early this month in South Lubbock is William Kyle Carruth, a land developer and the ex-husband of the judge for the 72nd District Court in Lubbock and Crosby counties. Carruth was identified in a Nov. 8 affidavit signed by Judge Anne-Marie Carruth, who wrote that she was "notified that my husband, William Kyle Carruth, is under investigation for the shooting and killing of his girlfriend's children's father after he attempted to pick up his children late Friday afternoon. My knowledge of the incident is very limited at this time and it is my understanding that the police are still investigating." Carruth stated that she hadn't spoken to her estranged husband about the shooting but said she was "very concerned about his mental state." Link Judge Anne-Marie Carruth had nothing to do with the shooting; therefore there would be no testifying on her behalf. The issue is an appearance of an in impropriety on the behalf of the DA’s office because they argue cases in front her; by having the Texas AG review the case removes that problem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2021 1:31:17 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No he wasn’t attacked. He was confronted. He was yelled at. He wasn’t attacked. Not true. He made physical contact with black shirt guy and threatened to do him serious bodily harm. That is all that matters in this case. All the “dog ate my homework” arguments don’t come into play. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2021 1:41:42 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: wat? I honestly do not know one single person who when confronted with a gun unarmed would charge into it like that over a domestic issue. Not referring to people willing to be a real hero against an active shooter, or in war etc.. I don't think you do either. If I knew such a person, I would unknow them and distance my self from them. I sure as hell wouldn't consider them reasonable and non-violent ever again. Objectively. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You're not living in reality if you think that someone going to get a gun shouldn't provoke a reasonable non violent person. It's a provocative action in itself. Arguing that it isn't is silly. It's not like Black shirt and Green shirt are buddies, and Black shirt says, "Wait right here man. I've got something cool to show you." No, they're in an argument, and Black shirt leaves to go grab a gun. He does this so he can end the argument with a display of force. He just miscalculated the effect his display would have. That's all totally separate from, is it legal for him to arm himself. Yes, it's totally legal to arm oneself on their own property. However, just because it's legal doesn't mean the way he did it was smart. How many times have innocent homeowners been shot through their front doors by cops because they answered the door with a firearm in hand? I know we've done a few of those. ETA: And all that is separate from was Green shirt within his rights to charge Black shirt. Again, the answer is no. He should have left. I honestly do not know one single person who when confronted with a gun unarmed would charge into it like that over a domestic issue. Not referring to people willing to be a real hero against an active shooter, or in war etc.. I don't think you do either. If I knew such a person, I would unknow them and distance my self from them. I sure as hell wouldn't consider them reasonable and non-violent ever again. Objectively. That’s not what I typed. I said it’s a provocative action. I didn’t say people would charge you and attempt to take your firearm. You’re right. People I know wouldn’t charge a drawn firearm. That seems like a moot point though because people I know wouldn’t pull a firearm on another party in a domestic dispute. I can say with absolute certainty, if I had an acquaintance that drew down on me over a disagreement, then I would leave and they wouldn’t be my acquaintance anymore. I also wouldn’t consider them reasonable and non-violent because reasonable and non-violent people don’t use firearms to settle disagreements. Putting all that aside, you’re saying that if you were in an argument with someone, and they left and came back with a firearm as a means to end the argument, that you wouldn’t have any heightened response to it? I seriously doubt that, unless you’re really really used to having firearms used to end arguments. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2021 1:45:19 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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? Dude, the Judge knew all about the affair. They had been separated sense July. Black shirt guy left because he intended to marry Baby Mama and told his current wife Anne-Marie all about it like 6 months ago. That is when he got bounced out of the house and he moved from the North side of Lubbock to South Lubbock. I don’t know how it works out where you live, but here in Texas once you divorce your wife you don’t get to tell her who she can sleep with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2021 1:49:59 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lol he was attacked? Surely you at least see why everyone is laughing about the mental gymnastics being performed in this thread, don’t you? You cannot kill someone for a chest bump during an argument, even here in Texas. You can kill them when they just told you they were going to fight you for your rifle and use it on you and then get physical with you; which is exactly what Green shirt guy did. Black shirt guy also knew at the time that Green shirt had attacked other people in the past. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2021 2:10:43 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryThat station is pure leftist scum. They consistently hype fear and anger. They start with virus fear mongering and brainwashing and where to get shots. Then comes the spin of the Obiden agenda and slamming of anything related to Trump or a strong America first, freedom oriented mindset. Next they show the weather then the same footage as so many other stations. Time for a feel good piece that shows us how to be good little subjects. Today the topic was the coming Christmas time tamale shortage. Totally not the fault of our rulers. It’s the world wide supply chain and our thriving national economy that enables such an excessive demand for luxury items like lard, corn and spiced cow or pig squeezings. Blue eyes was mortified back when she reported how evil police gunned down poor little innocent and unarmed Jacob Blake. Her female coworker recently reported on Kyle Rittenhouse as being on trial for running through and shooting people at a racial justice rally. She also interjects her emotions at all the appropriate times. A little more subtle but it’s usually there. The only thing they report on somewhat honestly is the weather. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2021 2:18:40 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's not what I typed. I said it's a provocative action. I didn't say people would charge you and attempt to take your firearm. You're right. People I know wouldn't charge a drawn firearm. That seems like a moot point though because people I know wouldn't pull a firearm on another party in a domestic dispute. I can say with absolute certainty, if I had an acquaintance that drew down on me over a disagreement, then I would leave and they wouldn't be my acquaintance anymore. I also wouldn't consider them reasonable and non-violent because reasonable and non-violent people don't use firearms to settle disagreements. Putting all that aside, you're saying that if you were in an argument with someone, and they left and came back with a firearm as a means to end the argument, that you wouldn't have any heightened response to it? I seriously doubt that, unless you're really really used to having firearms used to end arguments. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: You're not living in reality if you think that someone going to get a gun shouldn't provoke a reasonable non violent person. It's a provocative action in itself. Arguing that it isn't is silly. It's not like Black shirt and Green shirt are buddies, and Black shirt says, "Wait right here man. I've got something cool to show you." No, they're in an argument, and Black shirt leaves to go grab a gun. He does this so he can end the argument with a display of force. He just miscalculated the effect his display would have. That's all totally separate from, is it legal for him to arm himself. Yes, it's totally legal to arm oneself on their own property. However, just because it's legal doesn't mean the way he did it was smart. How many times have innocent homeowners been shot through their front doors by cops because they answered the door with a firearm in hand? I know we've done a few of those. ETA: And all that is separate from was Green shirt within his rights to charge Black shirt. Again, the answer is no. He should have left. I honestly do not know one single person who when confronted with a gun unarmed would charge into it like that over a domestic issue. Not referring to people willing to be a real hero against an active shooter, or in war etc.. I don't think you do either. If I knew such a person, I would unknow them and distance my self from them. I sure as hell wouldn't consider them reasonable and non-violent ever again. Objectively. That's not what I typed. I said it's a provocative action. I didn't say people would charge you and attempt to take your firearm. You're right. People I know wouldn't charge a drawn firearm. That seems like a moot point though because people I know wouldn't pull a firearm on another party in a domestic dispute. I can say with absolute certainty, if I had an acquaintance that drew down on me over a disagreement, then I would leave and they wouldn't be my acquaintance anymore. I also wouldn't consider them reasonable and non-violent because reasonable and non-violent people don't use firearms to settle disagreements. Putting all that aside, you're saying that if you were in an argument with someone, and they left and came back with a firearm as a means to end the argument, that you wouldn't have any heightened response to it? I seriously doubt that, unless you're really really used to having firearms used to end arguments. The theme of this argument however from the other side that you are chiming in on is that he should have expected to have to shoot him just because he got the gun, which comprises him expecting this bizarre reaction that we see in 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.
