So phucking retard is probably the wrong way to start those conversations?One thing I started doing is when I get angry In public I try not to use nasty words. People can still yell but leaving bad words out will help.
One thing I started doing is when I get angry In public I try not to use nasty words. People can still yell but leaving bad words out will help.
So phucking retard is probably the wrong way to start those conversations?
There was a whole lot of stupid going on, the shot might have been morally wrong, but not legally wrong. Once the occupant of the residence told the other guy to leave, he should have done so. While it was a bad decision to bring a firearm into the situation, it's is not against the law. Blue shirt guy was verbally abusive, which could have gone another direction. But still, black shirt guy has the right to defend his house. There's a whole lot of would've, could've, should've going on in this thread, but in the end, black shirt was within his legal rights. Everyone will have their own opinions about what happened or should have happened, but that's what it is, just opinions. As messed up as it is, black shirt was within his rights and as soon as blue shirt went for the firearm, that was clear cause for a defensive shooting.
But still, black shirt guy has the right to defend his house.
black shirt was within his legal rights. Everyone will have their own opinions about what happened or should have happened, but that's what it is, just opinions. As messed up as it is, black shirt was within his rights and as soon as blue shirt went for the firearm, that was clear cause for a defensive shooting.
Ya I think if the shooting happened during the struggle for the gun he might be ok. That said.....Defend his house from what? TealShirt was not an arsonist or whatever, house needed no defending.
Actually this is a very complicated case, like Guyger was, as it does not fit the standard SD type shooting.
Most of what happened prior to the gun does not matter. But once gun came out, investigators have deal with:
1) Was bringing gun out a provocation? If yes BlackShirt lost his presumption and had a duty to retreat.
2) Was discharged round deadly Conduct or attempted murder?
3) After the gun struggle, parties were separated by 10-15 feet. Was Deadly Force "Immediately Necessary" then? Video shows TealShirt NOT re-engaging before he is shot. (This is lawyer Branca point that it was not justified)
And on the other side:
1) Was TealShirt running up to BlackShirt when gun was out and chest bumping deadly force which can be answered?
As you can see, each engaged in a series of escalations and investigators need to sort them out.
The biggest unresolved issue is the discharge. Everyone wants to ignore it, but it has to be addressed. It was clearly not an AD, you can see he put finger in trigger, looked down sight/BBL and fired at feet area. If that was Deadly Conduct, he loses presumption and has duty to retreat. If it was attempted murder, TealShirt has right to defend himself. This is why you do not fire warning shots.
So it is really, really complicated legally.
If black shirt was a gun guy I wonder if he has any insurance like Texas law sheild.
Sent from my moto e6 using Tapatalk
Which is why this incident is very confusing. Yes, the father had a right in an essence to pick up his child according to a court order.I am NOT super-familiar with TX property rights, and dad was asked to leave the property, for something he was CLEARLY w/in his right to be there for... to enact visitation, he was in the right, and as soon as a warning shot was fired, that MIGHT be assault with a deadly, then, after backing away from the grab and spin, placed a CLEAR-SHOT at DAD, AFTER the threat to grabbing the Ruger PC Carbine had already ended.
Shooter was mad, fired a NO-NO warning shot because he was mad, and shot dad AFTER the threat to take the firearm had ended... shooter's fscked, legally speaking, I believe...
Somebody points a rifle at me, BELIEVE that I would grab with 2-hands, and TRY to stop THAT threat... even with a HARD-kick to the yarbles, HARD if this was me... AND try to lock the bolt back in the same motion... but you never know if ye be sh!++ing twinkies in these same circumstances...
the guest aspect is interesting and I keep going back to no threats of violence were made by the guy who was shotWhich is why this incident is very confusing. Yes, the father had a right in an essence to pick up his child according to a court order.
But when asked to leave by the BF of his ex-wife, was he trespassing or not? I'm seeing a very big gray area in regards to whom is right. Because the father was angry, and upset, making threats, so did the BF have the right to say he was trespassing? Also that depends on what authority he had with in regards to the property. Was he just a guest of the house, or did he live there?
This incident is going to be very complicated in figuring out for investigators.
I think he has an issue cause he brought the gun into a situation that did not call for any force to be used whatsoever.
Shooter was mad, fired a NO-NO warning shot because he was mad