Lubbock TX video of shooting

[candcallen]

Well I did not mean it literally like I polled all 320M.

Just poll 5 or 6 and extrapolate like all the pollsters do.

 

[General Zod]

The firearm was referred to as a shotgun several times.

Just wanted to correct,.that's a Ruger PC carbine isnt it?

Handgun caliber dropped him quick.

Sent from my moto e6 using Tapatalk

I only got a clear look at it when a still was posted here - in the video, it looked like a pistol grip pump-action to me. I also missed the "warning shot" in the video - the audio didn't really pick the shots up well. But y'know, a smart person would back the hell off when a shot was fired at his feet and wait for the police to deal with things. Not chest-push and get within kissing distance before trying to wrestle for the carbine and losing.

The shooter isn't free and clear, but I still put the majority of the blame on Captain Belligerent and his attempts to intimidate a guy with a gun. The more I read about this mess the more I think they're all dumbasses, but it still looks like self-defense to me. The physical altercation was started by the bullet catcher. If he had been smart enough to back off the shooter would've been in some trouble for firing that first shot.

 

[mad88minute]

I only got a clear look at it when a still was posted here - in the video, it looked like a pistol grip pump-action to me. I also missed the "warning shot" in the video - the audio didn't really pick the shots up well. But y'know, a smart person would back the hell off when a shot was fired at his feet and wait for the police to deal with things. Not chest-push and get within kissing distance before trying to wrestle for the carbine and losing.

The shooter isn't free and clear, but I still put the majority of the blame on Captain Belligerent and his attempts to intimidate a guy with a gun. The more I read about this mess the more I think they're all dumbasses, but it still looks like self-defense to me. The physical altercation was started by the bullet catcher. If he had been smart enough to back off the shooter would've been in some trouble for firing that first shot.

Can't disagree with you either. It's almost like an auto accident with blame being placed 50/50. I agree it might not have been an illegal shoot. But not good either.

I did t catch it was a double tap to the chest myself. Audio wasnt good.

Sent from my moto e6 using Tapatalk

 

[DaBull]

Double tap audio is clear from the "in house" video, but not from the "car" video.

 

[toddnjoyce]

Friendly reminder on TPC 9

SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the 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 aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(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.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

… and

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.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

 

[TX OMFS]

I think c2 is going to be the issue.

"did not provoke the person against whom the force was used;"

Gonna be close.

 

[Axxe55]

I think c2 is going to be the issue.

"did not provoke the person against whom the force was used;"

Gonna be close.

My thoughts as well. Bringing out a weapon to a verbal altercation, could be interpreted as provocation IMO.

 

[Moonpie]

Imma shoot this thread. With a PCC. In Lubbock. On a back porch.

 

[Vaquero]

He hasn't been charged with a crime yet.
That says a lot.

 

[TX OMFS]

Didn't his lawyer say something about the grand jury? Sounded like they assume the GJ will see it.

 

[TX OMFS]

Imma shoot this thread. With a PCC. In Lubbock. On a back porch.

Glock mags work like a charm.

 

[HKSig]

Glock mags work like a charm.

As targets?

 

[Moonpie]

Glock mags work like a charm.

Drunken ravings from tooth pirates will be disregarded out of hand.

 

[toddnjoyce]

He hasn't been charged with a crime yet.
That says a lot.

About a lot of things up in the panhandle.

 

[TexasBB]

How does a little boy deal with this whole thing? Prayers for the only one who is completely innocent in this whole thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sasquatch]

again, the shooter was NOT the homeowner

home was in mom's possession and she was apparently allowing boyfriend to be there

(from what I understand)

Jesus...if that was Dad's house, was he murdered with his own gun? Seems a possibility, even if remote.

 

[JCC]

Jesus...if that was Dad's house, was he murdered with his own gun? Seems a possibility, even if remote.

plausible

 

[Axxe55]

Jesus...if that was Dad's house, was he murdered with his own gun? Seems a possibility, even if remote.

plausible

I agree with @JCC. Very possible. And if so, that would really suck.

 

[mad88minute]

Jesus...if that was Dad's house, was he murdered with his own gun? Seems a possibility, even if remote.

If never considered this, but I great reason to keep the guns in a divorce. Turns out she will use them and her new BF to kill you.

Sent from my moto e6 using Tapatalk

 

[Renegade]

He hasn't been charged with a crime yet.
That says a lot.

Nor was Daniel Perry, Zimmerman, or the Mc Michaels, or a bunch others all eventually indicted.