Lubbock TX video of shooting

[Sam7sf]

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.

 

[candcallen]

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 goes a quarter of my difficult conversation vocabulary

 

[mad88minute]

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?

I'd say flip it.

Don't yell, speak in a really calm tone and explains to the Phuck Tard how many 4 letter words you know.

Sent from my moto e6 using Tapatalk

 

[toddnjoyce]

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.

So you believe TPC 9.41 applies as far as use of force? The challenge, I think, is that blue shirt may have had a legal right to be there, to regain custody of the child. The other challenge I see re: 9.41 is that it’s protection of property, which in 9.42 has restrictions on when use of deadly force is justified.

None of that makes a spit of difference until black shirt is charged or indicted though which is completely unrelated as to whether black shirt’s actions were supported by the statutes.

 

[Sasquatch]

Some info in here about Carruth that I haven't seen yet - seems he was a big 2A proponent, was a guest on some podcasts or some shit. Way to make the rest of us look good...

 

[Renegade]

But still, black shirt guy has the right to defend his house.

Defend his house from what? TealShirt was not an arsonist or whatever, house needed no defending.

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.

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.

eta

as you see I bring up duty to retreat several times. That is because at time of shooting, BlackShirt had easy opportunity to retreat, he was not cornered in any way.

If he loses his SYE/Castle and has duty to retreat, he is phucked.

 

[Vaquero]

Chad got what he asked for.

 

[mad88minute]

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

 

[candcallen]

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.

Ya I think if the shooting happened during the struggle for the gun he might be ok. That said.....

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. Editorial here, Once you present that weapon you remove all other options and escalate the situation, in this case, retard land.

Also after the struggle and disengagement the teal shirt guy clearly did not press his attack. He realised he lost his chance to take the gun and stopped. Shooting now is not justified IMHO.

That all said I'm glad I'm not required to make decisions on such a complicated case.

Let it be a lesson to us all, when you carry avoid conflicts as much as possible. You dont want to be in this situation where it's such a complicated case cause you couldnt just walk away.

Tell em they are number one and keep walking.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

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

Won't help if he is in the wrong.

 

[Renegade]

Adding to what I wrote above:

TL;DR - Do not fire warning shots.

Biggest issue I see is the 1st discharged round. It is the Elephant in the room. Nobody wants to talk about it, but it has to be addressed. Legally it was something, but what?

1) Warning Shot? Texas does not allow warning shots. They are Deadly Conduct (PC22.05.b.1). If that is case, Kyle loses his SYG/Castle presumption. (PC9.32.b.3)

2) AD? Same as above, Deadly Conduct (PC22.05.a) and Kyle loses his SYG/Castle presumption. (PC9.32.b.3)

3) Intentionally fired at Chad but missed? Well that is agg assault (PC22.02.a), which makes Chad the legal defender (PC9.31).

Why is loss of SYG/Castle important? Cause when Kyle shot Chad, he was not cornered and had a clear, easy retreat path. This why his lawyer states he had SYG/Castle protection. You can literally listen to everything his lawyer says, 180 the meaning, and the lawyer told you all the areas of jeopardy Kyle faces.

So the best outcome for Chad is a finding he was justified to use DF before the round was discharged. But that is problematic too, as what happened before - chest bump (PC2.01.a.3) and threat to take gun (PC42.07.a.2), do not rise to crimes you can use DF against.

So AG lawyers will be working overtime to sort this one out.

 

[tonelar]

The firearm is NOT a talisman.

 

[Alpha.Geek]

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...

 

[Axxe55]

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...

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.

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.

 

[rotor]

Shooter at the time of firing his gun took careful aim and was not in any way at risk of serious bodily injury or death. In my opinion this was murder. Fortunately I am not going to be on the jury. This is my opinion of the video, yours may be different.

 

[tonelar]

at real time, he fires less than a second after dude had a hold of the gun’s barrel. only when watching it frame by frame does it look like dude was no longer a threat.

guy was stupid for getting the rifle but darwin award goes to the “dad” for declaring he would and then trying to take it away

 

[JCC]

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.

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.

the guest aspect is interesting and I keep going back to no threats of violence were made by the guy who was shot

 

[AZ Refugee]

Although he had a legal right to visit his child, did he have the right to be at that residence?

 

[majormadmax]

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.

 

[majormadmax]

Shooter was mad, fired a NO-NO warning shot because he was mad

I don't believe the first shot was intentional...