Man in Texas killed trying to pick up kids from ex-wife

[4th and 5 4914]

34 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

$100 says he does time for manslaughter at least

did the rifle accidentally go off while he was playing with it? 

free money, someone take the bet

[JBJ 3654]

Damn phone.

Edited November 30, 2021 by JBJ

[JBJ 3654]

Just press the button once next time.

Edited November 30, 2021 by JBJ

[JBJ 3654]

1 hour ago, 4th and 5 said:

What you speak of is element one (with three alternatives), there are two other elements to the castle doctrine: actor did not provoke the person against whom force was used and actor not violating the law other than class C. Also the three alternatives in element one include an attempt to commit those acts, and thus a person within the curtilage but not (yet) in a habitation could be the subject of a legal use of force or deadly force under the castle doctrine. Example: a burglar or rapist or robber on your porch trying to get in.  

The shooter may have a problem with provocation. Not only with 9.32(a)(2), the general rule of deadly force + 9.32(b) castle doctrine, but with 9.32(a)(1) which also requires justification for force under 9.31 (use for force), and where 9.31(b) says:

(b) The use of force against another is not justified: (1) in response to verbal provocation alone.

And in addition, possibly losing the "stand your ground" jury instruction in 9.32(c) and (d) due to provocation.

I think the shooter made a bad call when he went and got the rifle (force), and then discharged it in the ground by his feet (deadly force). It sure makes the deceased look more like a victim who had a right of self defense. A jury might find that provocation. Or they might not.

Per sec. 9.41 the jury would have to find the shooter was justified in using force (the production of a weapon, see 9.04) against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land. A jury may say that's too much. Is terminating a trespass upon land by the production of a firearm is a reasonable belief? Maybe. Is it immediately necessary?

The in your face, chest bump, what looks like an attempted grab of the rifle and a verbal threat takes this from a defense of property situation to a force (or deadly force) to defend self situation. I have a lot less of a problem with the deadly force at that point. Still, the question goes back to provocation. Did he lose his right of self defense? or the castle doctrine  presumption? or stand your ground instruction?

Regardless, both of these guys are idiots beyond a reasonable doubt. Of that I am sure.

Gotcha. 

This isn't to disagree with anything you said, but I feel provocation is used too loosely or misleading around these cases.

Provocation is likely to and directly causes the threat which directly causes the self-defense.  It's a single chain of events.  I shot him because he attacked because I caused (provoked) him to attack.  A break in the chain of events nullifies the entire thing.

In a roundabout way the argument is that firing the rifle into the ground was a primary, albeit indirect, cause in Chad getting shot, and I don't see that.

---

If I work backwards from the moment he fired to kill, I don't see any immediate threat.  Chad isn't struggling to get the rifle, he isn't advancing, he doesn't have anything to throw or shoot.  

Likewise the shot into the ground didn't directly provoke any attack.  They went right back into smooching and touching tummies.

To me this was a sequence of bad decisions rather than a causal chain of events.  Granted these things move faster in the heat of the moment.

Edited November 30, 2021 by JBJ

[tx 3 putt 76962]

In that picture, was the shooter between the victim’s vehicle and the victim ?

[The Ace of Aces 5184]

No way he gets found guilty of anything in Texas. He’ll say it was self defense and I doubt a jury in America convicts him. 
 
Just skip to the civil trial. It’ll make everyone’s life essier. 

Edited November 30, 2021 by The Ace of Aces

[Gene Parmesan 4007]

57 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

$100 says he does time for manslaughter at least

Manslaughter would accidently shooting and killing someone.  Not intentionally shooting and killing someone because you accidently thought you were justified.

[4th and 5 4914]

the law on provocation.....

 

The Texas Penal Code plainly provides that a person is not justified, as a matter of self-defense, in using force against another if the actor provoked the person against whom the force was used. See TEX. PENAL CODE §§ 9.31(b)(4), 9.32(a)(1). "[A] charge on provocation is required when there is sufficient evidence:

(1) that the defendant did some act or used some words that provoked the attack on him,

(2) that such act or words were reasonably calculated to provoke the attack, and

(3) that the act was done or the words were used for the purpose and with the intent that the defendant would have a pretext for inflicting harm upon the other."

Elizondo v. State, 487 S.W.3d 185, 197 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (quoting Smith v. State, 965 S.W.2d 509, 513 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998)).

In deciding whether to include a provocation instruction, the trial court must "decide whether evidence has been presented that could support a jury's finding on all three elements of provocation beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. (emphasis omitted). In reviewing the trial court's decision to include a provocation instruction, the appellate court views "the evidence in the light most favorable to giving the instruction," resolving conflicts in the evidence and drawing reasonable inferences in favor of the instruction. See Smith, 965 S.W.2d at 514.

[Hammerin Hank 1227]

12 minutes ago, Bravo said:

Dude was a fucking idiot bringing the gun out but that is totally legal. 

I thought what he did would be considered brandishing a firearm which can be considered assault, but I’m not a lawyer so not sure 

[closetohumping 17442]

24 minutes ago, Bravo said:

No way, it really isnt much different than the KR case except this is Texas and that dude was on his porch. He won't serve any time. Moron told him he was going to take his gun after stepping up onto his porch. He did the stupid nipple rub thing, than made a move for his gun which cause the stupid warning shot. The shot didn't phase the idiot and he came right back at him except this time grabbed the gun and slung him off his porch causing him to get blasted. He will walk. I doubt charges at all.

Nothing. Like kr case.  Kr would be Kyle running from Chad while Chad was shooting at him and chads wife is trying to bash him in the head with a skateboard

[Jkwellborn 6702]

I thought what he did would be considered brandishing a firearm which can be considered assault, but I’m not a lawyer so not sure 

On his property or property he had permission to be on? I’m not a lawyer either, but I don’t see how having a long gun out is anything.

He shouldn’t have gotten the gun. The dead guy should have left when told, damn sure should have left when the gun came out.

Dead guy shouldn’t have grabbed at it and yelled I’m gonna kill you. Lots of stupid going around in that video.

[DigglerontheHoof 21200]

1 hour ago, Bravo said:

Dude was a fucking idiot bringing the gun out but that is totally legal. He didnt at anytime point the weapon at him until he was attacked. Now that boy gets to watch a video of his mom's BF blasting his dad for the rest of his life. Dad should've fucking left when he was told and especially when the gun came out. He did the exact opposite thing you should do. He was a fucking hot head too.

Correction, until after he was attacked.  At the moment he fired the two kill shots, he wasn't being attacked or in any imminent danger and was actually impeding the dude leaving his house by standing between him and his car. 

But, I agree w/ you, nothing will happen to him.  It should but it won't. 

Edited November 30, 2021 by DigglerontheHoof

[Jive Turkey 12598]

why not shoot Chad in the leg?  why go for a kill shot?

oh yeah, because Kyle wanted to kill Chad.  Kyle had all the time in the world to take out Chad's knees.  that would have been self-defense.  but straight for the chest means straight up murder to me.

[52-80 19159]

2 hours ago, JBJ said:

If I work backwards from the moment he fired to kill, I don't see any immediate threat.  Chad isn't struggling to get the rifle, he isn't advancing, he doesn't have anything to throw or shoot.  

The silly (?) thing is, he might have had a  better defense if he had shot right when the other guy tussled with him. 
 

That it occurred moments later, when guy was not advancing - reducing/eliminating the immediate apparent threat - is a terrible look for him. 
 

Prob should serve time. 

[Jkwellborn 6702]

why not shoot Chad in the leg?  why go for a kill shot?
oh yeah, because Kyle wanted to kill Chad.  Kyle had all the time in the world to take out Chad's knees.  that would have been self-defense.  but straight for the chest means straight up murder to me.

Stop watching tv. If you have to fire a weapon at someone or something, you shoot center mass and shoot to stop the threat.

I bet you thing cops should be trying to shoot the tires out of cars too.

[52-80 19159]

16 minutes ago, Jkwellborn said:

I bet you thing cops should be trying to shoot the tires out of cars too.

My wife says things like this from time to time. Last night we were watching an action movie, and the protagonist is chasing a bad guy at full speed a good 40 yards away. 
 

She asked, “why doesnt he just shoot him instead (with a handgun)?”

uh…cuz hes not Jason Bourne

[mycox 582]

Here should have asked "where do you want it?" and then shot him.

[workswithseed 2109]

2 hours ago, Jive Turkey said:

why not shoot Chad in the leg?  why go for a kill shot?

oh yeah, because Kyle wanted to kill Chad.  Kyle had all the time in the world to take out Chad's knees.  that would have been self-defense.  but straight for the chest means straight up murder to me.

 

[used2b 249]

9 minutes ago, Bravo said:

that dude just attacked him by going up on his porch trying to take his gun and slung him off the porch. You cant wait to shoot at that point. 

Those actions do not justify lethal violence - whether via gun, stabbing, or slamming someone over the head with a rock.

[DigglerontheHoof 21200]

2 hours ago, 52-80 said:

The silly (?) thing is, he might have had a  better defense if he had shot right when the other guy tussled with him. 
 

That it occurred moments later, when guy was not advancing - reducing/eliminating the immediate apparent threat - is a terrible look for him. 
 

Prob should serve time. 

That's my point.  The immediate threat had passed.  If he'd shot him then, he'd have been more justified...still an idiot.  And the dead dude was an idiot, too.  Going for a gun like he did, anyone standing in or around the house could have been shot.   Stupidity all around.

[Jkwellborn 6702]

Those actions do not justify lethal violence - whether via gun, stabbing, or slamming someone over the head with a rock.

If you’re trying to take someone’s gun away, particularly after you’ve been in some type of altercation and threatened them, yeah, that’s gonna justify lethal violence.

[Deej 76796]

15 minutes ago, Jkwellborn said:

If you’re trying to take someone’s gun away, particularly after you’ve been in some type of altercation and threatened them, yeah, that’s gonna justify lethal violence.

Or maybe just tell your piece of shit woman to give the child over like she was supposed to do, according to a court order.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

1 hour ago, Bravo said:

 Especially when it is on your front porch.

Technically it was his parents porch.  Kyle lives in his parents house. 

[immortal13 4059]

1 hour ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

That's my point.  The immediate threat had passed.  If he'd shot him then, he'd have been more justified...still an idiot.  And the dead dude was an idiot, too.  Going for a gun like he did, anyone standing in or around the house could have been shot.   Stupidity all around.

I agree with you on this. It looked like he stepped back to get a better vantage to shoot the guy. 

[Deej 76796]

4 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Technically it was his parents porch.  Kyle lives in his parents house. 

[closetohumping 17442]

12 hours ago, Bravo said:

You shoot center mass at least twice. 

Which is what ole Kyle did there

[closetohumping 17442]

12 hours ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

That's my point.  The immediate threat had passed.  If he'd shot him then, he'd have been more justified...still an idiot.  And the dead dude was an idiot, too.  Going for a gun like he did, anyone standing in or around the house could have been shot.   Stupidity all around.

This is where I stand. Kyle probably won’t go to jail but was he a pussy looking for a fight and could he have shown more restraint?   Yes.  

[used2b 249]

12 hours ago, Bravo said:

if someone says theyre going to take your gun away and shoot you with it and then they try to do that you're going to get shot and likely not prosecuted. Especially when it is on your front porch.

Did he actually say this? And we can argue that taking the gun away when being threatened with one (including a warning shot) is self defense as well.

[workswithseed 2109]

10 minutes ago, used2b said:

Did he actually say this? And we can argue that taking the gun away when being threatened with one (including a warning shot) is self defense as well.

Yeah, you can hear it in the video I posted. You have to be 18 and up and signed in to watch the video for obvious reasons.

[Trey3216 15346]

On 11/26/2021 at 10:55 PM, Brisketexan said:

Note that I didn’t say anything about owning guns. I don’t hate them. I own quite a few myself. My family all knows how to shoot and enjoy doing so. I commented about USING them. Don’t bring your guns to town, that sort of thing.

It’s not about guns. Well, not JUST guns. It’s about our culture leaning more and more on guns as problem solvers. And of course, it’s almost entirely men. There’s probably a whole tangent there about the shitty state of American men, but let’s save it for another thread.

Watch “Friday.” We’re solving problems with lethal force that shouldn’t involve lethal force at all. This whole affair was a shitshow. But it ended that way because someone brought a gun out to play.

If we didn’t have such a fetish with lawsuits and assigning blame, this would’ve been handled with fists…just like so many other situations used to.  Can’t do that now, you get assault charges, hate crime charges (even if it wasn’t a hate crime), etc.   sometimes, people just need and deserve a good asswhipping.   

[Trey3216 15346]

On 11/27/2021 at 4:46 PM, Sawbonz said:

Really feels like they knew he was a hothead, set him up, and he played right into their hands 

 

also

 

I bet she’s never opened a single one of those books

 

Are any of those books titled "Legs"??  I'd help her open that book. 

[Trey3216 15346]

On 11/27/2021 at 6:13 PM, txhorns said:

You should get shot for stealing a man’s beer.

What about stealing from The Man?  We used to frequent a gas station in Plano (Garland was dry then) and Hey Mr or fake ID our way into beer.  On 2 separate occasions, the beer truck was unloading into the store.  The guy left the back end of the truck wide open while he was wheeling cases into the store.  We made off with about 10-12 cases both times.  Oops.   

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

31 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

If we didn’t have such a fetish with lawsuits and assigning blame, this would’ve been handled with fists…just like so many other situations used to.  Can’t do that now, you get assault charges, hate crime charges (even if it wasn’t a hate crime), etc.   sometimes, people just need and deserve a good asswhipping.   

wait...wut?

[bolverk 29682]

1 hour ago, workswithseed said:

Yeah, you can hear it in the video I posted. You have to be 18 and up and signed in to watch the video for obvious reasons.

Beginning at 1:01:

Black shirt comes out with gun and yells "Leave!"

Green shirt sees gun and says "You better fucking use it, motherfucker, I'll take it from you and [bleep]!"

Garbled exchange (I think he says he'll use it on him but have a tough time making it out exactly.)

Green shirt: "Where's my son?"

Black shirt: "I don't have your son."

Did my best at getting screen grabs from the YouTube clip you posted after that verbal exchange with the following sequence of events. Hopefully, they're not too small but the video is also washed out.

This is how I see it:

1. Black shirt fires shot at green shirt's feet.
2. Green & black chest bump one last time.
3. Green shirt grabs right shoulder of black shirt with left hand and rifle with right hand.
4. Green shirt begins to sling black shirt to his right.
5. Black shirt catches footing after skipping back a bit.
6. Black shirt takes aim.
7. Black shirt fires.

The screenshot sequence above begins at 1:13 and happens in just about 4 seconds. Shit is quick.

Edited December 1, 2021 by bolverk
Life is cheap

[crash_davis 23113]

so....did anyone get charged yet? 

 

also, i cannot wait until the kids are old enough to understand that the mom had her bf kill the dad. yea, xmas is going to be fun. 

[Samson's Wig 3192]

19 hours ago, Bravo said:

Dude was a fucking idiot bringing the gun out but that is totally legal. He didnt at anytime point the weapon at him until he was attacked. Now that boy gets to watch a video of his mom's BF blasting his dad for the rest of his life. Dad should've fucking left when he was told and especially when the gun came out. He did the exact opposite thing you should do. He was a fucking hot head too.

I began my comment with "legalities aside".  I'm a gun owner (or I used to be before they were lost in a boating accident), but I don't really care if this was legal or not.  No decent human being introduces a gun into that scenario.    I agree the big guy was an idiot as well, but the tiny man with the gun is the reason someone is dead, and anyone trying to justify it is likely trying to frame this to line up with their thoughts on gun rights rather than just calling it what it is.   A little dude with a fragile ego brought a gun to what wasn't even a fist fight.  That's a pussy move, period.

[Samson's Wig 3192]

Just now, Bravo said:

there was no reason for that gun to be introduced. Fucking idiotic. That's was also the the time when the other guy should've left but he decided to escalate it. 2 idiots and one is dead and there is a boy who now gets to see his dad blasted on video the rest of his life by his mom's BF.

Agreed.

[GringoSalado 1651]

Strikes me that shooter and gf purposely led deceased to believe his son was there when he was not to both create the confrontation while at the same time removing a legit claim or reason the father might have to escalate (they have his kid inside).

Ins/outs/what-have-yous aside...

[Samson's Wig 3192]

1 hour ago, GringoSalado said:

Strikes me that shooter and gf purposely led deceased to believe his son was there when he was not to both create the confrontation while at the same time removing a legit claim or reason the father might have to escalate (they have his kid inside).

Ins/outs/what-have-yous aside...

I don't think we're discussing people who are smart enough for such shenanigans, but maybe.

[TwiceHorn 31481]

8 hours ago, Trey3216 said:

If we didn’t have such a fetish with guns lawsuits and assigning blame, this would’ve been handled with fists…just like so many other situations used to.  Can’t do that now, you get dead people and gunshot wounds assault charges, hate crime charges (even if it wasn’t a hate crime), etc.   sometimes, people just need and deserve a good asswhipping.   

Fify.  That was too easy.

And, we aren't really talking about lawsuits.  A criminal prosecution is a form of lawsuit, but it's not a dispute resolution mechanism.

Edited December 2, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[closetohumping 17442]

Here’s Ana regiment for green short. If you approach me with a gun don’t o have a right to disarm you?

 

 

again not like the KR incident.   He was running

[SHOOTER12 8810]

On 11/30/2021 at 5:44 PM, Jive Turkey said:

why not shoot Chad in the leg?  why go for a kill shot?

oh yeah, because Kyle wanted to kill Chad.  Kyle had all the time in the world to take out Chad's knees.  that would have been self-defense.  but straight for the chest means straight up murder to me.

OK, going to hell for laughing at the graphic.

[SHOOTER12 8810]

On 11/30/2021 at 5:44 PM, Jive Turkey said:

why not shoot Chad in the leg?  why go for a kill shot?

oh yeah, because Kyle wanted to kill Chad.  Kyle had all the time in the world to take out Chad's knees.  that would have been self-defense.  but straight for the chest means straight up murder to me.

OK, going to hell for laughing at the graphic.

[SHOOTER12 8810]

Question for the legal eagles as well as anyone who might have experience in the scenario.

Why all the trouble over a warning shot?  If I'm ever caught up in a situation where I would have to present a weapon, I'd whole lot rather fire a warning shot than just shoot someone.

If the shoe was on the other foot I'd really prefer a warning shot as compared to actually being shot.

Full disclosure, if a person is armed and tells me to leave?  Color my ass gone.

[conVINCEd 21469]

44 minutes ago, SHOOTER12 said:

Question for the legal eagles as well as anyone who might have experience in the scenario.

Why all the trouble over a warning shot?  If I'm ever caught up in a situation where I would have to present a weapon, I'd whole lot rather fire a warning shot than just shoot someone.

If the shoe was on the other foot I'd really prefer a warning shot as compared to actually being shot.

Full disclosure, if a person is armed and tells me to leave?  Color my ass gone.

I’ve had a gun fired at me once in my life.  They missed.  I got the fuck out of dodge.  The shooter was convicted of capital murder a year later because they succeeded the next week.

Edited December 2, 2021 by conVINCEd

[SHOOTER12 8810]

12 minutes ago, conVINCEd said:

I’ve had a gun fired at me once in my life.  They missed.  I got the fuck out of dodge.  The shooter was convicted of capital murder a year later because they succeeded the next week.

Dayum

[conVINCEd 21469]

4 minutes ago, SHOOTER12 said:

Dayum

You want a real dayum, the shooter was a 17 year old suburban white girl.

[SHOOTER12 8810]

12 minutes ago, conVINCEd said:

You want a real dayum, the shooter was a 17 year old suburban white girl.

Yep, that's a double dayum...but she succeeded the next week??? You're a dead guy???  Triple dayum...

[conVINCEd 21469]

3 minutes ago, SHOOTER12 said:

Yep, that's a double dayum...but she succeeded the next week??? You're a dead guy???  Triple dayum...

She succeeded with some other unfortunate random person.  I barely knew her.

[SHOOTER12 8810]

1 hour ago, Bravo said:

I don't know what her car has do with it?

Got to watch those white suburbans, they're nearly as dangerous as slow white broncos...