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

[workswithseed 2112]

4 hours ago, closetohumping said:

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

Depends, if you're on their property and don't want you on it, I say property owner has the right to kick you off their lawn with force if you're not doing so. 

[Cousin Strawberry 1261]

If I have a custody agreement that says I am to pick up the child at 3:30pm on X date at my ex-wife's house and I show up at that time, the limp-dick, douchebag boyfriend can order me to leave and I have to go?  Can someone with no authority or interest in the property actually order me to leave?  If I don't they can display a firearm in order to persuade me to leave?  

Shooter is a white trash. Also huge pussy.  

 

[conVINCEd 21469]

2 hours ago, SHOOTER12 said:

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

I looked it up, and couldn’t find much in the way of print journalism as it was the early 90’s.    I was wrong, she pled down and got off easy.  I was a freshman at UT when the trial occurred, so out of sight out of mind.  She was also not the trigger man in the actual murder, which is not how I remembered it going down.  She certainly sent a round down range toward my car on a Saturday night.   Long story short, she decided to fuck the wrong guy.

 

[workswithseed 2112]

1 hour ago, Cousin Strawberry said:

If I have a custody agreement that says I am to pick up the child at 3:30pm on X date at my ex-wife's house and I show up at that time, the limp-dick, douchebag boyfriend can order me to leave and I have to go?  Can someone with no authority or interest in the property actually order me to leave?  If I don't they can display a firearm in order to persuade me to leave?  

Shooter is a white trash. Also huge pussy.  

 

The guy lives there, he has no interest? Get mad go get the cops. He sent them to the gma's house because he thought the kid was over there. I don't know why he just didn't leave.

[DanRydell 799]

On 11/30/2021 at 8:56 PM, 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.

If the mere holding of a gun justifies lethal force, then the shooter was by definition the aggressor in this instance and thus has no right to self defense. 

[closetohumping 17442]

8 hours ago, workswithseed said:

Depends, if you're on their property and don't want you on it, I say property owner has the right to kick you off their lawn with force if you're not doing so. 

I’m gonna call the police if I’m the homeowner.  The only time I’ll shoot is if my life is in danger.  What if property owner kidnapped your kid?   You just gonna get off his lawn?

[workswithseed 2112]

1 minute ago, closetohumping said:

I’m gonna call the police if I’m the homeowner.  The only time I’ll shoot is if my life is in danger.  What if property owner kidnapped your kid?   You just gonna get off his lawn?

@TwiceHorn already said it wasn't kidnapping. 

If a person kidnaps my kid, I'd do anything I can to get them back, but I'd also call the police to the house where I was at. 

[closetohumping 17442]

1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

@TwiceHorn already said it wasn't kidnapping. 

If a person kidnaps my kid, I'd do anything I can to get them back, but I'd also call the police to the house where I was at. 

I know. Just interjecting a hypothetical.  I’ve said before that black shirt likely gets off in Texas.  I believe he could’ve showed more restraint throughout 

[workswithseed 2112]

3 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

I know. Just interjecting a hypothetical.  I’ve said before that black shirt likely gets off in Texas.  I believe he could’ve showed more restraint throughout 

I agree. I wish this didn't happen. I'd rather the kids had their dad back, and people didn't have to see a man die. It was egos going full regard, and you should never go full regard.

I'm not going to cry if Kyle goes to prison, I'm just giving my opinion on how I think the law will go and why. 

Edited December 2, 2021 by workswithseed

[closetohumping 17442]

Just now, workswithseed said:

I agree. I wish this didn't happen. I'd rather the kids had their dad back, and people didn't have to see a man die. It was egos going full regard, and you should never go full regard.

For sure. Green shirt isn’t without blame and some of the anger had to do with the fact his ex is banging black shirt.  Didn’t have to go that way

[TwiceHorn 31486]

37 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

@TwiceHorn already said it wasn't kidnapping. 

If a person kidnaps my kid, I'd do anything I can to get them back, but I'd also call the police to the house where I was at. 

Actually, I didn't. 4th and 5 did.  He's an actual criminal lawyer, as is scottsins and occasionally kyrie.  Listen to what they say over me.

[workswithseed 2112]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Actually, I didn't. 4th and 5 did.  He's an actual criminal lawyer, as is scottsins and occasionally kyrie.  Listen to what they say over me.

Whoops, my bad. I'm just biased towards you cause I like you more.

Edited December 2, 2021 by workswithseed

[TKthunder2 4992]

43 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Whoops, my bad. I'm just biased towards you cause I like you more.

[Huckleberry 32865]

54 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Whoops, my bad. I'm just biased towards you cause I like you more.

Here we see a major problem with the jury system.

[workswithseed 2112]

23 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Here we see a major problem with the jury system.

He's a cat that sells internets. How can you not be?

[Huckleberry 32865]

11 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

He's a cat that sells internets. How can you not be?

I know you were being light-hearted and I was kind of being the same, but it's absolutely true that being the more likeable attorney in a case will tilt the odds in your favor. And that sucks. Justice isn't blind and it's just something to keep in mind.

[South Austin 52515]

6 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

but it's absolutely true that being the more likeable attorney in a case will tilt the odds in your favor.

Sounds like a job for Paul Batrice.

[DDD Dad 14339]

On 11/30/2021 at 9:22 PM, Judge Roybeanbag said:

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

[ChickenSandwich 9836]

5 hours ago, DanRydell said:

If the mere holding of a gun justifies lethal force, then the shooter was by definition the aggressor in this instance and thus has no right to self defense. 

He left self defense inside the home when he left to introduce a gun into the confrontation. 
 

going to be hard to claim there was a real threat when he easily walked inside and the other person did not purse. 
 

The moment he comes back out with a gun he becomes the criminal in situation by re-engaging the confrontation and then trying to claim self defense. 
 

He knew the man. He knew there was zero chance his life was in danger. He wanted to kill that man. 

Edited December 2, 2021 by ChickenSandwich

[956 Worldwide 34715]

18 hours 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.

Warning shots present two problems:

1. You’re supposed to shoot at someone in self-defense if you have a reasonable belief or fear that it’s the only way to defend yourself or property. Firing a warning shot shows that—well, maybe you don’t have to resort to deadly force because a warning shot is a “warning”. 
 

2. Probably more relevant— bullets are dangerous and don’t know they’re being used as a warning. You are discharging a firearm irresponsibly and creating the chance of hurting just some bystander or someone else’s property and can be charged with illegally discharging a weapon.

Basically the law doesn’t treat guns as communication devices because they aren’t, they exist to kill things. 

[SHOOTER12 8810]

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Warning shots present two problems:

1. You’re supposed to shoot at someone in self-defense if you have a reasonable belief or fear that it’s the only way to defend yourself or property. Firing a warning shot shows that—well, maybe you don’t have to resort to deadly force because a warning shot is a “warning”. 
 

2. Probably more relevant— bullets are dangerous and don’t know they’re being used as a warning. You are discharging a firearm irresponsibly and creating the chance of hurting just some bystander or someone else’s property and can be charged with illegally discharging a weapon.

Basically the law doesn’t treat guns as communication devices because they aren’t, they exist to kill things. 

Thanks

[workswithseed 2112]

2 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Warning shots present two problems:

1. You’re supposed to shoot at someone in self-defense if you have a reasonable belief or fear that it’s the only way to defend yourself or property. Firing a warning shot shows that—well, maybe you don’t have to resort to deadly force because a warning shot is a “warning”. 
 

2. Probably more relevant— bullets are dangerous and don’t know they’re being used as a warning. You are discharging a firearm irresponsibly and creating the chance of hurting just some bystander or someone else’s property and can be charged with illegally discharging a weapon.

Basically the law doesn’t treat guns as communication devices because they aren’t, they exist to kill things. 

I would add the caveat of if you're lost and you have a gun. 

[South Austin 52515]

2 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Probably more relevant— bullets are dangerous and don’t know they’re being used as a warning. You are discharging a firearm irresponsibly and creating the chance of hurting just some bystander or someone else’s property and can be charged with illegally discharging a weapon.

[956 Worldwide 34715]

Just now, workswithseed said:

I would add the caveat of if you're lost and you have a gun. 

Caveat your caveat with “lost in the wilderness,” maybe not so much trying to find the right Frisco cul-de-sac. 

[closetohumping 17442]

47 minutes ago, Bravo said:

this was not kidnapping and if you called the police they would tell you to take the issue to family court. Kids not being at pickups happens 1000x/day. It sucks but you have to document it and take it to court. It fucking sucks and is usually some passive aggressive move by one of the parents but it isnt kidnapping.

I know. That’s why I said what if

[DanRydell 799]

You're going to get blasted and get off if you attack someone on their porch while they have a gun and tell that person I'm going to take that from you and shoot you with it. Regardless of being a fucking moronic asshole who chose to bring the gun out which is legal. He may have wanted to kill him but he didn't initiate the physical aggression. 2 imbeciles dancing. 

So your argument is that attempting to brandish a firearm justifies lethal force but actually brandishing a firearm does not justify non-lethal force?

[TwiceHorn 31486]

1 hour ago, Bravo said:

No brandishing happened. Well not until the one moron grabbed the other morons gun and slung him off the porch. It was insanely stupid to bring the gun out but that is not illegal. What was illegal was the threat to take it away and shoot him then the assault with the grabbing of the gun and slinging him off his own porch. By the letter of the law it will be justified even though none of this should've happened. 

No it won't.

Which is not to say that a DA might decline to bring a case, or a jury might bite on self-defense, but LEGALLY and factually, he could easily be convicted of murder.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

54 minutes ago, Bravo said:

@DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt you in a bad mood?

You’re a twat.

[crash_davis 23113]

so.....has anyone been charged yet? it's a week later. how much more time does the DA need?

[Passive Aggressive Coach 87]

13 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

so.....has anyone been charged yet? it's a week later. how much more time does the DA need?

he may not get charged.

[DanRydell 799]

No brandishing happened. Well not until the one moron grabbed the other morons gun and slung him off the porch. It was insanely stupid to bring the gun out but that is not illegal. What was illegal was the threat to take it away and shoot him then the assault with the grabbing of the gun and slinging him off his own porch. By the letter of the law it will be justified even though none of this should've happened. 

So I don’t have a right to exercise non-lethal self defense by attempting to disarm someone threatening me with a firearm?

[NeverMarryAStripper 21907]

While trespassing?

[DanRydell 799]

how did he threaten him? Having a firearm pointed at the ground is not a threat. It is legal. Especially on your own property. Especially in Texas.

Someone’s holding of a firearm can both be legal and also cause someone to reasonably believe that force is immediately necessary to protect against the armed person’s use or attempted use of unlawful force.

Pulling out a gun in the middle of a verbal altercation is about 2500x more immediately threatening than having your gun unsuccessfully taken away from you.

[conVINCEd 21469]

1 minute ago, Bravo said:

He never pointed it at him until he was attacked after being threatened to have it taken from him and shot. Merely having the firearm isn't provocation because it's a legal action unless he brandished it. 

I think we’re all pretty familiar with you stance on this topic.  STFU.

[conVINCEd 21469]

1 minute ago, Bravo said:

Yep, and my stance proved correct by the law. I think we know your stance on this as being a cuck. 

I’m anti people dying unnecessarily.  I know that’s provocative.

[TwiceHorn 31486]

10 minutes ago, Bravo said:

Yep, and my stance proved correct by the law. I think we know your stance on this as being a cuck. 

This is not the same situation as Rittenhouse.

For one thing, Rittenhouse was armed at all times during confrontation with Rosenbaum, whereas Carruth escalated the confrontation by going and getting a gun.  Also, Read never actually went for the gun.

Second, RIttenhouse was pretty much in full retreat at all times and Rosenbaum was in full pursuit.  Whereas Carruth separated or retreated and Read didn't follow.

Even when Read made contact with Carruth to sling him off the porch and away from him, he didn't go for the gun.  Nor did he ever try to hit Carruth, at least once the gun came out.

Edited December 4, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[blacklab 11939]

Bravo shut the fuck up, if you keep trolling you're taking time off.

[Zepol87 9188]

I'm an idiot but if this is your type of self defense you are a massive gaping pussy 

[mchookem 16336]

so i guess where i land on this one is about the same as KR...the shooting seems legally justified, but just their posession of the firearm unnecessarily escalated what almost certainly would/should have been a non-lethal situation. so...yay them? 

oh and same for the Daniel Perry/Garrett Foster incident except times two. pew! pew!

Edited December 4, 2021 by mchookem

[workswithseed 2112]

3 minutes ago, mchookem said:

so i guess where i land on this one is about the same as KR...the shooting seems legally justified, but just their posession of the firearm unnecessarily escalated what almost certainly would/should have been a non-lethal situation. so...yay them? 

oh and same for the Daniel Perry/Garrett Foster incident except times two. pew! pew!

I think KR had a better reason to have a rifle on his person than Kyle in this situation, but for the most part I agree.  

[TwiceHorn 31486]

8 minutes ago, mchookem said:

so i guess where i land on this one is about the same as KR...the shooting seems legally justified, but just their posession of the firearm unnecessarily escalated what almost certainly would/should have been a non-lethal situation. so...yay them? 

oh and same for the Daniel Perry/Garrett Foster incident except times two. pew! pew!

Really, I disagree.  It's still a factual matter for the jury, but I think this is a lot more open to a conviction than Rittenhouse/Rosenbaum (the other two were slam dunk self-defense, imo).

Just the fact that Carruth was able to disengage long enough to go get the gun shows that he wasn't reasonably in fear of his life.  In fact, his going and getting the gun probably comprises provocation of the type the anti-Rittenhouse crew was wishcasting in that case.  Carruth could probably have just stayed in the house.

[workswithseed 2112]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Really, I disagree.  It's still a factual matter for the jury, but I think this is a lot more open to a conviction than Rittenhouse/Rosenbaum (the other two were slam dunk self-defense, imo).

Just the fact that Carruth was able to disengage long enough to go get the gun shows that he wasn't reasonably in fear of his life.  In fact, his going and getting the gun probably comprises provocation of the type the anti-Rittenhouse crew was wishcasting in that case.  Carruth could probably have just stayed in the house.

Do you think this is open closed case, or is it pretty 50/50? I definitely can see that argument from the state saying that he could have never came back outside if he was afraid for his life. I mean that's how I'd argue if I was trying to prosecute. 

[closetohumping 17442]

On 12/3/2021 at 11:15 PM, workswithseed said:

Do you think this is open closed case, or is it pretty 50/50? I definitely can see that argument from the state saying that he could have never came back outside if he was afraid for his life. I mean that's how I'd argue if I was trying to prosecute. 

If I were his defense “angry guy was still out there with my girlfriend”

[closetohumping 17442]

On 12/3/2021 at 10:55 PM, mchookem said:

so i guess where i land on this one is about the same as KR...the shooting seems legally justified, but just their posession of the firearm unnecessarily escalated what almost certainly would/should have been a non-lethal situation. so...yay them? 

oh and same for the Daniel Perry/Garrett Foster incident except times two. pew! pew!

To me it’s different. KR was literally running from three or so people and under attack. Two of the attackers were armed, one with a gun.  Green shirt here wasn’t armed and there was definitely a moment where black shirt could’ve shown mercy 

[TexasEd 8067]

On 12/3/2021 at 10:10 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Just the fact that Carruth was able to disengage long enough to go get the gun shows that he wasn't reasonably in fear of his life.  In fact, his going and getting the gun probably comprises provocation of the type the anti-Rittenhouse crew was wishcasting in that case.  Carruth could probably have just stayed in the house.

This was the point I made early on when I said the video does not support a self defense claim of being in fear of your life.

1. He left and was not pursued.
2. He re-engaged with a weapon to escalate the conflict.
3. After the confrontation he was not pursued and was the only one armed.
4. After the shooting he approached the victim immediately.
5. Just because someone isn't leaving your yard is not enough to shoot in self defense. That's being on offense.

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31486]

On 12/3/2021 at 10:15 PM, workswithseed said:

Do you think this is open closed case, or is it pretty 50/50? I definitely can see that argument from the state saying that he could have never came back outside if he was afraid for his life. I mean that's how I'd argue if I was trying to prosecute. 

It's a jury question with I think better than 50/50 odds in favor of the prosecution.

I don't think this is the kind of case you can get no-billed by a grand jury or decline to prosecute altogether.

[tx 3 putt 76978]

if you have time to go inside, get a weapon, come back and re engage, then shoot someone <<<< no way in hell that's self defense

if your life is in danger, keep your ass inside 

[TwiceHorn 31486]

6 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

if you have time to go inside, get a weapon, come back and re engage, then shoot someone <<<< no way in hell that's self defense

if your life is in danger, keep your ass inside 

There's conceivably a fact pattern where you go inside, get a gun, and the reaction from the victim permits use of lethal force (comes at you swinging some kind of club or something), but this ain't it.

[52-80 19161]

theres no world where that guy was in fear for his life.  all parties knew each other. 

[Jkwellborn 6703]

There's conceivably a fact pattern where you go inside, get a gun, and the reaction from the victim permits use of lethal force (comes at you swinging some kind of club or something), but this ain't it.

What about threatening to take the gun form you and shooting you with it, and then actually trying that?