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

[TwiceHorn 31475]

2 minutes ago, bolverk said:

The potential charge of being an accomplice to kidnapping was the case I was trying to make was against the shooter. Sorry if I was unclear or bungled that.

Well, again, the relevant provision for Carruth, as the shooter, is (3), not (1)(c).  So any crime not a class c misdemeanor would do, so interference with child custody is a more likely thing.

[bolverk 29677]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, again, the relevant provision for Carruth, as the shooter, is (3), not (1)(c).  So any crime not a class c misdemeanor would do, so interference with child custody is a more likely thing.

Right. That's what I was trying to go after was to show that if he killed the guy while being engaged in a crime (i.e., "kidnapping" or interfering with child custody), would he still be able to make a claim of self-defense?

And, again, I apologize for my simplistic, non-lawyerly take on things. I've only stepped into a courtroom twice: 1) for being called to a jury duty pool (not selected) and 2) a quick acceptance by the judge for my divorce agreement. Thanks for your continued patience.

[Jkwellborn 6702]

He’s gonna get charged for the warning shots.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

16 minutes ago, Jkwellborn said:

He’s gonna get charged for the warning shots.

…but not for murdering the guy?

[HRSchenker 2268]

2 hours ago, Helobious said:

You must not watch the MLB much.

You recognize a difference between race and ethnicity, yeah?

[Jkwellborn 6702]

…but not for murdering the guy?

maybe I should have said convicted. I think he winds up walking on shooting the guy.

You recognize a difference between race and ethnicity, yeah?

Most people don’t seem to know the difference.

[Helobious 9454]

3 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

You recognize a difference between race and ethnicity, yeah?

I do. I’m also hispanic myself. Most mexican-americans like me are mixed race mestizo, Spaniard & native. Some are almost exclusively white, some not white at all but native. A lot of hispanics from Carribean nations are straight up black or mixed race. All in all only about 65% of hispanics in this country identify as white. Far cry from 99%. 

[TXSG8R 3362]

2 hours ago, bolverk said:

Okay, so it was confirmed that his children weren't present at the time but elsewhere. Got it.

I thought there were multiple kids. One was at grandmas, the other(s?) witnessed his dad getting smoked.  

[GringoSalado 1651]

21 hours ago, Goredho said:

Understood, but my point was that there was no real civilian market for high-capacity semi-automatic weapons chambered for military rounds in the 70s.  No one in my small town owned anything like an AR-15.  It was overkill and completely unnecessary for the utilitarian reasons people owned guns.  Now, they do own them, a lot of them, for reasons that I don’t understand.

Something in the 80s timeframe created the rise of a completely different kind of civilian gun market and consumer demand, one less focused on guns as utilitarian tools and more focused on defense against nebulous human threats.  It is beyond the scope of this thread, but I think it would be interesting to see a serious examination of why and how that happened.

Edit:  Am guessing at least part of it had to do with urban migration and fewer hunters for gun manufacturers to sell their products to.  They needed a new reason for people to own guns beyond simply hunting and rural utility.

imo it was the assault weapons ban 1994. None of my friends cared about black rifles before then. My college roommate bought 4 or 5 Belgian rifles with his Pell grant* and they quadrupled in value, at least, after the ban. After that the Shotgun News, for example, was filled with ads of pre-ban guns for ridiculous prices and pages of new post-ban legal scary black rifles that mfgs came out with to comply with the ban. Walla.

 

I still have my ruger mini 14.

 

 

 

*due to some crazy theory about Clinton banning guns which turned out to be not that crazy

[TexasEd 8067]

2 hours ago, Sandman said:

I gotta say, I'm pretty sure I've never heard of a woman getting screwed in a custody decision. Not saying it doesn't happen but I just can't think of an example. 

Which makes Fitlump's situation that much more amazing

I hope the DA looks into the child custody angle.

• Was the mom in violation of the custody decree
• Was her boyfriend a party to that violation
• Was that the agreed upon pickup spot

If all three are true then the shooter was a party to a crime.

Then the video comes into play and that shows the dad was on the shooter's property to claim his kids and the shooter assisted in denying him access first and then escalated it with the gun and shooting the dad.

 

[tx 3 putt 76958]

That’s a murder 

[BearSchlong 8098]

So let's say the grand jury no bills Carruth, does the widow have a good chance of collecting civil damages for wrongful death?

Also, my family owned a True Value in the late 80s, the Ruger Mini-14 was the closest thing we had to an AR.

The A-Team out front should've told ya.

[TwiceHorn 31475]

40 minutes ago, BearSchlong said:

So let's say the grand jury no bills Carruth, does the widow have a good chance of collecting civil damages for wrongful death?

Also, my family owned a True Value in the late 80s, the Ruger Mini-14 was the closest thing we had to an AR.

The A-Team out front should've told ya.










 

Probably, yeah.  Self-defense is more of a "roll your own" thing in a civil tort case.  That is, the provisions of Tex. Penal Code 9.31 would not apply.  The defense would strenuously argue that they do by analogy, though.

Well, correction.  You said "collect."  I don't imagine Carruth or his ex have big pots of money.  Plaintiff's lawyers can be pretty ingenious at dragging parents and estates into things, though, particularly given that the property apparently was Carruth's parents.

Regardless, I think they have a decent chance of winning a judgment in a "wrongful death" suit.  Note that in Texas, and most places, "wrongful death" really isn't a cause of action like negligence or assault, but a bunch of rules about who can sue and collect damages based on the fact that the injured party is dead.  This would most likely be an assault case, where self-defense and provocation provide potential defenses and probably also "mutual combat."  

Edited November 29, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Braff Zacklin 13575]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The defense would strenuously argue that they do by analogy, though.

[Buzzrock 14920]

It just seems to me that we are seeing a lot of stories that should end up with black eyes and sore knuckles end up with somebody in the morgue.

There are also millions more media outlets now that everyone is carrying an Internet-connected video camera in their pocket. No video, no story.

[kevwun 15789]

That little smirk on his face after he shot him while he was standing next to the body doesn't really look like someone who was in fear of his life.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

On 11/28/2021 at 11:10 AM, TexasEd said:

The video does not support the shooter's future claim that he was in fear for his life.

He had to "man up" in front of his new fling. If he doesn't, she'll kill him. CASE DISMISSED. 

[hornian 5219]

On 11/28/2021 at 1:44 PM, Sandman said:

I gotta say, I'm pretty sure I've never heard of a woman getting screwed in a custody decision. Not saying it doesn't happen but I just can't think of an example. 

I have. More than once. But I have a lot more anecdotal experience than most. 

My worst example was this:

Small town/small county near Travis County. Two daughters both under 5. Oldest makes an outcry of sexual abuse by the father and paternal grandfather. Verified with an interview at the CAC, also verified with physical evidence by a SANE nurse (which is redundant - it stands for Sexual Abuse Nurse Examiner). Mom files for divorce and moves out as soon as child makes outcry. Dad is arrested based on evidence from CAC interview/SANE examination. We get temporary orders that dad/dad's family are not to have contact while dad/dad's family is being investigated. But Dad's attorney is the husband of the DA prosecuting the case. Somehow, the DA (who is married to to Dad's attorney, to remind you) manages to take that case to the grand jury with all that evidence and the grand jury no bills dad / paternal grandfather. After that, the Judge orders kids to go back to unsupervised, overnight visits with dad. The lead sheriff's investigator was so disgusted by the politics at play that she quit the county sheriff's office. Mom refused to comply with the Court's order because she is convinced (and I was too  based on the evidence) that dad/dad's family had sexually abused the children, but Judge wouldn't hear it - all he needed to know was that a grand jury no-billed the dad. In his eyes, that meant it never happened. And because mom refused to allow kids to go back with Chester the Molester voluntarily, Judge ordered kids removed from mom, to go live with dad. 

I don't take cases in that county anymore. 

[conVINCEd 21469]

2 hours ago, hornian said:

I have. More than once. But I have a lot more anecdotal experience than most. 

My worst example was this:

Small town/small county near Travis County. Two daughters both under 5. Oldest makes an outcry of sexual abuse by the father and paternal grandfather. Verified with an interview at the CAC, also verified with physical evidence by a SANE nurse (which is redundant - it stands for Sexual Abuse Nurse Examiner). Mom files for divorce and moves out as soon as child makes outcry. Dad is arrested based on evidence from CAC interview/SANE examination. We get temporary orders that dad/dad's family are not to have contact while dad/dad's family is being investigated. But Dad's attorney is the husband of the DA prosecuting the case. Somehow, the DA (who is married to to Dad's attorney, to remind you) manages to take that case to the grand jury with all that evidence and the grand jury no bills dad / paternal grandfather. After that, the Judge orders kids to go back to unsupervised, overnight visits with dad. The lead sheriff's investigator was so disgusted by the politics at play that she quit the county sheriff's office. Mom refused to comply with the Court's order because she is convinced (and I was too  based on the evidence) that dad/dad's family had sexually abused the children, but Judge wouldn't hear it - all he needed to know was that a grand jury no-billed the dad. In his eyes, that meant it never happened. And because mom refused to allow kids to go back with Chester the Molester voluntarily, Judge ordered kids removed from mom, to go live with dad. 

I don't take cases in that county anymore. 

Williamson?

[hornian 5219]

Just now, conVINCEd said:

Williamson?

Nope. 

[Updawg 2266]

I have. More than once. But I have a lot more anecdotal experience than most. 
My worst example was this:
Small town/small county near Travis County. Two daughters both under 5. Oldest makes an outcry of sexual abuse by the father and paternal grandfather. Verified with an interview at the CAC, also verified with physical evidence by a SANE nurse (which is redundant - it stands for Sexual Abuse Nurse Examiner). Mom files for divorce and moves out as soon as child makes outcry. Dad is arrested based on evidence from CAC interview/SANE examination. We get temporary orders that dad/dad's family are not to have contact while dad/dad's family is being investigated. But Dad's attorney is the husband of the DA prosecuting the case. Somehow, the DA (who is married to to Dad's attorney, to remind you) manages to take that case to the grand jury with all that evidence and the grand jury no bills dad / paternal grandfather. After that, the Judge orders kids to go back to unsupervised, overnight visits with dad. The lead sheriff's investigator was so disgusted by the politics at play that she quit the county sheriff's office. Mom refused to comply with the Court's order because she is convinced (and I was too  based on the evidence) that dad/dad's family had sexually abused the children, but Judge wouldn't hear it - all he needed to know was that a grand jury no-billed the dad. In his eyes, that meant it never happened. And because mom refused to allow kids to go back with Chester the Molester voluntarily, Judge ordered kids removed from mom, to go live with dad. 
I don't take cases in that county anymore. 

Wow. It’s a ugly world

I used to do computer forensics, luckily before I had kids.
Yeah, there is bad bad stuff out there. Glad I’m out of the business but good for you. No way I want to to see that shit now

[elfenix 34242]

On 11/28/2021 at 10:31 AM, TXSG8R said:

Anyone that thinks “this situation is getting intense, I should pull a gun out to calm things down” is a fucking idiot that watches too many movies.

literally watched this happen a couple weekends back.  dude went into his house to get his pistol and came back outside to yell at some guys who'd pulled into the swale between the road and pistol dude's front fence. thought i was about to see a gun fight, but traffic opened up and the guys drove off. 

Edited November 30, 2021 by elfenix

[shadow_operative 15932]

On 11/26/2021 at 10:59 PM, fattyflattie said:

The dad bears some responsibility. His kid wasn’t there, walk away.  Yes, it wouldn’t have ended that way without the gun, but it wouldn’t have ended that way had he walked off either.  Just a big old shitshow. Also, yeah. Lots of people afraid of a good asswhipping these days. Don’t know how you fix that. 

not trying to call you out personally, but i never understand these "just walk away" comments which pop up every time someone in an argument gets killed by some nut with a gun. like, you've never been in an argument before? ever? under the circumstances, where this lady was using her kids as weapons to hurt her ex, the guy had every right to be upset, and further, seeing how upset he clearly was, he never escalated anything beyond raising his voice. i'm sorry, but this idea that nobody should ever get into an argument for any reason and should always just walk away every time they are upset at something baffles me.

[workswithseed 2109]

14 minutes ago, shadow_operative said:

not trying to call you out personally, but i never understand these "just walk away" comments which pop up every time someone in an argument gets killed by some nut with a gun. like, you've never been in an argument before? ever? under the circumstances, where this lady was using her kids as weapons to hurt her ex, the guy had every right to be upset, and further, seeing how upset he clearly was, he never escalated anything beyond raising his voice. i'm sorry, but this idea that nobody should ever get into an argument for any reason and should always just walk away every time they are upset at something baffles me.

An argument, and bumping chests on the man with a gun's property is pretty damned different.

I had an argument where I guy pulled a gun on me. You know what I didn't do? Get in his face, tell him I was going to kill him, and try to grab his gun. 

[shadow_operative 15932]

16 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

An argument, and bumping chests on the man with a gun's property is pretty damned different.

I had an argument where I guy pulled a gun on me. You know what I didn't do? Get in his face, tell him I was going to kill him, and try to grab his gun. 

you still got involved in an argument. ipso facto, had the guy who pulled his gun on you actually shot you dead, you would have been at least partially responsible for that. or so says the post i replied to. i don't agree with that. 

Edited November 30, 2021 by shadow_operative

[shadow_operative 15932]

also, the now dead dad *clearly* had a fight or flight response to the gun. his actions there, unlike the killer who obviously has been waiting for a reason to shoot someone, were not premeditated. someone brought deadly force to his person and he responded in an absolutely primal way, screaming out, and trying to make himself appear formidable to the creature that's posing a lethal threat. humans always forget that we are still animals, and these the fight or flight response is hardwired in all of us. nobody knows how they'll react in that situation until it happens, and laying blame on the dead dad for reacting in a fight or flight manner to sudden danger is short sighted and wrong.

Edited November 30, 2021 by shadow_operative

[workswithseed 2109]

1 hour ago, shadow_operative said:

you still got involved in an argument. ipso facto, had the guy who pulled his gun on you actually shot you dead, you would have been at least partially responsible for that. or so says the post i replied to. i don't agree with that. 

I don't think being in arguments is wrong, I don't think fighting is wrong as long as both sides agree to the terms. Kyle told Chad to get off his property, and gave him warning a shot to enforce that he wants him off. Chad kept bumping, threatening, and tried to grab the gun. Chad threw Kyle from his front porch. After all that, Kyle shoots him about a second after being thrown. @atomheartbevo is right, if Chad had just left, he'd win more than his life. I should add that I'm sad that this happened, but at some point you gotta think with your head and not your ego.

Edited November 30, 2021 by workswithseed

[Bojack 2081]

On 11/28/2021 at 6:13 PM, BearSchlong said:

So let's say the grand jury no bills Carruth, does the widow have a good chance of collecting civil damages for wrongful death?

Also, my family owned a True Value in the late 80s, the Ruger Mini-14 was the closest thing we had to an AR.

The A-Team out front should've told ya.










 

Unlike Carruth, the A-Team never shot anybody.  

[shadow_operative 15932]

19 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I don't think being in arguments is wrong, I don't think fighting is wrong as long as both sides agree to the terms. Kyle told Chad to get off his property, and gave him warning a shot to enforce that he wants him off. Chad kept bumping, threatening, and tried to grab the gun. Chad threw Kyle from his front porch. After all that, Kyle shoots him about a second after being thrown. @atomheartbevo is right, if Chad had just left, he'd win more than his life. I should add that I'm sad that this happened, but at some point you gotta think with your head and not your ego.

you're admonishing a dead man for doing something you've admitted doing. i don't know if it makes you feel cool about yourself or something, but it makes no sense and serves no purpose. getting into an argument doesn't make you responsible for getting shot by a psychopath. 

again, the post i am specifically responding to blamed the dad for his own death because he didn't walk away when he found out his kid wasn't there, which was *before* the psycho went and got the gun. all this shit you're posting about what happened *after* the gun was brought out is completely irrelevant to this discussion. 

i guess it's really this simple: when i watch a psychopath murder an innocent person, i don't start trying to find ways to blame the innocent dead guy, and i can't wrap my head around the thought process of people who do. 

Edited November 30, 2021 by shadow_operative

[closetohumping 17442]

21 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I don't think being in arguments is wrong, I don't think fighting is wrong as long as both sides agree to the terms. Kyle told Chad to get off his property, and gave him warning a shot to enforce that he wants him off. Chad kept bumping, threatening, and tried to grab the gun. Chad threw Kyle from his front porch. After all that, Kyle shoots him about a second after being thrown. @atomheartbevo is right, if Chad had just left, he'd win more than his life. I should add that I'm sad that this happened, but at some point you gotta think with your head and not your ego.

Kyle shot at his feet which of course would make chad feel the need to wrestle the gun out of his hands.  At that last second, Kyle could’ve spared his life but didn’t.  

[workswithseed 2109]

5 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

Kyle shot at his feet which of course would make chad feel the need to wrestle the gun out of his hands.  At that last second, Kyle could’ve spared his life but didn’t.  

If you can watch it on YouTube, you can see at 1:10 that Chad tries to take if before he shoots.

[workswithseed 2109]

26 minutes ago, shadow_operative said:

you're admonishing a dead man for doing something you've admitted doing. i don't know if it makes you feel cool about yourself or something, but it makes no sense and serves no purpose. getting into an argument doesn't make you responsible for getting shot by a psychopath. 

again, the post i am specifically responding to blamed the dad for his own death because he didn't walk away when he found out his kid wasn't there, which was *before* the psycho went and got the gun. all this shit you're posting about what happened *after* the gun was brought out is completely irrelevant to this discussion. 

i guess it's really this simple: when i watch a psychopath murder an innocent person, i don't start trying to find ways to blame the innocent dead guy, and i can't wrap my head around the thought process of people who do. 

I don't think I'm cool for not being shot. I do think keeping my distance, waiting till we cool off and he puts his gun away to talk to him again kept me from shot. 

I'm talking about what happened after because that's the reason he is dead. He got to be mad and yell before the gun. When the gun showed up, he should have went to make good his threat of suing thier asses. 

 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

I just want to point out that we are talking about a Chad and a Kyle.

They’re the worst.

[StruggleBus 3922]

No, that designation is reserved for The Derel 

[Homercles 10205]

On 11/27/2021 at 4:23 PM, CooterBrown said:

 

When you normalize guns as something that’s necessary in grocery stores, when walking the street, at junior’s ballgame, etc. and you constantly preach a culture of fear and us vs them, there’s no other possible outcome really.

 

This is America. Guns in my area.  I got the strap.  I gotta carry em 

[DigglerontheHoof 21200]

Don't forget Wayne.

[JBJ 3654]

The defense team will struggle to find justifications for using deadly force.  Non-deadly force may be justified, but what threat is he stopping the moment he shoots?

Edited November 30, 2021 by JBJ

[South Austin 52509]

40 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

have we determined which of the 2 white guys is the racist in this scenario

[DigglerontheHoof 21200]

45 minutes ago, JBJ said:

The defense team will struggle to find justifications for using deadly force.  Non-deadly force may be justified, but what threat is he stopping the moment he shoots?

micro penis

[52-80 19159]

On 11/28/2021 at 2:14 AM, Superhero said:

When White Knighting goes terribly wrong.

Dad was an idiot for not walking away when the BF brought out a gun. BF was a prick for getting the gun and shooting when dad was no longer a threat. I hope the fucker goes to prison and gets sodomized ass everyday. Twice a day. Maybe with a baseball with barbed wire wrapped around it.

Yup.  Totally unnecessary conflict.  Dude seemed calm and (in the right?) to demand his kids at specified time.  Wasnt aggravated until dude pulled out the hole-punch.  Sensible thing to do at that point was to walk away.  Whatever shooter is charged with... should be stuck with atleast something.

[immortal13 4059]

15 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Yup.  Totally unnecessary conflict.  Dude seemed calm and (in the right?) to demand his kids at specified time.  Wasnt aggravated until dude pulled out the hole-punch.  Sensible thing to do at that point was to walk away.  Whatever shooter is charged with... should be stuck with atleast something.

 

[closetohumping 17442]

2 hours ago, workswithseed said:

I don't think I'm cool for not being shot. I do think keeping my distance, waiting till we cool off and he puts his gun away to talk to him again kept me from shot. 

I'm talking about what happened after because that's the reason he is dead. He got to be mad and yell before the gun. When the gun showed up, he should have went to make good his threat of suing thier asses. 

 

Couldn't watch the video for some reason but I'll take your word for it.  I'm not a judge or a lawyer, but can the black shirt get off, yeah, I think it's possible.  IMO though, he could've showed way more restraint.  Not saying green shirt is w/o fault but I think a lot of people have been there.  

[South Austin 52509]

1 hour ago, immortal13 said:

 

You master that move and you can go home to Starla at night.

Edited November 30, 2021 by South Austin

[JBJ 3654]

On 11/28/2021 at 2:48 PM, 4th and 5 said:

Entering or attempting to enter would arguably include a porch outside a habitation but I see no intent to do so. Which is why I said upthread that all 3 elements of the castle doctrine are problematic 

All 3 elements require force.  Forced entry, forced removal, crimes that involve force. 

Walking around on open curtailage is not the same as forced entry, trespassing or not.

Forced removal has some merit for slinging the guy off his porch, but convince a jury that that is reasonably interpreted by the shooter as a forced removal.

Edited November 30, 2021 by JBJ

[Brothahorn 10087]

As a dumbass who has been in that situation, it's best not goad the asshole with the gun. Back away and live to fight another day. Telling folks to shoot, what you will do to them and attempting to take the gun is real fucking stupid. And I've done all that. I was lucky that the guy was a better man than me that day.

Also, when people tell you to leave, leave.

And yes it was behind my daughter and her trifling ass momma.

[52-80 19159]

6 minutes ago, Brothahorn said:

As a dumbass who has been in that situation, it's best not goad the asshole with the gun. Back away and live to fight another day. Telling folks to shoot, what you will do to them and attempting to take the gun is real fucking stupid. And I've done all that. I was lucky that the guy was a better man than me that day.

 

 

[4th and 5 4914]

2 hours ago, JBJ said:

All 3 elements require force.  Forced entry, forced removal, crimes that involve force. 

Walking around on open curtailage is not the same as forced entry, trespassing or not.

Forced removal has some merit for slinging the guy off his porch, but convince a jury that that is reasonably interpreted by the shooter as a forced removal.

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.

 

[Samson's Wig 3192]

18 hours ago, hornian said:

I have. More than once. But I have a lot more anecdotal experience than most. 

My worst example was this:

Small town/small county near Travis County. Two daughters both under 5. Oldest makes an outcry of sexual abuse by the father and paternal grandfather. Verified with an interview at the CAC, also verified with physical evidence by a SANE nurse (which is redundant - it stands for Sexual Abuse Nurse Examiner). Mom files for divorce and moves out as soon as child makes outcry. Dad is arrested based on evidence from CAC interview/SANE examination. We get temporary orders that dad/dad's family are not to have contact while dad/dad's family is being investigated. But Dad's attorney is the husband of the DA prosecuting the case. Somehow, the DA (who is married to to Dad's attorney, to remind you) manages to take that case to the grand jury with all that evidence and the grand jury no bills dad / paternal grandfather. After that, the Judge orders kids to go back to unsupervised, overnight visits with dad. The lead sheriff's investigator was so disgusted by the politics at play that she quit the county sheriff's office. Mom refused to comply with the Court's order because she is convinced (and I was too  based on the evidence) that dad/dad's family had sexually abused the children, but Judge wouldn't hear it - all he needed to know was that a grand jury no-billed the dad. In his eyes, that meant it never happened. And because mom refused to allow kids to go back with Chester the Molester voluntarily, Judge ordered kids removed from mom, to go live with dad. 

I don't take cases in that county anymore. 

Sounds an awful lot like shenanigans I've heard tell of in Gillespie County, although this shit happens in many small communities. 

[immortal13 4059]

3 hours ago, Bravo said:

Dude isn't even going to be charged. Deceased was told to leave. Deceased told the douche with the gun something to the effect I'm going to take that from you and shoot you. Then he grabs the gun slings dude off his porch. Gets shot. FAFO. None of the custody facts even matter. 

$100 says he does time for manslaughter at least

[Samson's Wig 3192]

Legalities aside, little man is a piece of shit and committed straight up pussified murder (the common use of the word). Anyone defending his actions should seek some help before they follow in his footsteps.  Men scared of their own shadow and deadly weapons are a bad combination.