Custody argument results in Texas man being shot to death

[Bigchillin83]

Right or wrong let’s all not look past the capabilities of the ex wife!!! Don’t get me wrong all lady’s arnt like that, but I could imagine how an vindictive ex wife could get Sombody fired up, after months and months of a divorce, custody, child support, alimony, child never being ready or at location for pick up…. There’s a reason the ex husbands new partner recorded the whole thing, either building a case of consistent issues and there’s a reasons his ex wife’s partner was there and so offensive also

I have lost my temper over a lot less…. But still think the gun from idiot number 1 came out way to early… I think idiot number 1 wanted to make a statement, and idiot number 2 called his bluff, making idiot number one go through with it to protect his life from idiot number 2 in taking his gun and using it on him… but there shouldn’t have been a gun there anyways

 

[thperez1972]

I'm 100% in agreement that the ex should have left when asked. However, when he didn't leave, he still had not, at least in the video we're all seeing, done anything to physically attack or threaten anyone, no verbal threat of violence had been voiced, and I think that to go get a gun to try to make him leave before calling the cops to make him leave was a poor choice. Once the homeowner brought the gun into the equation, that was when the ex became physically challenging. That was certainly a poor choice on the part of the ex to physically engage the gun-wielding homeowner, and at that point he made himself front-runner for the stupid prize at the end of the stupid game, but without the homeowner bringing that gun outside, it may have just been a lot more loud words and a trespass arrest. Let him stand outside and scream until the cops get there.

Suppose the homeowner went and got the gun ready, came back to the door, keeping it out of sight, and told the girlfriend "Come on in, honey, I've called the cops and we'll just wait and let them sort it out." Now, if she comes in and the ex stays outside on the lawn screaming and yelling, no big deal. If he tries to interfere and prevent her from going inside, gun's handy and then the homeowner can let him know he has it, even use it if then becomes necessary, but the ex is now the one who has escalated the circumstances, and the homeowner has clearly exhausted available options to avoid using deadly force. The homeowner could have 911 on the line recording as it went down. The homeowner just got stuck on "leave or I'm gonna make you leave," which I think was a poor choice given available options yet to try.

I believe there was someone in the house. That person should have called the police. Based on the ex's emotional state, I believe the ex would have escalated the situation if the homeowner called the police in front of the ex and I'm sure he he didn't want to leave the ex-wife out there any longer than necessary. It seems one point of contention is the ex not being violent or aggressive prior to the rifle being seen. Based on my experience and watching the video, I cannot agree with that. The ex-wife's reactions to the ex are telling. And the ex is refusing to leave even after acknowledging his kid wasn't there. So I see nothing wrong with the homeowner arming himself on his own property with his own gun. I don't think he should have to wait until the gun is needed before going to get it. Even with the homeowner getting his gun, I still say the ex is the one who escalated the situation. The ex told the homeowner, who was legally armed on his own property, that he would take the weapon from the homeowner. The ex then proceeds to confront the homeowner. It wasn't until the ex reached for the gun that the homeowner fired a warning shot. And even that didn't deter the ex. The ex then grabbed the gun and tried again to take it away, swinging the homeowner off of the porch. How many times must the ex be allowed to try to disarm the homeowner before the homeowner be allowed to defend himself?

 

[thperez1972]

Right or wrong let’s all not look past the capabilities of the ex wife!!! Don’t get me wrong all lady’s arnt like that, but I could imagine how an vindictive ex wife could get Sombody fired up, after months and months of a divorce, custody, child support, alimony, child never being ready or at location for pick up…. There’s a reason the ex husbands new partner recorded the whole thing, either building a case of consistent issues and there’s a reasons his ex wife’s partner was there and so offensive also

I have lost my temper over a lot less…. But still think the gun from idiot number 1 came out way to early… I think idiot number 1 wanted to make a statement, and idiot number 2 called his bluff, making idiot number one go through with it to protect his life from idiot number 2 in taking his gun and using it on him… but there shouldn’t have been a gun there anyways

People from both "sides" were recording the incident. Could one infer that was because the ex-husband had a history of becoming aggressive?

So idiot 1 should not have armed himself on his own property after idiot 2, having acknowledged his kid wasn't there, refused to leave? 911 could have been called by someone but that is not mutually exclusive to arming oneself. Do you believe the homeowner should have waited until a gun were needed before going inside to get that needed gun?

Kyle Carruth attorney makes case for self-defense after deadly shooting of Chad Read

LUBBOCK, Texas — The attorney for William “Kyle” Carruth made a statement Wednesday in response to the release of video of a November 5 deadly shooting. Image of David Guinn from hurleyguinn.…

www.everythinglubbock.com

 

[Bigchillin83]

No deff not!!! Just saying it’s a poker game…. There were a lot of other cards in the deck that could have been played… but that’s easy to play Monday morning quarterback!!! Who knows like you said… who’s to say his kids weren’t in the house and he was in fear for them… I know Texas law is better for the shooter in this situation than LA. Law… but bottom line, he should have left and had his day in court

 

[thperez1972]

No deff not!!! Just saying it’s a poker game…. There were a lot of other cards in the deck that could have been played… but that’s easy to play Monday morning quarterback!!! Who knows like you said… who’s to say his kids weren’t in the house and he was in fear for them… I know Texas law is better for the shooter in this situation than LA. Law… but bottom line, he should have left and had his day in court

Maybe the kids were in the house. But the ex-husband thought otherwise. At 0:15 he said he would go get them from wherever they were. At 0:23, he said the cops were on the way to her mom's house because, according to him at 0:27, that's probably where he is.

 

[MOTOR51]

Probably should have never came outside to begin with. They should have told him from the door the child was not there and told him to leave. If he didn’t leave they should have called the police and let them deal with it. If he tried to force his way inside then they could have defended themselves. The first priority should have been to keep the ex wife inside away from him.


PS- Once you commit to grabbing a firearm from someone you better not change your mind and let go.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Nontoxyc]

I believe the laws are different in Texas. I think the porch is considered part of the domicile.

Does the court order give him unrestricted access to the property? He knew the kid wasn't there. He believed the kid was at her mother's house. That's why he said he sent the police there. So if the court order allows him to be there to pick up his kid and he knows the kid isn't there to be picked up then hiding behind the court order is pretty thin. Besides, he wasn't shot because he was trespassing. He threatened to take the homeowner's weapon away and use it on the homeowner. He was shot when he tried to take the weapon away.

He only "tried to take the gun away" after a round was fired at his feet (assault). After being fired on while trying to pick his kid up (which he has a court order to do) he has the right to defend himself as well.

Going back to repeat, whether in Texas or Louisiana, you cannot shoot people for trespassing. You have to be in fear of your life. At no point in this video does the shooter look afraid whatsoever, and at no point does the guy who got shot present any "imminent threat".

 

[thperez1972]

He only "tried to take the gun away" after a round was fired at his feet (assault). After being fired on while trying to pick his kid up (which he has a court order to do) he has the right to defend himself as well.

Going back to repeat, whether in Texas or Louisiana, you cannot shoot people for trespassing. You have to be in fear of your life. At no point in this video does the shooter look afraid whatsoever, and at no point does the guy who got shot present any "imminent threat".

If you haven't watched the full video, I would suggest you do so. I posted a link to it in post #27. If you have seen it, I would suggest you watch it again. You can see the ex move toward the homeowner, telling the homeowner the ex would take the gun away. The ex then gets in the homeowner's face. The homeowner didn't do anything until at 1:05 the ex moved his had toward the rifle the ex just said he was going to take away.

Put yourself in the homeowner's shoes. The guy who just moved toward you and got in your face said he will take your gun away from you. As you're standing there, you feel his hand moving up toward your rifle. And it's not just a bump. It's pressure as if he is moving his hand up.

No shot was fired until the ex moved his hand toward the rifle after just threatening he would take the rifle away. It's in the video. You can say it wasn't the ex's intention to take the gun away but that changes nothing about what I posted above. But you don't have to believe me. There's video to back me up.

 

[LA_Huntsman]

If you haven't watched the full video, I would suggest you do so. I posted a link to it in post #27. If you have seen it, I would suggest you watch it again. You can see the ex move toward the homeowner, telling the homeowner the ex would take the gun away. The ex then gets in the homeowner's face. The homeowner didn't do anything until at 1:05 the ex moved his had toward the rifle the ex just said he was going to take away.

Put yourself in the homeowner's shoes. The guy who just moved toward you and got in your face said he will take your gun away from you. As you're standing there, you feel his hand moving up toward your rifle. And it's not just a bump. It's pressure as if he is moving his hand up.

No shot was fired until the ex moved his hand toward the rifle after just threatening he would take the rifle away. It's in the video. You can say it wasn't the ex's intention to take the gun away but that changes nothing about what I posted above. But you don't have to believe me. There's video to back me up.

View attachment 112768

I mean he was being "physically assaulted" at the time too.

 

[Gofish]

My two cents is the guy wielding the gun was in the wrong and should be cited for murder.
I am pro gun and have a carry permit, and just because you have a right to own a gun doesn't give you that right to shoot an unarmed person, especially when the armed person instigates or elevates the incident further. The video clearly shows that absolutely no threat or violence was taking place between the father, mother or the mothers boyfriend. The boyfriend decides to end the argument and provoke the father by walking inside to retrieve the gun (which was done very calmly) meaning that the boyfriend knew that the father was not being violent to the mother...in other words, there was no anticipation of bodily harm coming from the father, it was just an argument. He was also wrong in calmly walking into the house to retrieve his gun instead of grabbing say a taser or a baseball bat as it would seem that a prosecutor could argue he had every intention of killing the father. He should've walked inside and stayed inside and called the police but instead he interjected himself into the argument which he never should of done. The argument was not at all physical between the father and mother, just a typical argument between ex's regarding the child. This is not a self defense case for the boyfriend as the father was not physical up to the point the boyfriend shoved the gun into face and shot it at his feet...he only got physical when the dumbass boyfriend threatens him with a gun. Keep in mind the father was unarmed regardless of him responding to the gun being shoved into his face and firing a warning shot at his feet. The father at that point probably thought he was going to be killed by the boyfriend so he responded in self defense unfortunately he didn't have a weapon. The part that looks the worst is when the boyfriend was shoved into the yard and was about 5' or so from father standing on porch and the boyfriend just turns, aims and shoots him in the chest. The father never charged or engaged the boyfriend after he shoved him into the yard. Again, that looks like he had every intention of killing the father. I can't see self defense in that. Heck, shoot him in the leg if you have to, but don't kill him. Poor judgment on his part.

If the guy is not prosecuted for murder or manslaughter due do a Texas law then lawmakers should look closely at this case and restructure the law.

 

[sarky]

The shithead boyfriend goes into the house, not to call the cops and have the dad trespassed, but to get a gun and escalate the situation. As to the whore of an ex wife, it sure looks like she set this up. At least we have video of the whole event. Trespass, is NOT a death penalty crime! Also when shithead shot the dad, the dad wasn't even close, or attempting to disarm him.

 

[thperez1972]

The shithead boyfriend goes into the house, not to call the cops and have the dad trespassed, but to get a gun and escalate the situation. As to the whore of an ex wife, it sure looks like she set this up. At least we have video of the whole event. Trespass, is NOT a death penalty crime! Also when shithead shot the dad, the dad wasn't even close, or attempting to disarm him.

The ex wasn't shot for trespassing. He was shot for twice trying to disarm the homeowner on the homeowner's porch despite the homeowner shooting a warning shot after the first disarming attempt.

 

[thperez1972]

My two cents is the guy wielding the gun was in the wrong and should be cited for murder.
I am pro gun and have a carry permit, and just because you have a right to own a gun doesn't give you that right to shoot an unarmed person, especially when the armed person instigates or elevates the incident further. The video clearly shows that absolutely no threat or violence was taking place between the father, mother or the mothers boyfriend. The boyfriend decides to end the argument and provoke the father by walking inside to retrieve the gun (which was done very calmly) meaning that the boyfriend knew that the father was not being violent to the mother...in other words, there was no anticipation of bodily harm coming from the father, it was just an argument. He was also wrong in calmly walking into the house to retrieve his gun instead of grabbing say a taser or a baseball bat as it would seem that a prosecutor could argue he had every intention of killing the father. He should've walked inside and stayed inside and called the police but instead he interjected himself into the argument which he never should of done. The argument was not at all physical between the father and mother, just a typical argument between ex's regarding the child. This is not a self defense case for the boyfriend as the father was not physical up to the point the boyfriend shoved the gun into face and shot it at his feet...he only got physical when the dumbass boyfriend threatens him with a gun. Keep in mind the father was unarmed regardless of him responding to the gun being shoved into his face and firing a warning shot at his feet. The father at that point probably thought he was going to be killed by the boyfriend so he responded in self defense unfortunately he didn't have a weapon. The part that looks the worst is when the boyfriend was shoved into the yard and was about 5' or so from father standing on porch and the boyfriend just turns, aims and shoots him in the chest. The father never charged or engaged the boyfriend after he shoved him into the yard. Again, that looks like he had every intention of killing the father. I can't see self defense in that. Heck, shoot him in the leg if you have to, but don't kill him. Poor judgment on his part.

If the guy is not prosecuted for murder or manslaughter due do a Texas law then lawmakers should look closely at this case and restructure the law.

The armed guy did not escalate the situation. The ex-husband escalated the situation by refusing to leave after acknowledging his kid was not at the location. Was the armed guy breaking the law by walking onto his own porch holding a rifle? If he was not, he is entitled to self defense. It was the ex-husband who approached the armed man. It was the ex-husband who got in the armed man's face and started to "rub nipples." It was the ex-husband who moved his hand toward the rifle after threatening to take the gun away and use it on the armed man. It was the ex-husband who grabbed the rifle after the warning shot. The only way I can reasonably see the armed man as the aggressor is if I believed he was legally wrong to walk out on his porch with a rifle. And I don't believe he was legally wrong.

There was a second between the armed man being "shoved in the yard" and the armed man shooting. The ex-husband is not in the camera's frame at that time. Did the ex-husband, after trying to disarm the armed man twice now, start to move toward the armed man? That answer is not in the video.

Heck, shoot him in the leg if you have to, but don't kill him.

This right here speaks volumes. This right here contradicts your whole post. Shooting someone in the leg is still using force. The only way the armed man could be legally justified in pulling the trigger is if the ex-husband is a threat. So either the ex-husband was a threat or he wasn't. It can't be both. And shooting to wound is not good advice. It's usually only offered by someone who has never tried to shoot a small moving target at closer range.

 

[DarcMac]

It's a bad shoot, the man shot had a court order to be there to pick up his kid, therefore he wasnt trespassing. Self defense law also doesn't apply to simple trespassing. You can't just light up people that walk on your lawn or step foot on your property lol.

Actually, I live in Texas now. You definitely CAN be shot for simple trespassing here. But, I'm not sure that is what happened. The dead man is clearly being aggressive and threatening. He openly and directly challenged the homeowner and threatened him and the ex-wife after the man was armed and ordered him off the property. In Texas, that is textbook self-defense. And in Louisiana too - which I know from personal experience (although I would not count on the big cities following state law).

Sorry, even if they did in fact lure the man to the property and he had the court order etc., by not leaving and using legal channels instead, the guy got aggressive and threatening, signing his own justified death warrant.
Of course; a judge and jury would have the final say about it if it goes that far.

 

[DarcMac]

I believe the laws are different in Texas. I think the porch is considered part of the domicile.

You are correct about everything you have said. Every single inch of a person's property, to include the end of the driveway and all the acreage in your name is considered part of your sovereign property and you have every right to defend it with deadly force. I just bought my property here had have read the law on that. I think all the illegal alien activity brought that law into existence as written. And they don't play around with property rights in Texas.

 

[Bigchillin83]

second video is from inside the house

 

[Nontoxyc]

Here's the actual laws from Texas:

Standard self-defense laws essentially say you have a right to protect yourself.

You don’t need to stand there and let someone attack you. As stated above, this doesn’t mean you have the right to use excessive force.

For example, if someone attempts to punch you, you can defend yourself with equal force, but you can’t necessarily engage with a weapon.

Note here: you have to be in danger, and you have to respond with proportional force.

Moving on:
Texas law states that you have no duty to retreat when there is a reasonable belief you are in danger and it extends to your home, vehicle, or job.

You can justify the use of deadly force if you believe it was absolutely necessary to prevent a violent crime like sexual assault, kidnapping, murder, or robbery.

Let me repeat: "prevent a VIOLENT CRIME like SEXUAL ASSAULT or MURDER".

Can anyone please look through this and see where exactly it applies to people trespassing? Let me give you a hint. It doesnt.

What Is Stand Your Ground Law in Texas? | Simer & Tetens

What Is Stand Your Ground Law in Texas? - Texas is one of a number of states that enforces a stand your ground law. This law essentially allows someone to defend themselves if they feel their life

simerlaw.com

 

[Bigchillin83]

Maybe his intent to comit murder was when he refused to leave the property and attempting to grasp the home owners gun and take it from him… rittenhouse just won his case under similar situation, he he shot one that grabbed his gun and attempted to take it, his case was he was gonna take it from me and kill me with my gun….

Don’t get me wrong I still believe the gun came into play way to early… but according to the law he was with in it the whole time… maybe not moral law, but state law, yea

 

[Bigchillin83]

Also just thinking out loud here they have a lot smarter people over this case then us “keyboard commandos” if there were somthing illegal and charges could be filed…. They would be filed….

 

[Old School]

Man, he dropped like a rock, no movement at all after shots!