I don't know the background behind this, but when a man tells you to get the fuck off his property, you fuck off. When you don't, it's open season on trespassers.
Do you have any thoughts on that woman who the police shot after walking onto her property (after dealing with the towing of the car)?
The police seemed to walk onto her property in the second encounter, after being told to leave once, and when she produced a weapon, they responded with force.
She's a nigger. So, fuck her. Just knowing she's a nigger tells me there's a LOT more to this story than you are being told and the information that is being suppressed is being supressed to favor the nigger.
Don't believe me? What ever happened to that story about the "accident" at the parade the other day?
Lethal force is never justified to protect property as a matter of law. It is a long-settled issue. Please do not shoot trespassers unless they are causing or threatening (with the ability to carry out) you or someone else with death or serious bodily harm. You will get convicted of murder.
Nah this is just faggot gun culture in action. This is what's wrong with your country.. you can't even kick the shit out of a faggot without worrying about getting shot by some tryhard wannabe hero who has a hardon for shooting people.
You can't take someones child and move them and not allow them to see them and then justify it by saying 'if you do anything I'll shoot you'. That faggot should have had his ass whipped, now because he's literally retarded he's going to have something else done to his ass because he's clearly a fucking bitch and wont have his gun in jail.
The whole child custody is up in the air according to the facts we have. We don't know jack shit about any of that. Even if there is a child custody issue, you go to the court, you tell the judge they aren't obeying his custody order, and then you get custody of the kid.
Trespass is 100% clear though. Don't trespass. You'll get shot. You call shooting trespassers "faggot gun culture"? Fuck off commie.
You clearly have not been to family court. This is not how it works at all. The dad is always disenfranchised. Almost always 90% of the time the ruling goes against the father.
This fucking cuck fagot stepdad was a party to kidnapping. Then he shot the guy who was unarmed. What a fagot.
Yea. You say an armed society is a polite society. But your culture is like a pitbull. You're mocked around the world for how slovenly and disgusting and shitty your people are.
Society is heading to the shitter because real social justice isn't a thing anymore. Everyone just keeps to themselves so they don't get shot by an asshole.
No. I call weak faggots carrying around guns with a hard-on to murder someone faggot gun culture. Call.me a commie all you want. Look at every person who's done a 'justified shoot' in our opinion? Railroaded. I'm not the commie. Your government is. And how many guns do you own and you haven't done a thing. Fuck off faggot :)
lol, you sound like a faggot that's just mad that they can't do whatever he wantd without the threat of reprisal. Also, you sound obsessed with nigger rape which makes sense.
Dude just wanted to pick up his kids that his whore ex wife was keeping from him. Guy with the gun's life or property was not in danger, as he had the time and presence of mind to even give a warning shot. He went inside, got the gun, then came back out brandishing it, escalating the situation. He should have just called the cops on the trespasser.
Oh fuck off. What was he supposed to do? The guy deserved to to die for being a fucking idiot. Stop acting like you're so righteous. Go call the cops yourself you fucking nigger.
All the dude wanted was his kids. Would you have walked away from where you thought your kids were? It wasn't even between the manlet and the "tough guy." The "tough guy" was arguing with his ex wife. The manlet just had to white knight for his whore mistress. Noone was being threatened until the manlet decided to break out the firearm because he was on "MUH PROPERTY."
The whore ex wife was there and the "tough guy" was trying to pick up his kids, who he was supposed to have by then according to the court, and the argument didn't even have anything to do with the manlet. As soon as the tough guy picked up a brick or something and threatened life or property, so be it. Shoot away. But the fact that the manlet gunned down a father just because he was standing on his property talking to the mother of his children is bullshit. Fucking white knight.
[ - ] LawFag 1 point 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 18:52:39 ago (+1/-0)
Self defense has an element of proportionality. Also, you can't claim self defense if you are the aggressor. Gun guy became the aggressor the moment he brandished his firearm because it was disproportionate to what the dad was doing (words). Also, you cannot just shoot trespassers. Lethal force is never justified to defend property as a matter of law. Do not shoot a trespasser unless they are causing or threatening you or someone else with death or serious bodily harm.
Exactly. Not only that, the shooter was a party to kidnapping this guy's kid. Only total fagots would defend that short piece of shit with the gun in this instance.
Seems like he was there to pick up his son at the court ordered time of 3:15 and his x was trying to tell him 6:00. A pissed off dad should be expected.
Are you retarded? That's literally how it works. The whole reason parents go to court over custody is because they can't agree when and for how long each of them gets to take the child. The court decides and gives them a schedule. And yes, that schedule includes time of day. For instance, if a child gets off school at 3:15, a judge might grant a parent that time to start their turn. All cases are different. Some switch off on weeks. Some split weeks. Some just split between summer break and the school year. Regardless, you have to be one retarded mother fucker to nit understand how custody battles work.
When you're asked to leave, you should leave. Cops included.
It doesn't what you think you're allowed to do. When someone tells you to leave their property, you fucking leave.
Should the guy been provided with his agreed upon visitation with his son? Hell yeah. Now he'll never get another visitation because he's fucking dead.
He should have left when told to. Arrogant cunt is now a dead arrogant cunt and the world is a better place.
Chicken shit pussy ass stepdad shot him dead. That stepdad was probably cheating with the wife / whore with that scumbag which is why they were divorced in the first place. And you want to be critical of a dad who's being deprived of his rights to have access to his children? You are a special kind of stupid
Like a dozen other retards, you're letting your personal emotions and experiences for your opinion for you. Just like a fucking libtard with purple hair.
Be mad all you want but this guy didn't leave when he was told to. He's dead now. Whether he was right or wrong is irrelevant. He's fucking dead when he could be just a little upset and be alive to see his son a little later. He's fucking DEAD. He isn't seeing his son anymore. Darwin.
When told to leave a mans house........you should leave. Nothing entitles you to stay where you are unwanted. The son was not "kidnapped" lol. <That's just stupid to even say.
If the kid is not there and you're told to leave, you leave and then take it up with the courts. Nothing the courts mandates says that a person has to endure someone on their property when they are not wanted. The dad could have picked the kid up at the end of the driveway. He could have done a ton of other things but he didn't. He screamed, threatened and refused to leave.
Now he's dead. DEAD. He could still be alive were it not for his own actions. DEAD.
The man was trying to see his son, albeit a little early. On the other hand he was on another man's property and told to leave. Both these things are important.
The shooter was a pussy for using a gun instead of his fists, but it was his house, his castle. This whole situation just sucks, there's no clear right or wrong here I think. And it looks like everybody was white which makes it even worse.
It should have just been a fist fight in the front yard to settle it like men.
Or shot him in the legs. Yea yea it's a meme. Whatever. He went straight for murder. The dudes a fucking idiot and the cunt deserves whatever consequences come from that cuck being locked up, which he hopefully will be.
Fuck that, you can kill just as easily with fists ad you can with a firearm.
If someone refuses to leave my property or home once told to leave that becomes their final and only warning. At that point its up to a lawyer to argue in court why I protected myself.
I will not take a fist to the eye, jaw, whatever because someone says "only pussies use guns" you sound like ADA Krauss from Kenosha.
"Everyone takes a beating from time to time"
Reasonably they should have discussed the issue said your son isn't here now leave. (Which I remember step dad doing)
At that point teal shirt needs to back off and cool his head.
Realistically no gun should have been presented here. But a property own should have the right to shoot any trespasser who refuses to leave - especially when said trespasser gets violent to any degree.
a property own should have the right to shoot any trespasser who refuses to leave
While true, in this situation, that's a half truth of what was happening.
They technically kidnapped the dad's kid. They knew the kid was to be handed over to the dad. The dad had every right to be there to get his kid. It can be argued that he stayed too long, and it could be argued that he had every right to stay with the kid's mother until the kid was handed over. As the kid (despite being over at a grandparents, or out with other kids) was legally under the mother's care.
And the dad was angry, but not violent at all, until he was threatened with a gun. At which point he was defensive, not aggressive.
But either way, it's a half truth to say that this was only a trespassing issue. It's more of a kidnapping issue than a trespassing one.
[ - ] Not_C 1 point 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 22:09:11 ago (+1/-0)
Parental kidnapping is hiding, taking, or keeping hold of a child by his or her parent without the consent of the other parent.
Of course laws are slightly different from place to place. But what happened seems to meet the general definition. So I was right in saying - "They technically kidnapped the dad's kid."
[ - ] dingbat 1 point 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 22:47:58 ago (+1/-0)
Understood, but a judge still wouldn’t necessarily rule against the mother for kidnapping...there is a lot to do with what is reasonable or unreasonable. If she did this constantly and didn’t have the kid ready for him, he’d (maybe?) have just cause to take her to court for violating the agreement. We don’t know the kid’s age, circumstances with friends, etc. My ex did shit like this to me all the time and when I took him back to court, my attorney was very adamant of making me aware that his violations wouldn’t account for much.
some states haven't even criminalized interstate parental abduction, how do you think a few hours of so called "kidnapping" is gonna be handled? it's almost always a civil issue
[ - ] Had 1 point 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 22:26:03 ago (+1/-0)
This is the issue. The dad shouldn't have grabbed at the gun, but the roastie shouldn't be hiding his son. It's legally the same as the Arbery case. You commit a felony, anything after that is also illegal regardless of circumstances.
You absolutely do not have a right to shoot trespassers. It is long-settled law that you cannot use lethal force to protect property. The dad was not being violent, he was just yelling. The gun guy became the aggressor when he brought the gun out and should be getting charged with 2nd degree murder because you cannot claim self defense when you are the aggressor/provocateur. He used disproportionate force (gun vs words) and thus, became the aggressor and cannot claim self defense.
Texas Penal Code Sec. 9.42 Deadly Force to Protect Property A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (1)if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41 (Protection of One’s Own Property); and (2)when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A)to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B)to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and (3)he reasonably believes that: (A)the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B)the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
This requires that the shooter reasonably believes that he is shooting the person "to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property." It doesn't say that you can shoot trespassers to protect property. The trespasser must have been about to commit or fleeing with the property after committing those crimes listed.
And the third element is also not met. Gun guy could have called the cops, it wasn't like the guy was an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, he was just pissed. So this shooting certainly would not fall under this statute.
You should probably read the statute before forming a belief about it.
Look I think the 'kyle' is a weak fucking faggot. Might makes right is so fucking gay. If you provoke someone withholding their child (if this guy was on time) you deserve to get your ass kicked. The fact that some weak faggot like this can avoid a beating and murder someone is fucking gay. He would have been bleeding with his tail between his legs if he didn't have a gun.
But the father said "use the gun or I'll take it from you and shoot you".
It would have been more prudent to actually have control of the gun and be in the process of throwing him to the ground before announcing intent like that.
But the father said "use the gun or I'll take it from you and shoot you".
Yes. And at that point the gun holder became rightfully in fear of his life and so when the dad did indeed again reach for the gun the shooter was correct to shoot.
It's exactly the same as when a cop can hoot when someone is trying to get his gun. The cop knows the grabber may kill the cop of he gets the cops gun.
Texas Penal Code Sec. 9.42 Deadly Force to Protect Property A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (1)if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41 (Protection of One’s Own Property); and (2)when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A)to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B)to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and (3)he reasonably believes that: (A)the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B)the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
This requires that the shooter reasonably believes that he is shooting the person "to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property." It doesn't say that you can shoot trespassers to protect property. The trespasser must have been about to commit or fleeing with the property after committing those crimes listed. You should probably read the statute before forming a belief about it.
And the third element is also not met. Gun guy could have called the cops, it wasn't like the guy was an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, he was just pissed. So this shooting certainly would not fall under this statute.
3A applies, "other means" doesn't include calling the cops, hoping the courts remove the guy within the next month. It's an immediate remedy. If you throw someone out of their own house they can blast you so they can get back in.
Well, I don't think this passes the, "in fear of life" test. He was trespassing and had become physical. If he was early and confrontational about it, he was a dumbass. They should have had a transfer spot that was nuetral.
It became fear of life when the father said he would take that gun from him and use it against him. Absolutely fucking stupid to threaten a gun holder with taking the gun and using it against him.
Gun guy should be getting charged with 2nd degree murder. I'm currently having a...discussion...about this with the brainlet denizens of poal right now. Gun guy should be getting charged with murder because he provoked the confrontation by brandishing a firearm the moment he came out of the house while the dad wasn't causing or threatening serious bodily harm or death. If you are the aggressor in a situation, you cannot claim self defense. The dad was there because of a court order for visitation and was not the aggressor in the confrontation. Guys, do not use disproportionate force in a confrontation. Even if the dad was the "aggressor" at first by yelling or whatever, as soon as gun guy came out brandishing the weapon he became the aggressor by using disproportionate force and lost his right to self defense. This is a pretty clear cut 2nd degree murder. I am very curious as to why charges haven't been filed yet.
This is the theory that the faggot prosecutors in the Rittenhouse case tried to swap to at the last minute, because if Kyle had provoked rosenbaum, then he would have completely lost his right to self defense.
I'd be happy to answer any questions anyone has on this case, how self defense works legally, or castle doctrine or anything like that so long as it doesn't devolve into primal screeching and name calling. I think it's extremely important that everyone understands the law in general because I don't like seeing good people getting railroaded because they misunderstood how the law actually works.
The general line of thought behind this rule is that property can be replaced, but life can't. This rule was created a long before insurance was even a thing. Now, if the trespasser threatens your or someone else's life or to do serious bodily harm, then you can shoot to protect a life. It doesn't just nix it altogether.
If you want the most literal, legal reason as to why this is the rule, it's because that's just what courts have said it is for a long time. It's called "common law."
[ - ] Had 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 22:31:29 ago (+0/-0)
Respect the agreement on custody. He had a right to be there... to get his son. You faggots all boil this down to the shooting but the roastie is the problem.
They guy did grab at the weapon. Anyway, he was BIGGER, AND aggressive. Do you wait to be DISAMRED (possible shot with your own gun?)? Wouldn't the cops have shot him just for having the gun? How come there was no sex? Was there ever any sex?
[ - ] Had 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 22:29:49 ago (+0/-0)
That dude is going to be executed. This is wrong on so many levels. This is what happens when you let bitches pick fights for you. Don't be a simp boys.
On reflection , you're correct. I've always been hyper-vigilant and paranoid (well that's what my doctors says ) . I can't fault her actually . Shame all round especially now that the mother has to explain to the son how her bf/ husband shot his father dead when he came to pick him up.
Sad. Bad situation. It didn't have to end that way. Obviously both men were very frustrated, but the guy who got shot was on the other man's property and he didn't care if he was going to get shot.
The manlet committed murder. The gun was unwarranted and now his children will grow up without a father. The whore gf was checking out Instagram during the altercation.
Well,I have to ask why were they there? The shooter said the kid wasn't there and "none of y'all should even be here". Sounds to me he got roped into this bullshit cause ex-wife told ex-hubby the kid was there.
Honestly,there's only so much of other people's bullshit someone should be expected to tolerate.
Seems like I'm the only one to actually read the story since none of y'all have any opinion on the fact the obvious only reason charges weren't filed is because the shooter is related to the judge who oversaw the case... Of fucking course if your wife is the judge she's not going to convict you of murder... Obviously..
Smug faggot shooter is innocent. And also morally innocent, BTW.
He own's a home. He has every right to walk around with a firearm. He has every right to command people to leave. That's literally all he did. He appeared on the porch with a firearm and commanded "leave". The stupid father actually charged him at this point. He could give killed him right there but he was kind enough to fire at the ground instead. Then the father grabbed the gun. This is not cool. The father earned what he got even if he seems like the more likable guy.
The father said he had the cops coming. Why wouldn't he just wait until they got there instead of being a dumbass and daring the guy with the gun to shoot him while assaulting him? He deserved what he got.
He said the cops were on their way to her moms house because that’s where the kid probably is. The homeowner adamantly stated that the kid is not here. The father never rebutted. that claim.
[ + ] Not_a_redfugee
[ - ] Not_a_redfugee -3 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 15:59:16 ago (+2/-5)
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 9 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 16:10:45 ago (+9/-0)
[ + ] localsal
[ - ] localsal 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 17:58:47 ago (+0/-0)
The police seemed to walk onto her property in the second encounter, after being told to leave once, and when she produced a weapon, they responded with force.
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 18:01:46 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] localsal
[ - ] localsal 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 18:09:19 ago (+0/-0)
Probably not the whole video, but gives some of the story.
Police were definitely on her property when the shooting happened.
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 18:53:42 ago (+0/-0)
Just knowing she's a nigger tells me there's a LOT more to this story than you are being told and the information that is being suppressed is being supressed to favor the nigger.
Don't believe me? What ever happened to that story about the "accident" at the parade the other day?
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 27, 2021 16:00:32 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Thyhorrorcosmic103
[ - ] Thyhorrorcosmic103 -1 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 18:44:18 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] LawFag
[ - ] LawFag 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 18:55:41 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 1 point 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 18:57:04 ago (+1/-0)
Fuck off commie.
[ + ] LawFag
[ - ] LawFag 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 19:02:24 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Youdgetfuckedfaggot
[ - ] Youdgetfuckedfaggot -5 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 16:27:58 ago (+2/-7)
You can't take someones child and move them and not allow them to see them and then justify it by saying 'if you do anything I'll shoot you'. That faggot should have had his ass whipped, now because he's literally retarded he's going to have something else done to his ass because he's clearly a fucking bitch and wont have his gun in jail.
[ + ] Thyhorrorcosmic103
[ - ] Thyhorrorcosmic103 6 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 16:47:50 ago (+7/-1)
[ + ] rhy
[ - ] rhy 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 21:34:12 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] Shotinthedark
[ - ] Shotinthedark 5 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 17:40:28 ago (+5/-0)
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 3 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 16:48:58 ago (+3/-0)
Trespass is 100% clear though. Don't trespass. You'll get shot. You call shooting trespassers "faggot gun culture"? Fuck off commie.
[ + ] rhy
[ - ] rhy 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 21:35:36 ago (+0/-0)
This fucking cuck fagot stepdad was a party to kidnapping. Then he shot the guy who was unarmed. What a fagot.
[ + ] Youdgetfuckedfaggot
[ - ] Youdgetfuckedfaggot -1 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 19:52:38 ago (+0/-1)
Society is heading to the shitter because real social justice isn't a thing anymore. Everyone just keeps to themselves so they don't get shot by an asshole.
[ + ] Youdgetfuckedfaggot
[ - ] Youdgetfuckedfaggot -2 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 19:56:26 ago (+0/-2)
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 20:03:13 ago (+0/-0)
If you are a shit-hawk, you will get shot. That's the standard. Don't be a shit-hawk.
[ + ] SparklingWiggle
[ - ] SparklingWiggle 3 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 18:32:22 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] dalai_llama
[ - ] dalai_llama 1 point 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 18:49:18 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Youdgetfuckedfaggot
[ - ] Youdgetfuckedfaggot -1 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 19:54:40 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Thyhorrorcosmic103
[ - ] Thyhorrorcosmic103 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 22:33:37 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 3 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 16:54:10 ago (+4/-1)
[ + ] Not_a_redfugee
[ - ] Not_a_redfugee 2 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 18:24:23 ago (+3/-1)
He should have just called the cops on the trespasser.
[ + ] dalai_llama
[ - ] dalai_llama 2 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 18:52:13 ago (+3/-1)
[ + ] Not_a_redfugee
[ - ] Not_a_redfugee 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 27, 2021 01:24:12 ago (+0/-0)
The whore ex wife was there and the "tough guy" was trying to pick up his kids, who he was supposed to have by then according to the court, and the argument didn't even have anything to do with the manlet. As soon as the tough guy picked up a brick or something and threatened life or property, so be it. Shoot away. But the fact that the manlet gunned down a father just because he was standing on his property talking to the mother of his children is bullshit. Fucking white knight.
[ + ] LawFag
[ - ] LawFag 1 point 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 18:52:39 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] rhy
[ - ] rhy 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 21:38:17 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 19:07:36 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 19:25:50 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] bobdole9
[ - ] bobdole9 8 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 16:02:25 ago (+8/-0)
[ + ] Teefinyomouf
[ - ] Teefinyomouf 1 point 3.4 yearsNov 27, 2021 09:26:07 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Zyklonbeekeeper
[ - ] Zyklonbeekeeper 2 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 16:12:36 ago (+3/-1)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 27, 2021 16:12:40 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user [op] 3 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 16:22:13 ago (+4/-1)
[ + ] McNasty
[ - ] McNasty 3 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 19:02:49 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user [op] 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 27, 2021 00:41:33 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] McNasty
[ - ] McNasty 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 30, 2021 01:32:38 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] con77
[ - ] con77 -1 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 19:07:52 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] RMGoetbbels
[ - ] RMGoetbbels 4 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 16:48:29 ago (+6/-2)
It doesn't what you think you're allowed to do. When someone tells you to leave their property, you fucking leave.
Should the guy been provided with his agreed upon visitation with his son? Hell yeah. Now he'll never get another visitation because he's fucking dead.
He should have left when told to. Arrogant cunt is now a dead arrogant cunt and the world is a better place.
[ + ] rhy
[ - ] rhy 2 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 21:30:07 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] RMGoetbbels
[ - ] RMGoetbbels 1 point 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 23:06:58 ago (+1/-0)
Be mad all you want but this guy didn't leave when he was told to. He's dead now. Whether he was right or wrong is irrelevant. He's fucking dead when he could be just a little upset and be alive to see his son a little later. He's fucking DEAD. He isn't seeing his son anymore. Darwin.
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 1 point 3.4 yearsNov 27, 2021 16:05:43 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Had
[ - ] Had 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 22:28:41 ago (+0/-0)
The shooter is in the wrong for simping for his roastie whore.
[ + ] RMGoetbbels
[ - ] RMGoetbbels 2 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 23:13:42 ago (+2/-0)
If the kid is not there and you're told to leave, you leave and then take it up with the courts. Nothing the courts mandates says that a person has to endure someone on their property when they are not wanted. The dad could have picked the kid up at the end of the driveway. He could have done a ton of other things but he didn't. He screamed, threatened and refused to leave.
Now he's dead. DEAD. He could still be alive were it not for his own actions. DEAD.
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 1 point 3.4 yearsNov 27, 2021 15:56:47 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Lazybutler
[ - ] Lazybutler 6 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 16:51:05 ago (+6/-0)
[ + ] Aze
[ - ] Aze 3 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 17:27:47 ago (+3/-0)
The man was trying to see his son, albeit a little early. On the other hand he was on another man's property and told to leave. Both these things are important.
The shooter was a pussy for using a gun instead of his fists, but it was his house, his castle. This whole situation just sucks, there's no clear right or wrong here I think. And it looks like everybody was white which makes it even worse.
It should have just been a fist fight in the front yard to settle it like men.
[ + ] Shotinthedark
[ - ] Shotinthedark 2 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 17:39:18 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] Youdgetfuckedfaggot
[ - ] Youdgetfuckedfaggot 1 point 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 19:46:31 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Shotinthedark
[ - ] Shotinthedark 2 points 3.4 yearsNov 27, 2021 15:50:24 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 1 point 3.4 yearsNov 27, 2021 15:55:34 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Mopsink
[ - ] Mopsink 2 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 21:44:09 ago (+2/-0)
If someone refuses to leave my property or home once told to leave that becomes their final and only warning. At that point its up to a lawyer to argue in court why I protected myself.
I will not take a fist to the eye, jaw, whatever because someone says "only pussies use guns" you sound like ADA Krauss from Kenosha.
"Everyone takes a beating from time to time"
Reasonably they should have discussed the issue said your son isn't here now leave. (Which I remember step dad doing)
At that point teal shirt needs to back off and cool his head.
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 1 point 3.4 yearsNov 27, 2021 15:52:24 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] SocksOnCats
[ - ] SocksOnCats 6 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 17:50:20 ago (+8/-2)
Realistically no gun should have been presented here. But a property own should have the right to shoot any trespasser who refuses to leave - especially when said trespasser gets violent to any degree.
It’s sad, but I side with the shooter.
[ + ] Not_C
[ - ] Not_C 3 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 21:03:42 ago (+3/-0)
While true, in this situation, that's a half truth of what was happening.
They technically kidnapped the dad's kid. They knew the kid was to be handed over to the dad. The dad had every right to be there to get his kid. It can be argued that he stayed too long, and it could be argued that he had every right to stay with the kid's mother until the kid was handed over. As the kid (despite being over at a grandparents, or out with other kids) was legally under the mother's care.
And the dad was angry, but not violent at all, until he was threatened with a gun. At which point he was defensive, not aggressive.
But either way, it's a half truth to say that this was only a trespassing issue. It's more of a kidnapping issue than a trespassing one.
[ + ] mikenigger
[ - ] mikenigger 2 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 21:50:04 ago (+2/-0)
with joint custody you wouldn't be able to meet the legal definition if you tried
[ + ] Not_C
[ - ] Not_C 1 point 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 22:09:11 ago (+1/-0)
Of course laws are slightly different from place to place. But what happened seems to meet the general definition. So I was right in saying - "They technically kidnapped the dad's kid."
[ + ] dingbat
[ - ] dingbat 1 point 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 22:47:58 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] mikenigger
[ - ] mikenigger 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 22:24:57 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Had
[ - ] Had 1 point 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 22:26:03 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] mikenigger
[ - ] mikenigger 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 22:53:16 ago (+0/-0)
family court: best i can do is contempt of court after you filed your complaint
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 1 point 3.4 yearsNov 27, 2021 15:45:36 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 27, 2021 01:53:19 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] LawFag
[ - ] LawFag -6 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 18:58:46 ago (+5/-11)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 6 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 21:37:41 ago (+6/-0)
[ + ] LawFag
[ - ] LawFag -4 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 22:40:58 ago (+1/-5)
https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._penal_code_section_9.42
Texas Penal Code
Sec. 9.42
Deadly Force to Protect Property
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1)if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41 (Protection of One’s Own Property); and
(2)when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A)to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B)to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3)he reasonably believes that:
(A)the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B)the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
This requires that the shooter reasonably believes that he is shooting the person "to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property." It doesn't say that you can shoot trespassers to protect property. The trespasser must have been about to commit or fleeing with the property after committing those crimes listed.
And the third element is also not met. Gun guy could have called the cops, it wasn't like the guy was an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, he was just pissed. So this shooting certainly would not fall under this statute.
You should probably read the statute before forming a belief about it.
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 1 point 3.4 yearsNov 27, 2021 15:49:25 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] mikenigger
[ - ] mikenigger 3 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 21:56:10 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 1 point 3.4 yearsNov 27, 2021 15:50:12 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Youdgetfuckedfaggot
[ - ] Youdgetfuckedfaggot 2 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 19:44:36 ago (+3/-1)
But the father said "use the gun or I'll take it from you and shoot you".
It would have been more prudent to actually have control of the gun and be in the process of throwing him to the ground before announcing intent like that.
[ + ] Crackinjokes
[ - ] Crackinjokes 8 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 19:54:34 ago (+8/-0)
Yes. And at that point the gun holder became rightfully in fear of his life and so when the dad did indeed again reach for the gun the shooter was correct to shoot.
It's exactly the same as when a cop can hoot when someone is trying to get his gun. The cop knows the grabber may kill the cop of he gets the cops gun.
[ + ] ruck_feddit
[ - ] ruck_feddit 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 20:20:43 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] LawFag
[ - ] LawFag -1 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 21:16:35 ago (+1/-2)
https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._penal_code_section_9.42
Texas Penal Code
Sec. 9.42
Deadly Force to Protect Property
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1)if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41 (Protection of One’s Own Property); and
(2)when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A)to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B)to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3)he reasonably believes that:
(A)the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B)the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
This requires that the shooter reasonably believes that he is shooting the person "to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property." It doesn't say that you can shoot trespassers to protect property. The trespasser must have been about to commit or fleeing with the property after committing those crimes listed. You should probably read the statute before forming a belief about it.
And the third element is also not met. Gun guy could have called the cops, it wasn't like the guy was an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, he was just pissed. So this shooting certainly would not fall under this statute.
[ + ] zr855
[ - ] zr855 5 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 23:02:24 ago (+5/-0)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 1 point 3.4 yearsNov 27, 2021 16:08:47 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] ForgottenMemes
[ - ] ForgottenMemes 1 point 3.4 yearsNov 27, 2021 10:51:51 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] ruck_feddit
[ - ] ruck_feddit 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 27, 2021 10:54:25 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] SparklingWiggle
[ - ] SparklingWiggle 4 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 18:35:14 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] Crackinjokes
[ - ] Crackinjokes 5 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 19:51:36 ago (+5/-0)
[ + ] SparklingWiggle
[ - ] SparklingWiggle 6 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 19:58:47 ago (+6/-0)
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user [op] 2 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 18:50:03 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] LawFag
[ - ] LawFag 2 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 19:00:14 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] mikenigger
[ - ] mikenigger 1 point 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 22:37:39 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 1 point 3.4 yearsNov 27, 2021 01:57:32 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Teefinyomouf
[ - ] Teefinyomouf 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 27, 2021 09:32:43 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 1 point 3.4 yearsNov 27, 2021 15:53:47 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] SparklingWiggle
[ - ] SparklingWiggle 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 19:57:07 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] LawFag
[ - ] LawFag 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 18:50:29 ago (+2/-2)
This is the theory that the faggot prosecutors in the Rittenhouse case tried to swap to at the last minute, because if Kyle had provoked rosenbaum, then he would have completely lost his right to self defense.
I'd be happy to answer any questions anyone has on this case, how self defense works legally, or castle doctrine or anything like that so long as it doesn't devolve into primal screeching and name calling. I think it's extremely important that everyone understands the law in general because I don't like seeing good people getting railroaded because they misunderstood how the law actually works.
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 2 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 19:19:15 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] LawFag
[ - ] LawFag 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 19:27:51 ago (+0/-0)
If you want the most literal, legal reason as to why this is the rule, it's because that's just what courts have said it is for a long time. It's called "common law."
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 20:04:59 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 27, 2021 15:58:56 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] mikenigger
[ - ] mikenigger 1 point 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 22:40:36 ago (+1/-0)
unless he was pointing you can fuck right off with that argument, this isn't jew york
[ + ] con77
[ - ] con77 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 19:09:21 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Crackinjokes
[ - ] Crackinjokes 4 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 19:49:03 ago (+4/-0)
Until that point the visitor was probably within his rights to be there to pick up his son if it was court ordered.
What a tragedy.
If someone pulls a gun on you leave. Don't reach for it and certainly don't tell the person you will take it from them and use it against them.
If I was on the jury it was a self defense shooting because the visitor went for the gun and said he would use it against the homeowner. End of story.
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 20:14:35 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Had
[ - ] Had 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 22:31:29 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 23:05:02 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] thebearfromstartrack4
[ - ] thebearfromstartrack4 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 20:15:26 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 9 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 20:25:31 ago (+9/-0)*
[ + ] nc22
[ - ] nc22 3 points 3.4 yearsNov 27, 2021 03:47:31 ago (+3/-0)
https://www.voat.xyz/viewpost?postid=618118f2df9a8&commentid=61811e4534839
&
https://www.voat.xyz/viewpost?postid=61579e5b932be&commentid=6157abb84ba01
Sooooo many Jew-fags stayed/rehomed and a LOT of v/QRV followers left to greatawakening.win or became poal suckers.
I'd love to hear a longer version of this story.
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 5 points 3.4 yearsNov 27, 2021 08:39:18 ago (+5/-0)*
[ + ] mikenigger
[ - ] mikenigger 1 point 3.4 yearsNov 27, 2021 10:25:09 ago (+2/-1)
that's not a bad thing
[ + ] Had
[ - ] Had 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 22:29:49 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] dassar
[ - ] dassar 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 22:47:33 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 27, 2021 02:14:09 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] dassar
[ - ] dassar 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 27, 2021 04:12:22 ago (+0/-0)
I've always been hyper-vigilant and paranoid (well that's what my doctors says ) . I can't fault her actually .
Shame all round especially now that the mother has to explain to the son how her bf/ husband shot his father dead when he came to pick him up.
[ + ] zr855
[ - ] zr855 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 23:01:48 ago (+0/-0)
https://www.lubbockonline.com/story/news/2021/11/26/chad-read-shooting-kyle-carruth-lubbock-judge-case-investigation/8765295002/
[ + ] mattsixteen24
[ - ] mattsixteen24 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 23:42:55 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] jewsbadnews
[ - ] jewsbadnews -1 points 3.4 yearsNov 26, 2021 23:46:48 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] NationalSocialism
[ - ] NationalSocialism 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 27, 2021 01:25:22 ago (+0/-0)
https://files.catbox.moe/564x8o.jpeg
[ + ] Merlynn
[ - ] Merlynn 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 27, 2021 03:23:09 ago (+0/-0)
Honestly,there's only so much of other people's bullshit someone should be expected to tolerate.
[ + ] Subarctica
[ - ] Subarctica 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 27, 2021 04:40:32 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Teefinyomouf
[ - ] Teefinyomouf 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 27, 2021 09:27:04 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PygmyGoat
[ - ] PygmyGoat 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 27, 2021 09:34:51 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Teefinyomouf
[ - ] Teefinyomouf 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 27, 2021 09:38:12 ago (+0/-0)
He own's a home. He has every right to walk around with a firearm. He has every right to command people to leave. That's literally all he did. He appeared on the porch with a firearm and commanded "leave". The stupid father actually charged him at this point. He could give killed him right there but he was kind enough to fire at the ground instead. Then the father grabbed the gun. This is not cool. The father earned what he got even if he seems like the more likable guy.
[ + ] voatersarefucktards
[ - ] voatersarefucktards 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 27, 2021 15:10:36 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Optional_Reading
[ - ] Optional_Reading 0 points 3.4 yearsDec 2, 2021 16:07:42 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] nada
[ - ] nada 0 points 3.4 yearsNov 27, 2021 16:08:32 ago (+0/-0)