Responsible gun owner protects personal property

[Rage Against the McKee]

I don't think you could randomly select 6 people who unanimously would convict based on that video. The black shirt guy is living out the fantasy of at least a quarter of our population on film. He would be a hero in their eyes.

[BIG APPLE CAT]

I think the fact that he fired a warning shot into the ground and the guy kept coming at him will probably mean he will be found not guilty in the event the state brings charges. A very bizarre video all around.

Only thing I could think of was whether or not he *needed* to make the choice to go inside to retrieve his assault rifle then come back outside to continue the argument. Like MIR was saying I don’t think that just because you have a gun means you can just use it on another person whenever you deem it necessary.

I don’t know where this incident took place but I know for example in Wisconsin there was precedent of a couple guys getting into a fight in a bar, then one guy went out to his truck to get his gun, came back in the bar, continued to fight with and ultimately shot the other guy, and it was determined his actions were unlawful.

[MakeItRain]

This took place in Lubbock, the guy who did the murdering is the ex husband of a local judge. The attorney of the guy killed released the video to put pressure on the DA. I think this will be similar to the Ahmaud Arbury case in which the public viewing this video will lead to charges.

Also the warning shot just shows this dude was reckless with his weapon. Again the dude who had a gun pulled on him also has a right to protect himself from a wacko with a gun when dude was just looking to pick up his son.

[Institutional Control]

Lubbock? Ok. Castle doctrine. No charges will be filed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WildcatNkilt]

The guy in black shirt with gun will probably be fine.  He grabbed the gun, teal shirt guy felt threatened and got in his face.  Black shirt guy stepped back and fired warning shot into ground.  Teal shirt guy came back at black shirt guy, grabbed gun and shoved black shirt guy away.  Teal shirt guy fired two shots.  All on what I assume is teal shirt guy’s property.  Texas crap.

[Spracne]

The guy in black shirt with gun will probably be fine.  He grabbed the gun, teal shirt guy felt threatened and got in his face.  Black shirt guy stepped back and fired warning shot into ground.  Teal shirt guy came back at black shirt guy, grabbed gun and shoved black shirt guy away.  Teal shirt guy fired two shots.  All on what I assume is teal shirt guy’s property.  Texas crap.

Whether he's guilty or not likely depends on facts that have not been presented in this thread. No, the so-called "Castle Doctrine" does not mean you can shoot and kill anyone on your property. Black shirt was the instigator/aggressor because he went inside to grab his gun and then created a deadly situation. The warning shot, if anything, further proves he was the aggressor (I agree with MIR on this). In this instance, in order to use deadly force in self defense, you need to make a clear retreat and then be re-engaged by the other person. I don't see a clear retreat or intention to disengage. This jackass probably thought, mistakenly, that the "Castle Doctrine" allowed him to do that.

All that said, never gamble your life by insulting someone wielding a gun and, essentially, daring them to use it to kill you.

[michigancat]

All that said, never gamble your life by insulting someone wielding a gun and, essentially, daring them to use it to kill you.

The presence of guns seems to make people's extreme survival mechanisms kick in and behave in a way they wouldn't if a gun wasn't pointed at them. When things are somewhat heated a gun ratchets up the intensity multiple levels and leads to people getting killed when someone probably didn't even need to be hurt, like this situation and dozens of videos where cops murder people.

[yoga-like_abana]

Lubbock? Ok. Castle doctrine. No charges will be filed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep and stand your ground. He won’t get arrested


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[yoga-like_abana]

Also just awful situation. Feel terrible for the kid and glad he didn’t have to witness it and hopefully never sees that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BIG APPLE CAT]

The guy in black shirt with gun will probably be fine.  He grabbed the gun, teal shirt guy felt threatened and got in his face.  Black shirt guy stepped back and fired warning shot into ground.  Teal shirt guy came back at black shirt guy, grabbed gun and shoved black shirt guy away.  Teal shirt guy fired two shots.  All on what I assume is teal shirt guy’s property.  Texas crap.

Whether he's guilty or not likely depends on facts that have not been presented in this thread. No, the so-called "Castle Doctrine" does not mean you can shoot and kill anyone on your property. Black shirt was the instigator/aggressor because he went inside to grab his gun and then created a deadly situation. The warning shot, if anything, further proves he was the aggressor (I agree with MIR on this). In this instance, in order to use deadly force in self defense, you need to make a clear retreat and then be re-engaged by the other person. I don't see a clear retreat or intention to disengage. This jackass probably thought, mistakenly, that the "Castle Doctrine" allowed him to do that.

All that said, never gamble your life by insulting someone wielding a gun and, essentially, daring them to use it to kill you.

I thought there was no duty to retreat in Texas? Or does that go out the window if you go retrieve your gun and return to the situation?

[Spracne]

The guy in black shirt with gun will probably be fine.  He grabbed the gun, teal shirt guy felt threatened and got in his face.  Black shirt guy stepped back and fired warning shot into ground.  Teal shirt guy came back at black shirt guy, grabbed gun and shoved black shirt guy away.  Teal shirt guy fired two shots.  All on what I assume is teal shirt guy’s property.  Texas crap.

Whether he's guilty or not likely depends on facts that have not been presented in this thread. No, the so-called "Castle Doctrine" does not mean you can shoot and kill anyone on your property. Black shirt was the instigator/aggressor because he went inside to grab his gun and then created a deadly situation. The warning shot, if anything, further proves he was the aggressor (I agree with MIR on this). In this instance, in order to use deadly force in self defense, you need to make a clear retreat and then be re-engaged by the other person. I don't see a clear retreat or intention to disengage. This jackass probably thought, mistakenly, that the "Castle Doctrine" allowed him to do that.

All that said, never gamble your life by insulting someone wielding a gun and, essentially, daring them to use it to kill you.

I thought there was no duty to retreat in Texas? Or does that go out the window if you go retrieve your gun and return to the situation?

Preliminary information (not in this thread) is that teal shirt guy had a lawful right to be there, and black shirt guy was not the Lord of the Castle.

[MakeItRain]

The guy in black shirt with gun will probably be fine.  He grabbed the gun, teal shirt guy felt threatened and got in his face.  Black shirt guy stepped back and fired warning shot into ground.  Teal shirt guy came back at black shirt guy, grabbed gun and shoved black shirt guy away.  Teal shirt guy fired two shots.  All on what I assume is teal shirt guy’s property.  Texas crap.

Whether he's guilty or not likely depends on facts that have not been presented in this thread. No, the so-called "Castle Doctrine" does not mean you can shoot and kill anyone on your property. Black shirt was the instigator/aggressor because he went inside to grab his gun and then created a deadly situation. The warning shot, if anything, further proves he was the aggressor (I agree with MIR on this). In this instance, in order to use deadly force in self defense, you need to make a clear retreat and then be re-engaged by the other person. I don't see a clear retreat or intention to disengage. This jackass probably thought, mistakenly, that the "Castle Doctrine" allowed him to do that.

All that said, never gamble your life by insulting someone wielding a gun and, essentially, daring them to use it to kill you.

I thought there was no duty to retreat in Texas? Or does that go out the window if you go retrieve your gun and return to the situation?

Preliminary information (not in this thread) is that teal shirt guy had a lawful right to be there, and black shirt guy was not the Lord of the Castle.

Correct, the victim was there to pick up his son, abiding by a custody agreement. That was the victim's ex wife's house, the shooter is her boyfriend.

[Spracne]

The guy in black shirt with gun will probably be fine.  He grabbed the gun, teal shirt guy felt threatened and got in his face.  Black shirt guy stepped back and fired warning shot into ground.  Teal shirt guy came back at black shirt guy, grabbed gun and shoved black shirt guy away.  Teal shirt guy fired two shots.  All on what I assume is teal shirt guy’s property.  Texas crap.

Whether he's guilty or not likely depends on facts that have not been presented in this thread. No, the so-called "Castle Doctrine" does not mean you can shoot and kill anyone on your property. Black shirt was the instigator/aggressor because he went inside to grab his gun and then created a deadly situation. The warning shot, if anything, further proves he was the aggressor (I agree with MIR on this). In this instance, in order to use deadly force in self defense, you need to make a clear retreat and then be re-engaged by the other person. I don't see a clear retreat or intention to disengage. This jackass probably thought, mistakenly, that the "Castle Doctrine" allowed him to do that.

All that said, never gamble your life by insulting someone wielding a gun and, essentially, daring them to use it to kill you.

I thought there was no duty to retreat in Texas? Or does that go out the window if you go retrieve your gun and return to the situation?

Preliminary information (not in this thread) is that teal shirt guy had a lawful right to be there, and black shirt guy was not the Lord of the Castle.

Correct, the victim was there to pick up his son, abiding by a custody agreement. That was the victim's ex wife's house, the shooter is her boyfriend.

And did I read correctly that the victim's ex wife and killer's booty thang is a county judge?? 

[MakeItRain]

The guy in black shirt with gun will probably be fine.  He grabbed the gun, teal shirt guy felt threatened and got in his face.  Black shirt guy stepped back and fired warning shot into ground.  Teal shirt guy came back at black shirt guy, grabbed gun and shoved black shirt guy away.  Teal shirt guy fired two shots.  All on what I assume is teal shirt guy’s property.  Texas crap.

Whether he's guilty or not likely depends on facts that have not been presented in this thread. No, the so-called "Castle Doctrine" does not mean you can shoot and kill anyone on your property. Black shirt was the instigator/aggressor because he went inside to grab his gun and then created a deadly situation. The warning shot, if anything, further proves he was the aggressor (I agree with MIR on this). In this instance, in order to use deadly force in self defense, you need to make a clear retreat and then be re-engaged by the other person. I don't see a clear retreat or intention to disengage. This jackass probably thought, mistakenly, that the "Castle Doctrine" allowed him to do that.

All that said, never gamble your life by insulting someone wielding a gun and, essentially, daring them to use it to kill you.

I thought there was no duty to retreat in Texas? Or does that go out the window if you go retrieve your gun and return to the situation?

Preliminary information (not in this thread) is that teal shirt guy had a lawful right to be there, and black shirt guy was not the Lord of the Castle.

Correct, the victim was there to pick up his son, abiding by a custody agreement. That was the victim's ex wife's house, the shooter is her boyfriend.

And did I read correctly that the victim's ex wife and killer's booty thang is a county judge?? 

No, the killers ex wife is a judge.

[CNS]

The black shirt guy had zero remorse.  What kind of person takes another's life in that scenario, without any remorse?  Without any outward show or verbal show of something substantial having taken place.  He doesn't even check on the guy.  Just leaves him on the porch and stands off to the side. 

It is alarming that this is where people want to be.  How they want to live. 

[chum1]

Texas crap.

My momma's boyfriend shot and killed my daddy.

[chum1]

The black shirt guy had zero remorse.

Also, no one else seems to be all that distressed. No one screams. Mrs. Teal says to call 911 and strikes up a convo with Mr. Black. And Mr. Teal's ex is just hanging out off to the side.

[michigancat]

The black shirt guy had zero remorse.

Also, no one else seems to be all that distressed. No one screams. Mrs. Teal says to call 911 and strikes up a convo with Mr. Black. And Mr. Teal's ex is just hanging out off to the side.

In the comments someone shared that Mrs. Teal said the sound was really muffled and she thought it was a paintball gun or air rifle. But yeah very odd that no one even reacted to it.

[Sandstone Outcropping]

The black shirt guy had zero remorse.  What kind of person takes another's life in that scenario, without any remorse?  Without any outward show or verbal show of something substantial having taken place.  He doesn't even check on the guy.  Just leaves him on the porch and stands off to the side. 

It is alarming that this is where people want to be.  How they want to live.

Just watched this today. It is disgusting that we are okay with this sort of pointless slaughter.

[ChiComCat]

At the rate we're going, we should just legalize duels and deal with 50% fewer crazies.

[Sandstone Outcropping]

At the rate we're going, we should just legalize duels and deal with 50% fewer crazies.

Would probably kill off all the Alexander Hamiltons and allow all the Aaron Burrs of the world to run amok.

[Cire]

That dude has cosplayed that exact situation so many times that he wasn’t even bothered by it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

['taterblast]

took 24 hours to process that video. that's murder, i don't know how it can't be. the victim was not physically violent prior to the gun coming out (maybe i'm misremembering but i don't want to watch it again). this wasn't some rando off the street, he was there to pick up his child. i'm usually open to self-defense arguments but that has to be considered murder.

[yoga-like_abana]

took 24 hours to process that video. that's murder, i don't know how it can't be. the victim was not physically violent prior to the gun coming out (maybe i'm misremembering but i don't want to watch it again). this wasn't some rando off the street, he was there to pick up his child. i'm usually open to self-defense arguments but that has to be considered murder.

better read up more on texas gun laws

[CNS]

Gun discussions inevitably bring up mental health. Anyone who thinks that they would have done the same in this situation needs to get checked out. A lot of people don’t realize they need therapy until it’s too late.

I am being serious here.  If you saw that and think Black Shirt Guy did right, go have a talk specifically about this with a professional.