https://www.kcbd.com/app/2021/11/24/...ideo-shooting/
Guy goes to pick up his son who he is assigned time to by the court
Guy tells shooter he's already called the cops, cops are on the way
Shooter goes in to get his rifle
Shooter fires shot into ground
Guy tries to get gun away
Guy gets smoked.
Somehow this is self defense.
Everyone's white
Two white guys with giant egos and tiny penises.
That said, if you’re on someone else’s property and they pull a gun on you and tell you to leave, if you’d rather have the “don’t get shot” option, then you should just walk away and get off their property. Grabbing their gun is pretty damn stupid.
If his kid's there he ain't trespassing, so he ain't have to do . That being said he doesn't reach for the gun until after the warning shot which btw is super ing illegal in Texas. Shooter committed a crime against the guy when he did that.
Whew..
Nothing to see here.
You're always trespassing once the owner tells you to leave.
Pretty sure you're ignorant of laws.
Criminal trespass is defined in the Texas statutes as when an individual:
“…enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.”
In other words, you can face this charge if you enter someone’s property when you know the entry is prohibited – or if you remain on the property after being asked to leave.
You must enter the property with your entire body, whether in person or in a vehicle, for charges to apply.
Not even talk about the legality of this, I’m talking common sense. If someone pulls a gun on you and gives you the “get out of here” option, then leave and wait for the police. Doing anything otherwise is either suicidal or stupid.
Mental illness is a serious condition, tbh...
That said, it's going to be interesting to read the details of this case. If there was a court order involved in this, kidnapping charges on the shooter are also not unwarranted, tbh...
Agreed. Plus, it gives you leverage in your court case.
You can use force to remove trespassers but not deadly force. that warning shot he fired means that shooter committed felony assault, warning shots are illegal, so shooter committed felony assault and when guy fought back he got clapped. That's where this is ing crazy, even if you want to call it a good shoot, which i wouldn't. Just to repeat the shooter commuted felony assault against the other guy, and when the guy fought back he shot his ass down.
You said he wasn't trespassing.
If he shot the trespasser to prevent the person from taking the gun, then I'd see that as possibly defense to prosecution but a grand jury would have to decide. It's not illegal to have a gun on your property. How legal it might be to shoot the ground is debatable. The question was though about trespassing. You claimed that, if his kid is on the property, he can also be on the property. If this was true then he should legally be able to live with the kid in someone else's home and they can do nothing about it. If the guy has visitation rights and he's being denied access, he has the right to file a complaint but doesn't have the right to trespass. The court order doesn't give him the right to enter the property, only to have custody of the kid.
You've said a lot of that's wrong recently. You should check your facts.
The guy looked justified to use deadly force there to me.
If you are told to leave, you leave. If your kid is there and you're supposed to have custody, then you call the police.
Not how that works in this case.
I'm saying if you want to go with he was trespassing I'll give you that and disagree, but when shooter fired the warning shot on the guy who was trespassing he committed a crime, he committed what could be a felony because you can't fire warning shots at trespassers. You said alot of wrong recently you should check your facts
Yeah, but what about Chicago?
This it?
RIP Chad and my heart goes out to his son. This is why you don't have kids with hood rats. She stood there and watched these men fight, had no idea where her own child is and showed no emotion when her sons father got his life took.
This would be true if he was trying to protect his property instead of himself.
dude's wife showed no emotion either, because she thought it was a air rifle/paintball gun.
you can't fire warning shots, if he fired a warning shot, which he did, he committed a crime and he should be in jail.
As the men look like they are kissing in the tweet image, is this meant to fulfill dmc’s men on men fantasy?
If the shooting was justified, so was the warning shot. I'm not saying it was a justified shoot. I have my doubts since we don't know all the facts surrounding the event.
Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force 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 or unlawful interference with the property.
So if the warning shot was "deadly force", it could be justified. In fact, it could be argued that it was used to prevent the actual killing, which it did not. The shooter was not required to attempt retreat and has legal right to protect property, his own life and safety and the life and safety of those in the home and on the property. Shooting with his own family in the backdrop wasn't intelligent. There could be an issue with that.
Need a 66 year old obese woman he can stalk too.
Neither was black so no racist comments from you. Also no scantly clad kids you can fap to. No idea why you're even here.
Need a 66 year old obese woman he can stalk too.
Before Stupid tries another of his lame false diversions, enjoy:
Maybe. It depends.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
