Infection_Ag11 said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Fore Left! said:

---

Brandishing can be illegal btw. All about context. The dad had a right to be at the property and was not making threats. If you brandish with the intent to threaten, you can be charged with deadly conduct, even if it's not loaded. Same reason you can't just drive around flashing your gun at crappy drivers

---

Walking down the street with your rifle pointed at the ground isn't brandishing. Neither is walking out the front door with it

---

Brandishing is largely a matter of context. Walking down the street with a gun isn't brandishing, but going inside and then walking back out with a gun during a tense argument certainly could be.

In this situation there is clear and unambiguous intent by the homeowner to "threaten" by walking out with the gun. He cannot argue anything else and have anyone believe him. That doesn't automatically mean it's a crime, but it could be depending on other circumstances. The idea that you can just be holding a gun in any situation and never be guilty of a crime if you don't point it at someone is simply incorrect.

---

It's not any situation. It's an heated conversation. Holding a gun, on your property, being illegal will be a high hurdle for me to reach.

I'll ask you the same question I asked ketch. Would it have been legal if he had been holding the rifle at the start of the interaction?

hbtheduce said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Fore Left! said:

---

Brandishing can be illegal btw. All about context. The dad had a right to be at the property and was not making threats. If you brandish with the intent to threaten, you can be charged with deadly conduct, even if it's not loaded. Same reason you can't just drive around flashing your gun at crappy drivers

---

Walking down the street with your rifle pointed at the ground isn't brandishing. Neither is walking out the front door with it

---

Brandishing is largely a matter of context. Walking down the street with a gun isn't brandishing, but going inside and then walking back out with a gun during a tense argument certainly could be.

In this situation there is clear and unambiguous intent by the homeowner to "threaten" by walking out with the gun. He cannot argue anything else and have anyone believe him. That doesn't automatically mean it's a crime, but it could be depending on other circumstances. The idea that you can just be holding a gun in any situation and never be guilty of a crime if you don't point it at someone is simply incorrect.

---

It's not any situation. It's an heated conversation. Holding a gun, on your property, being illegal will be a high hurdle for me to reach.

I'll ask you the same question I asked ketch. Would it have been legal if he had been holding the rifle at the start of the interaction?

---

Shooting would have been more plausible imo had he not sought out the weapon to escalate the situation.

Kyle was not scared of ****hold dude now dead. Bang wife, kill husband.

Rule is, if you go for the gun, then you must get the gun to win.

Horn_in_Aggieland said:

---

CS78 said:

---

Custody battles set to the tune of the Dixie Chicks. Sad!

---

Earl had to die I guess.

The only wide open space is this guy's chest.

Was this in a mobile home park? Sure should have been.

Calling the police may have removed bio dad from the property. Not sure it would have helped with the custody issue. In my experience they'd just say it's a civil matter and they need to take it up in court.

May not be murder but I don't see the guy getting off completely.

---

I am guessing the woman filming is doing it to document that the ex-wife didn't have the son ready to exchange because this has been a recurring habit with her. Deceased dad probably requested she don't because he wants the custody agreement changed.

Horrible situation with a lot of history untold with this video..

The video is a prime example of why they encourage custody exchanges to be in a public place, rather than at a residence. The mother is responsible for the escalation of the event.

My problem is that the dead dad wasn't being overtly physically aggressive during the video posted until boyfriend went and grabbed his weapon.

That's my problem with it. Had boyfriend started with the weapon front the get go, then okay. Stupid but it changes the context.

He went and grabbed his gun and walked out. I dont see how that's not making a bad situation worse and what lead to him shooting the dad.

Juxtapose that to Rittenhouse. He carried his weapon all night and never, so far as we know, used it in a threatening manner until he was under attack.

Quote:

---

The initial aggressive act is threatening deadly force where none is warranted.

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

My problem is that the dead dad wasn't being overtly physically aggressive during the video posted until boyfriend went and grabbed his weapon.

That's my problem with it. Had boyfriend started with the weapon front the get go, then okay. Stupid but it changes the context.

He went and grabbed his gun and walked out. I dont see how that's not making a bad situation worse and what lead to him shooting the dad.

Juxtapose that to Rittenhouse. He carried his weapon all night and never, so far as we know, used it in a threatening manner until he was under attack.

---

Exactly. Context matters when brandishing a weapon. There is a difference between a deterrent and a threat. Hence why grabbing the gun is assault in this situation.

aggierogue said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Fore Left! said:

---

Brandishing can be illegal btw. All about context. The dad had a right to be at the property and was not making threats. If you brandish with the intent to threaten, you can be charged with deadly conduct, even if it's not loaded. Same reason you can't just drive around flashing your gun at crappy drivers

---

Walking down the street with your rifle pointed at the ground isn't brandishing. Neither is walking out the front door with it

---

Brandishing is largely a matter of context. Walking down the street with a gun isn't brandishing, but going inside and then walking back out with a gun during a tense argument certainly could be.

In this situation there is clear and unambiguous intent by the homeowner to "threaten" by walking out with the gun. He cannot argue anything else and have anyone believe him. That doesn't automatically mean it's a crime, but it could be depending on other circumstances. The idea that you can just be holding a gun in any situation and never be guilty of a crime if you don't point it at someone is simply incorrect.

---

It's not any situation. It's an heated conversation. Holding a gun, on your property, being illegal will be a high hurdle for me to reach.

I'll ask you the same question I asked ketch. Would it have been legal if he had been holding the rifle at the start of the interaction?

---

Shooting would have been more plausible imo had he not sought out the weapon to escalate the situation.

---

He sought out the weapon to deescalate. He wanted the guy to leave, which was a deescalation attempt.

I think so. I think if he would have been sitting on his porch with his weapon in a non-threatening manner and then the dad shows up, the dad would be responsible for the situation getting out of hand.

Kvetch said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Tough one for sure.

I'm leaning towards legal self defense. While I feel sympathy for the bio-dad that feels he is being denied access to his son. You don't get to stay on someone's property after they ask you to leave. Then to assault them on their property, ignoring their weapon. This dude was even cool headed enough for a warning shot (while being assaulted). Only takes a lethal shot once the bio-dad attempts to take the gun from him.

**** situation all around.

---

My understanding of Texas law is that you aren't allowed to use deadly force merely to remove someone from your property if they don't pose an immediate threat to you.

This basically amounts to a family squabble, it's not a home invasion. The shooter had no reasonable fear for his or his family's life UNTIL he brought a gun into the situation and a fight started. The question at that point is whether or not in the moment he was justified in shooting him, but I'm pretty sure the mere fact that he was on his property and wouldn't leave doesn't matter here because it doesn't justify the shooting in and of itself.

---

I agree. But he didn't shoot him for just standing there. He was shot after the deceased grabbed his weapon tossing him away from the door.

More facts are swinging me back against the homeowner. His intention matters. The kid actually being inside of the house does not help his case. Was bio-dad jerking the shooter aside an attempt to take the gun or to move him so he could look for his son.

I think we can all agree this was a tragic **** sandwich show that this poor kid had to watch.

---

You're ignoring whether self defense applies here. Does the man who was shot not have a right to protect himself against the threat of deadly force when confronted with it? He didn't throw the guy aside until there was a shot fired. They are equally culpable for standing chest to chest. The initial aggressive act is threatening deadly force where none is warranted.

This is a bad case to hang your hat on if you want to defend the right to brandish a weapon to protect property.

---

I am not ignoring it, that is the entire question. I always ask who is the aggressor?

I see the battery, and possible assault, that happened before the first shot as the first aggression.

Others on here, and please correct me if I am misrepresenting anyone. Others view the act of bringing out the weapon, after telling the bio-dad to leave (when he had a legal right to be there) as the first aggression.

It doesn't really matter to me if I'm right or wrong. This is one I think the system will get right with more facts.

The family of the deceased believe that the shooter is receiving favorable treatment since he is the boyfriend of Judge Ann-Marie Carruth (the mom that kept the kid longer than she should have). Her judicial career may be over.

Leaving to grab a weapon during a heated exchange is not deescalation

The only threats I heard in the video was taking people to court.

This one is so confusing to me.

It just seems neither the boyfriend's property or life were in danger until he made it so.

That's why I think it's murder.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

Agthatbuilds said:

---

It just seems neither the boyfriend's property or life were in danger until he made it so.

That's why I think it's murder.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

---

The only thing at risk was his girlfriends custody agreement?

Whatever happened to good ol' fist fights?

This is tragic on so many levels.

Agthatbuilds said:

---

It just seems neither the boyfriend's property or life were in danger until he made it so.

That's why I think it's murder.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

---

Well they're clearly both showing aggression here. What clouds it for me is the grabbing of the gun.

Did the dad make any threats other than I'm taking you to court?

Captn_Ag05 said:

---

The family of the deceased believe that the shooter is receiving favorable treatment since he is the boyfriend of Judge Ann-Marie Carruth (the mom that kept the kid longer than she should have). Her judicial career may be over.

---

The shooter was married at the time to the Judge, but having an affair with the deceased's ex. Divorce was finalized the Monday after the shooting. Chad Read did mention subpoenaing Ann Marie in the video and I found that interesting.

Completely unnecessary. The guy with the gun wasn't threatened. Just because he asked the dad to leave and dad didn't do so immediately doesn't give him the right to shoot dad.

From what I've seen in the video id vote to convict him of murder

dermdoc said:

---

Whatever happened to good ol' fist fights?

This is tragic on so many levels.

---

Society decided they weren't acceptable. To some degree they were a pressure relief valve that's now highly avoided. Sometimes for the worse.

aggierogue said:

---

I'm all for self-defense, but why escalate the situation by coming out with a long gun and threatening to shoot when the dad was not showing any signs of physically threatening them? Seems a better action for the boyfriend would have been to tell his girlfriend to come in the house and call the police. If the dad tries to follow them in, then I could understand the use of deadly force.

It goes back to the saying if you pull a firearm, you better be ready to use it. This guy did and now has to live with it. I think if he just goes in and calls the police, the worst thing that happens is that the biological dad verbally harasses them for the next 20-30 minutes and then either gets arrested or escorted off the property.

Sad deal, b/c I can understand the anger of a divorced father who is getting screwed over regarding visitation rights.

---

GTF off my property means GTF off my property. It's not a negotiation.

This being discussed around the holidays makes me sad.

Such a tragedy.

I think we should use this as a reminder at how terrible men can be treated in family custody battles.

If you violate the custody agreement he should be able to arrive with a police officer and haul her off to jail. I'm certain this is not his first round with them.

No one wins here, because a dad is dead and a family is broken.

This is six pages worth of attempts to not engage with in-laws on this morning.

hbtheduce said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Fore Left! said:

---

Brandishing can be illegal btw. All about context. The dad had a right to be at the property and was not making threats. If you brandish with the intent to threaten, you can be charged with deadly conduct, even if it's not loaded. Same reason you can't just drive around flashing your gun at crappy drivers

---

Walking down the street with your rifle pointed at the ground isn't brandishing. Neither is walking out the front door with it

---

Brandishing is largely a matter of context. Walking down the street with a gun isn't brandishing, but going inside and then walking back out with a gun during a tense argument certainly could be.

In this situation there is clear and unambiguous intent by the homeowner to "threaten" by walking out with the gun. He cannot argue anything else and have anyone believe him. That doesn't automatically mean it's a crime, but it could be depending on other circumstances. The idea that you can just be holding a gun in any situation and never be guilty of a crime if you don't point it at someone is simply incorrect.

---

Would it have been legal if he had been holding the rifle at the start of the interaction?

---

Sure, because that's a completely different circumstance. If I'm sitting on my porch with a gun and someone drives up and starts arguing with me, my intent in having the gun is entirely different than if the argument starts and then I go get the gun.

And again I'm not saying this was definitely illegal brandishing, I'm just saying it could be interpreted that way.

neAGle96 said:

---

Completely unnecessary. The guy with the gun was threatened. Just because he asked the dad to leave and he didn't do so immediately doesn't give him the right to shoot him.

From what I've seen in the video id vote to convict him

---

The shooter could have gone into the house and stayed there. He didn't, and reappeared with a gun, escalating an already emotional situation.

Guy belongs in prison. No reason to escalate. Just because you are at your house doesn't give you a right to kill someone because they won't leave. The only threats I heard were about taking them to court, zero physical threats from the dead dude prior to having his own life threatened. Call the cops to have him removed from your property. Problem there is if they are violating the custody agreement then they probably don't want to call the cops.

Then the response to the dead man is just sad. No one seemed to care. Not the killer, not the video taker (dead mans wife?).

Anyone defending this as self defense and justified as anything other than a bad loophole under the law is a pathetic human being as well. Regardless of what the law is, you should do everything possible to avoid using deadly force. This type of altercation gives ammunition to the anti 2nd amendment crowd for why we shouldn't have guns. That guy, should not have a gun. You have to respect human life if you are going to maintain your rights to owning guns and that guy has none. Anyone comparing it to rite house is also a moron. He ran for his life before ever using the gun.

CS78 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Whatever happened to good ol' fist fights?

This is tragic on so many levels.

---

Society decided they weren't acceptable. To some degree they were a pressure relief valve that's now highly avoided. Sometimes for the worse.

---

Sadly agree. Kind of chicken**** imho to need to bring a gun into this. Guns are great for PROTECTION. No need for one here.

Nobody's safety was in danger, just pissed off people.

Swing a fist and settle it like men.

dermdoc said:

---

Whatever happened to good ol' fist fights?

This is tragic on so many levels.

---

Zero tolerance fighting policies in schools over the last couple of generations have really taken this off the table. Kids have been taught for so long that you'll get in trouble for being involved in any fight in any way, even if you're defending yourself or someone else, that it's been effectively removed as a conflict resolution mechanism for males.

The days of fighting it out, then shaking hands and moving on are largely over.

MookieBlaylock said:

---

Fore Left! said:

---

You dont get to claim trespassing when the man was there legally for the exchange of the kid per a custody agreement.

---

Except the kid wasnt there

---

Only because mom was violating the custody agreement. He was clearly supposed to be

Goose06 said:

---

Guy belongs in prison. No reason to escalate. Just because you are at your house doesn't give you a right to kill someone because they won't leave. The only threats I heard were about taking them to court, zero physical threats from the dead dude prior to having his own life threatened. Call the cops to have him removed from your property. Problem there is if they are violating the custody agreement then they probably don't want to call the cops.

Then the response to the dead man is just sad. No one seemed to care. Not the killer, not the video taker (dead mans wife?).

Anyone defending this as self defense and justified as anything other than a bad loophole under the law is a pathetic human being as well.

---

I noticed that also. There is a guy shot dead and they basically ignore it and keep arguing. So sad.

Agreed - it's murder.

cevans_40 said:

---

aggierogue said:

---

I'm all for self-defense, but why escalate the situation by coming out with a long gun and threatening to shoot when the dad was not showing any signs of physically threatening them? Seems a better action for the boyfriend would have been to tell his girlfriend to come in the house and call the police. If the dad tries to follow them in, then I could understand the use of deadly force.

It goes back to the saying if you pull a firearm, you better be ready to use it. This guy did and now has to live with it. I think if he just goes in and calls the police, the worst thing that happens is that the biological dad verbally harasses them for the next 20-30 minutes and then either gets arrested or escorted off the property.

Sad deal, b/c I can understand the anger of a divorced father who is getting screwed over regarding visitation rights.

---

GTF off my property means GTF off my property. It's not a negotiation.

---

Yeah, let me know how that one works out for you in court. My guess is not the way you think.

Quote:

---

GTF off my property means GTF off my property. It's not a negotiation.

---

It certainly is if they are illegally detaining your child on the property.