Eliminatus said:

---

Ultimately, I think it comes down to whether BioDad had a right to be on the property demanding his son vs the landowner wanting him off of it. Not a lawyer but just from my own thoughts I would side with landowner personally.

---

This is the most important issue for me. It's my understanding that the custody agreement is between Biodad and mom, and that the property owner (boyfriend) is not a party to that. If Biodad has a problem with that, he needs to take it up with the mom or police, and not her boyfriend. So for me, the custody of the child is completely insignificant in this case. That leaves a "trespasser" that's being aggressive that received a warning shot and continued to aggressively trespass. If I'm on the jury, I assign 0% guilt to the boyfriend, and I'll even hang (sp?) the jury as the only not-guilty vote. I assign 50% of the guilt to the mom for violating the custody agreement, and 50% to biodad for trespassing.

So keep this in mind when you have the option to de-escalate a situation. You could be dead and your shooter could go free because an idiot like me made it on to the jury. (I'm actually speaking to myself here, not yall)

agnerd said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

Ultimately, I think it comes down to whether BioDad had a right to be on the property demanding his son vs the landowner wanting him off of it. Not a lawyer but just from my own thoughts I would side with landowner personally.

---

This is the most important issue for me. It's my understanding that the custody agreement is between Biodad and mom, and that the property owner (boyfriend) is not a party to that. If Biodad has a problem with that, he needs to take it up with the mom or police, and not her boyfriend. So for me, the custody of the child is completely insignificant in this case. That leaves a "trespasser" that's being aggressive that received a warning shot and continued to aggressively trespass. If I'm on the jury, I assign 0% guilt to the boyfriend, and I'll even hang (sp?) the jury as the only not-guilty vote. I assign 50% of the guilt to the mom for violating the custody agreement, and 50% to biodad for trespassing.

So keep this in mind when you have the option to de-escalate a situation. You could be dead and your shooter could go free because an idiot like me made it on to the jury. (I'm actually speaking to myself here, not yall)

---

I could be wrong here, but I'm fairly certain Texas doesn't allow the use of deadly force to prevent/stop trespassing unless it involves entry into someone's occupied home or vehicle. So bringing out the gun and firing a warning shot over trespassing outside could be legally considered "aggregated assault with a deadly weapon".

WTF did I just watch? How did that dead guys wife just carry on with the conversation when her husband was killed. If that was my wife that was shot, I would come flying out of that truck to try and save her life, and I would be on 911 trying to get an ambulance or loading her up myself to race her to a hospital. What a bizarro thing to just keep filming your conversation like nothing happened.

All of those people suck (I have the most sympathy for the dead dad though).

This is all my opinion.....
I have watched all the videos that have been released and the various edited versions as well, and have read all the articles I can find on this incident. Having had an ex-wife that played games like the one in the video with my daughters the biological father should have had the court ordered custody agreement amended to state all swaps should be done on neutral ground, ie mcdonalds, walmart, or better yet courthouse or police station property as most private businesses do not want the risk of these kind of activities on their property.

That being said the biological dad had every right to be there to get his child per the custody agreement, near as I can tell from the open records I have found, he had shared custody and a defined visitation schedule. The fact that the mother was on the property and was supposed to be turning over the child in question gives him the right to be there to retrieve his legal child. Mother is obligated to turn said child over, mother did not. Father is angry, and I do not fault for that with him. In the videos he is very verbally aggressive (tone, volume, and language (what I can here and understand though that is very little), but his physical stance is hands down at his sides, no weapons visible, he is not getting within arms reach of either the new boyfriend (prior to new boyfriend bringing out the firearm) or the ex-wife, there is no threat of imminent severe bodily harm or death for either the shooter or the ex-wife. Cops should have already been called at this point but that did not happen. Then there is a clear escalation of the issue when the shooter goes into the house, thus removing all risk of death or sever bodily harm to himself. The ex wife and father continue to argue, but at a distance that prevents there being an imminent risk of death or sever bodily harm, and the physical posture of the father indicates that is not going to change.

Then the shooter comes out on the porch with his firearm and proceeds to threaten imminent sever bodily harm or death to the father. The father at that point closes to within arms reach physically bumping the man with the firearm, but maintaining a hands down posture. Ill advised absolutely. Then the shooter backs away and fires a warning shot, which in the state of Texas is a felony, the father then reacts by making a failed attempt to take the firearm away from the shooter. Thus enacting in my mind his right to self-defense, he has not only been threatened with a firearm which is another crime committed by the shooter, he has now been assaulted with a firearm, so we have a shooter that has committed three firearm offenses prior to bringing the firearm to bear and firing the fatal shot. 1) brandishing a firearm 2) assault with a deadly weapon 3) firing a warning shot.

The father fails in his attempt to take the firearm away and the shooter having achieved a distance outside of arms reach and NO LONGER in imminent danger of severe bodily injury or death, raises the firearm and fires two additional shots killing the father.

In my mind this is at a minimum 2nd degree murder, and is the most severe of the 4 firearms infractions I feel were committed. The fact that the shooter escalated the situation in the first place by going inside and getting a firearm, I could reasonably consider 1st degree murder with intent, probably could not vote to convict, but that is why the DA charges multiple levels and this is in my mind a 2nd degree murder as I do not think I could say with the information I have available that this was planned ahead of the situation.

This is why it is so easy for the gun grabbers out there to keep their rhetoric going, idiots like the shooter in this case gives them all the ammunition they need to continue to fight to dictate who can and cannot own what in terms of firearms. I enjoy shooting the firearms I own, I enjoy classes, I enjoy competitions, I do not want to lose them, and guys like this idiot shooter keep feeding the ones that want to end that fun.

Long story short, let's hope agnerd and I do not end up on the jury as it will get hung and have to be retried, and the firearm used is a Ruger PCC.

The gun grabbers don't need an excuse. This case is like piss in the ocean as far as moving the needle on 2nd amendment infringement. It's a nothingburger.

Shooter should be charged. You can't kill someone just for trespassing. Trespass is a misdemeanor in Texas.

Also, Dad should have left when told to leave by the property owner. He for sure should have left when the gun came out. He would still be alive today if he could have kept his cool and swallowed his pride.

It's interesting to think how this would play out had it not been recorded. The boyfriend and ex wife would corroborate that they acted in self defense while the new wife would testify that it was not self defense. Without cell phone video it would likely be a "no-bill"

ShouldastayedataTm said:

---

Long story short, let's hope agnerd and I do not end up on the jury as it will get hung and have to be retried, and the firearm used is a Ruger PCC.

---

I know my opinion is unpopular, but criticize it all you want, after all, that is how we see our own flaws of reasoning.
First off, I hope someone like you never sits on a jury for a 2A case. Bringing a firearm out on your own property is not brandishing unless you aim it at someone. If we take this to the logical conclusion, anytime someone who is committing a crime on your property not warranting deadly force you can not retrieve a firearm. So if a dozen gangbangers walk up to my front yard and starts rambling on about how they'll rape my family I should just sit there and wait for him to break in?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Sec. 22.05. DEADLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.
(b) A person commits an offense if he knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of:
(1) one or more individuals; or
(2) a habitation, building, or vehicle and is reckless as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied.
(c) Recklessness and danger are presumed if the actor knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded.
(d) For purposes of this section, "building," "habitation," and "vehicle" have the meanings assigned those terms by Section 30.01.
(e) An offense under Subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor. An offense under Subsection (b) is a felony of the third degree.

---

---

Yes, I think the warning shot could (read:99%) be Deadly Conduct, he could however make the poor argument that he was "defending himself and missed. I am sure the jury will not take that well.

If anyone is trying to grab your firearm, that should generally justify deadly force. Chad made the poor decision of trying to grab Kyle's gun when Kyle deliberately pushed it in front of him and stepped on his foot. Ironically, had Kyle shot him then, he'd be in less trouble.

He shouldn't have set the exchange place (Do we know if it is listed at the house in the divorce documents?) on private property. Unfortunately, I've never seen a "oh the kid's not here" get charged with a felony kidnapping so go mostly peacefully burn down the family court with political pressure for being idiots. When someone tells you to leave their property for trespassing and has a firearm in their hands, you should probably take the loss and live to fight another day unless you can shoot them dead first.

Here are the facts:
Kyle brought out a gun, asked Chad to leave
Chad didn't leave and Kyle/Chad (?) confronted each other. Words (threat) alone are not sufficient to use deadly force
Chad made a movement towards the firearm
Kyle shot into the ground
Chad grabbed Kyle's gun and flung him out
Kyle shot him shortly afterwards
The kid was not present
There was a person in the building

Some major questions:
- Was this the designated place for the child exchange?
- If so, if you are asked to leave, do you still have a right to be there if your child is not presented?
- Did Kyle confront Chad, or the other way around? Or is it both?
- Is bringing out a firearm on your own property when someone is trespassing a brandishing?
- Did Kyle's first shot negate a claim of self defense because it was an escalation?
- The porch is considered part of the "habitation", did Chad stepping in and touching (the chestbump/grab and throw) turn this into a "burglary" and thus allow for use of deadly force against him
- When Kyle is thrown off his "habitation" and he lost his right to self-defense, how does he regain it by retreating? Can he reasonably retreat (I feel no, does he retreat towards the car with Chad's wife?)? What about the safety of the other person in the house?

The real person who deserves a bullet is Chad's ex, she did a nice job of messing with the court judgement and getting her current boyfriend Kyle to kill Chad. She won't get a day in my opinion. The Jury/Judge is going to be thinking of suicide with a firearm when trying to untangle this cluster of a case.

This is going to bake some of y'all's noodles.

The shooter was/is married to a judge and was cheating on said judge with bio dads ex wife. Judge is trying to have divorce records sealed and I believe the shooter had a previous weapon charge from a long time ago. Shooters parents own the house were this took place. This place has three different businesses listed as it's location and bio mom was a "employee". That's what I have picked up on the politics forum I believe.

The shooter is related to the judge. He ain't gettin *****

Anyway, this loser killed some kids dad and it's not self defense. After watching the videos, I'm a bit surprised little napoleon didn't roll over there and lay his rifle next to the body for a Photo op.

For me the intent was to kill him. The intent was not self defense. No one freaked out when the guy dropped. No one administers first aid. If I'm the prosecutor, I'm going for the jugular on this. As a normal and well balanced human, anyone that kills in self defense would be and should be immediately concerned and bothered that they have injured or killed someone. Self defense situations don't focus on killing anyone. The killing is a by product and not an end goal.

Jason_InfinityRoofer said:

---

The shooter is related to the judge. He ain't gettin *****

---

That's the problem here.

The shooter was never even taken in for questioning.

All the info we have is because the now widow released the video and has made press statements.

After several weeks, the local DA office recused themselves.

It's in the hands of the Texas AG's office now.

Going to address some of this point by point

erudite said:

---

ShouldastayedataTm said:

---

Long story short, let's hope agnerd and I do not end up on the jury as it will get hung and have to be retried, and the firearm used is a Ruger PCC.

---

I know my opinion is unpopular, but criticize it all you want, after all, that is how we see our own flaws of reasoning.
First off, I hope someone like you never sits on a jury for a 2A case. Bringing a firearm out on your own property is not brandishing unless you aim it at someone. If we take this to the logical conclusion, anytime someone who is committing a crime on your property not warranting deadly force you can not retrieve a firearm. So if a dozen gangbangers walk up to my front yard and starts rambling on about how they'll rape my family I should just sit there and wait for him to break in?

---

First, on the brandishing, since there isn't technically a "brandishing" law in texas, there are a few statutes that could apply. The other is disorderly conduct which reads "displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm". Since the front porch is in view of the public, this could technically apply.

More importantly though, I think you are conflating a few things. First, retrieving a firearm if someone is committing a crime on your property is not immediately unlawful, but if their crime doesn't legally warrant the use of force or deadly force, how you retrieve that weapon could be. Did you walk out with a pistol in a holster or a rifle slung at the low ready, or did you come out in an aggressive stance, bowed up, weapon in hand? That matters. Second, your described scenario is entirely different than the circumstances here. That situation described legally warrants the use of deadly force. A reasonable person in that scenario could conclude that a severe bodily harm or death was imminent to a person in the area based on those circumstances. In the video situation however, I saw no evidence of any threat of bodily harm or even a display of intent to attempt to break and enter the home. So the way in which he goes in and retrieves the gun in an attempt to get him to leave could well be considered an illegal use of force. Also if you look at the 54-57 second mark in the video from the truck, the homeowner takes the gun from being passively carried in one hand, and then moves it to two in a threatening manner while telling the dad to leave his property, even sweeping the dad with the barrel at one point. That's deadly force right there. For trespassing with (in my opinion) no threat of violence. Game over.

TLDR: No you don't have to wait for a violent crime to begin, but you do have to have a reasonable belief that one is imminent.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Sec. 22.05. DEADLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.
(b) A person commits an offense if he knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of:
(1) one or more individuals; or
(2) a habitation, building, or vehicle and is reckless as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied.
(c) Recklessness and danger are presumed if the actor knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded.
(d) For purposes of this section, "building," "habitation," and "vehicle" have the meanings assigned those terms by Section 30.01.
(e) An offense under Subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor. An offense under Subsection (b) is a felony of the third degree.

---

---

Yes, I think the warning shot could (read:99%) be Deadly Conduct, he could however make the poor argument that he was "defending himself and missed. I am sure the jury will not take that well.

If anyone is trying to grab your firearm, that should generally justify deadly force. Chad made the poor decision of trying to grab Kyle's gun when Kyle deliberately pushed it in front of him and stepped on his foot. Ironically, had Kyle shot him then, he'd be in less trouble.

He shouldn't have set the exchange place (Do we know if it is listed at the house in the divorce documents?) on private property. Unfortunately, I've never seen a "oh the kid's not here" get charged with a felony kidnapping so go mostly peacefully burn down the family court with political pressure for being idiots. When someone tells you to leave their property for trespassing and has a firearm in their hands, you should probably take the loss and live to fight another day unless you can shoot them dead first.

---

Agreed that the threat and the move for the gun likely justified the use of deadly force. So the warning shot might actually be the only legal use of force the homeowner displayed (if we don't assume his previous behavior disqualified him from that use of force). However, as Branca describes in his legal breakdown, legal use of force is a transient thing. So just because Kyle may have been justified in shooting Chad while they were both on the porch, does not automatically grant him a continued justification into later moments. By my watching of both videos, once kyle was flung from his porch Chad no longer represented an imminent threat. He made no move to either pursue Kyle (who is now well out of arms reach of the unarmed man), or attempt to enter the house. So while for a brief window there was a threat of imminent bodily harm, that threat no longer existed when Kyle raised the gun and shot Chad.

Now I do whole heartedly agree that the moment Kyle walks out with the gun, Chad should have left and gotten the police involved. But him making a stupid tactical choice doesn't make his shooting justified. It might just make it manslaughter instead of murder.

answered some of your "major questions" below in bold

Quote:

---

Here are the facts:
Kyle brought out a gun, asked Chad to leave
Chad didn't leave and Kyle/Chad (?) confronted each other. Words (threat) alone are not sufficient to use deadly force
Chad made a movement towards the firearm
Kyle shot into the ground
Chad grabbed Kyle's gun and flung him out
Kyle shot him shortly afterwards
The kid was not present
There was a person in the building

Some major questions:
- Was this the designated place for the child exchange?
- If so, if you are asked to leave, do you still have a right to be there if your child is not presented? no you don't, that's now trespassing
- Did Kyle confront Chad, or the other way around? Or is it both? seems like both
- Is bringing out a firearm on your own property when someone is trespassing a brandishing? answered above, it depends on how you bring it out
- Did Kyle's first shot negate a claim of self defense because it was an escalation? not necessarily, but when viewed in the series events around it, i do think it hurt his claim
- The porch is considered part of the "habitation", did Chad stepping in and touching (the chestbump/grab and throw) turn this into a "burglary" and thus allow for use of deadly force against him? no way that legally turns it into burglary to any rational jury, but the bumping with the threat likely makes it assault and battery, so had he shot chad on the porch this likely is begrudgingly "self defense"
- When Kyle is thrown off his "habitation" and he lost his right to self-defense, how does he regain it by retreating? Can he reasonably retreat (I feel no, does he retreat towards the car with Chad's wife?)? What about the safety of the other person in the house? he doesn't have to retreat, he regains the right of a self defense claim if chad in that moment makes any continued aggressive movements towards either the front door of the home or any persons outside it

The real person who deserves a bullet is Chad's ex, she did a nice job of messing with the court judgement and getting her current boyfriend Kyle to kill Chad. She won't get a day in my opinion. The Jury/Judge is going to be thinking of suicide with a firearm when trying to untangle this cluster of a case.

---

Erudite, your forgetting that the deceased was invited to the location. He was invited to this location at 3:15 to pick up son. He was invited to pick up son who conveniently was not there. Then was shot after being told he was trespassing. This will be an open shut case of premeditated murder. Ex wife will have a charge also in the planning.

John Cocktolstoy said:

---

Erudite, your forgetting that the deceased was invited to the location. He was invited to this location at 3:15 to pick up son. He was invited to pick up son who conveniently was not there. Then was shot after being told he was trespassing. This will be an open shut case of premeditated murder. Ex wife will have a charge also in the planning.

---

Regardless of if you are invited, you can still be asked to leave later, you are no longer welcome then. Instead of leaving to fight another day, Chad decided to confront Kyle and now he won't get to his kid ever again. His son not being there is a family court issue. Go nag your reps about fixing family court (or abolishing it all together). Now, if it turns out that they charge the ex with felony kidnapping that's a different story entirely.


BlackGoldAg2011, I see your post, just can't quote two. My issue with your stance is that if it is visible from the public then it is possible "brandishing" is absolutely preposterous. If there is a high rise with a large public attraction on the top floor, and I live next door, would it then be illegal to retrieve my firearm and hold it at a high ready in my backyard?
Now, sweeping Chad with the muzzle I can partially agree, however, I don't think we've heard if if he had prior knowledge of Chad's criminal record (Felony assault reduced to misdemeanor) because that might significantly change the calculus. Kyle's poor muzzle control is not just with Chad, you can see him sweep the ex in the video when they are in physical contact with each other during the chestbump and "I don't know where your son is" portion.

Either way, the judge and the jury are going to have a headache with this mess of a case. Poor decisions all around that would have been solved if people had the self control to work through issues in a marriage and not cheat on others.

John Cocktolstoy said:

---

Erudite, your forgetting that the deceased was invited to the location. He was invited to this location at 3:15 to pick up son. He was invited to pick up son who conveniently was not there. Then was shot after being told he was trespassing. This will be an open shut case of premeditated murder. Ex wife will have a charge also in the planning.

---

Irrelevant.

And it won't be open and shut. It'll be no billed or hung.

It's a tragic unnecessary event. I would not want to be on jury at all but this may come down to being on the porch which I think is considered your house in Texas and no different than breaking into the window.

The "warning" shot to me escalated the entire event making the man with the rifle in the wrong IMO. I'd be very inclined to hold him accountable, it's a point drilled into the old concealed carry classes.

The sad part is a kid with without his dad, and it likely stuck in a situation with a terrible mother and potentially horrible step dad.