I understand, but that's redundant. I don't have a fire extinguisher because I'm expecting my house to catch on fire. I have it in case my house catches on fire.Illinois Kyle carried a gun to another location not knowing he was going to need it for self defense.
Again, I understand. But if that were my wife I'd say "Okay, dear. I've called the police and they're on their way. It's time for us to go inside and lock the door." I wouldn't run into the house to get a gun.Texas Kyle had a man in his yard that was aggressively raising hell with his girlfriend. It's reasonable to assume that you may need to defend yourself. And sure enough, he did.
The whole thing is fucked.Imagine those kids having to live in the same house with the man who killed their father.
Exactly.I understand, but that's redundant. I don't have a fire extinguisher because I'm expecting my house to catch on fire. I have it in case my house catches on fire.
.
If you keep listening after the screen goes black, she is starting to freak out. I think it was part shock and that she didn't think he was hurt badly at first. I think people expect it to be like in the movies, loud and dramatic. When he didn't get up she starts to realize and begins to panic.The whole thing is fucked.
I also found it interesting that no one was that upset that Chad got, got.
Your wife and ex-husband yelling at each other isn't really a credible threat. It happens 1000's of time a day and nothing like this comes of it. Kyle could have called the fuzz on Chad, but no, he opted to get a gun. Chad fucked around and found out. As I've said, in my opinion Kyle is not guilty. I do see where @Filthy is coming from though. In a lot of non-Texas states what Kyle did is clear cut murder.Exactly.
So if it's okay to carry a gun to a public place 'in case' you need it, then it damn sure should be okay to carry it on your own property where a known threat is, yes?
That's how I'm seeing it.
Chad would have beat the socks off Kyle if he didnt have that gun.Your wife and ex-husband yelling at each other isn't really a credible threat. It happens 1000's of time a day and nothing like this comes of it. Kyle could have called the fuzz on Chad, but no, he opted to get a gun. Chad fucked around and found out. As I've said, in my opinion Kyle is not guilty. I do see where @Filthy is coming from though. In a lot of non-Texas states what Kyle did is clear cut murder.
Now the Lubbock police were there, took statements and declined arrest, and apparently Kyle's ex is a local judge, so he's probably at least somewhat familiar with legal matters.
in Texas, you can brandish a firearm if it's a) on your property AND b) it's in response to a threat to life or property.Chad would have beat the socks off Kyle if he didnt have that gun.
I don't know of any state where he would be found guilty after Chad tried to take the gun.
.
i don't know if he's guilty under Texas Law, my position is that he's a murderer.Your wife and ex-husband yelling at each other isn't really a credible threat. It happens 1000's of time a day and nothing like this comes of it. Kyle could have called the fuzz on Chad, but no, he opted to get a gun. Chad fucked around and found out. As I've said, in my opinion Kyle is not guilty. I do see where @Filthy is coming from though. In a lot of non-Texas states what Kyle did is clear cut murder.
Now the Lubbock police were there, took statements and declined arrest, and apparently Kyle's ex is a local judge, so he's probably at least somewhat familiar with legal matters.
solved this post.I haven't read this thread fully but I'm sure TMMAC has done it again... this time solving the gun issue, parental custody issue, and boyfriends getting involved in shit that isn'ttheretheir business issue.
The only reason Kyle feared for his life was to protect himself from the gun that he brandished, so I certainly understand the "fuck that guy" mentality as well.
most places, doing anything with the firearm beyond possessing it is a crime.I'd like to see the law somehow represent that if you the only reason the situation is now one of justified deadly force is your own weapon you brought into escalate said situation that there would be some legal penalty for that action.
It just seems insane to me that we can just about take any situation bring out a gun and then use the loss of the gun as justification to shoot the gun when there would otherwise be none.
Dude in blue just
It definitely didn't seem like the shooter was in any danger when he shot. Hard to tell in the video but blue didnt look like he advanced once there was distance created. If he advanced again I would say its probably a clean shoot.Here's my prosecutor stance...
Dude in blue was invited onto the property at a designated time to get his child by the wife who is an occupant at the house. Therefore, he was not trespassing.
While the gunman may be legally allowed to carry a gun, once he fired the gun at the ground as a warning shot That was clear that he did not fear for his life or he would not be shooting at the ground. That illegal discharge of a weapon escalated the situation making dude in blue fear for his life that a second shot was coming and forced him to grab for the gun to protect himself from the gun owner that had just illegally fired.
The gunman who escalated the situation and had just fired an illegal shot then shot the dude in blue who was just defending himself from an irresponsible gun owner that had just recklessly discharged his weapon in a suburban neighborhood.
After dipshit had fired the warning shot. If I'm nose to nose with a fucker and he fires a gun then I'm definitely going to try to take it from him in the moment to try to make sure he doesn't do it again.then tried to take his gun which he stated that he was going to shove up his ass
he put the firearm at low ready and got in a chest-bumping contest.I don't agree that Bringing a gun out to protect your property and family is escalating anything.
It was a stupid move, imo. And had I been the mom I would have intervened right then. But I believe he was within his rights at the point when the man refused to leave and was being aggressive towards the mom.
A dude just went after a man with a gun ffs. He's obviously batshit crazy. And it would be ridiculous to think he wasn't going to come after him again.
Chad was the aggressor. He is the one who physically engaged the property owner. He a) moved onto the porch to chest bump/intimidate the home owner and b) then tried to take his gun which he stated that he was going to shove up his ass.
watched it again, and Chad didn't have his hands on the firearm when the first shot was fired.Here's my prosecutor stance...
Dude in blue was invited onto the property at a designated time to get his child by the wife who is an occupant at the house. Therefore, he was not trespassing.
While the gunman may be legally allowed to carry a gun, once he fired the gun at the ground as a warning shot That was clear that he did not fear for his life or he would not be shooting at the ground. That illegal discharge of a weapon escalated the situation making dude in blue fear for his life that a second shot was coming and forced him to grab for the gun to protect himself from the gun owner that had just illegally fired.
The gunman who escalated the situation and had just fired an illegal shot then shot the dude in blue who was just defending himself from an irresponsible gun owner that had just recklessly discharged his weapon in a suburban neighborhood.