this is like America.mp4 and it'd be a great example of why we should be wiped off the fucking planet by everyone else and we'd deserve it. hate this dogshit, awful country.
I legit must have missed that, I was tabbing around when video first started (and I'm also still a bit toasty from dinner). but yea, this is hilariously premeditated.
the video in the OP appears to be a compilation of two videos. One from inside the house and a second one taken from a car in the street. The second video shows everything. The argument , the guy walking in to get the gun, struggle and the guy taking two steps back and putting two in the guys chest.
Unfortunately the self-defense angle is ironclad. The victim was aggressive and yelling on video at the shooter’s property. And he went for the gun. That’s all it takes. Fairness of it all aside, this whole situation has a vibe of being set up. Almost feels like a training or scenario video for a law class. The way it all played out and the reactions (or lack thereof) seem odd. Not like you’d think “real people” would act. Wouldn’t be surprised to learn the shooter and his wife had it worked out to keep the kids past their time to incite a reaction from the victim and giving the shooter the opportunity to get him out of the picture.
I'm not actually a model - I catfished kylebuck, bertwing can't drive a 4wheeler to save his life, Busch Light is the best college beer oldberg to fuck around with, Wisconsin is a gorgeous state full of fucking dumbasses, math is an overrated subject, and fuck this guy's face at the gas station I fill up at
like I said before rittenhouse I’d have said that’s murder, now I think he will get off. He doesn’t even look worried
nah Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor: (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used: (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or (C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery; (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used. (b) The use of force against another is not justified: (1) in response to verbal provocation alone; (2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c); (3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other; (4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless: (A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and (B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or (5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was: (A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or (B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05. (c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified: (1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary. (d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34. (e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section. (f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat. --- Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and (3) he reasonably believes that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Agreed. Rittenhouse went out and put himself in a bad situation. This guy was on his own property with another man being aggressive and potentially threatening to his wife. Has the right to get his gun at his own house. Asked the man to leave. Then the victim went for the gun. Doubt a prosecutor would even want to take this on. Unless simply to be in the spotlight on a potentially politically divisive case.
About 25 years ago I took a required class to obtain an out of state pistol license and during the class they had a lawyer speak about the legal ramifications of shooting someone. He went through what to expect on the legal side of things, justified shooting or not, and how it's basically going to ruin your life. There was one guy in the class that kept raising his hand over and over again to ask, "can I shoot someone if (insert random scenario)". You could tell this guy was erect over the idea of shooting someone. After the class I went up to the organizers and asked if there was anything they could do to keep a pistol license out of this guys hands. Not only did they say there was nothing they could do, unfortunately, but that there was one of these douchebags in every class.
Wasting space posting all that. Cuz it’s all open to the “interpretation” aka the lawyer spin in their performance that is the reality show of modern court proceedings. And it all has to filter through the beliefs, opinions, prejudices of the jury.
This part makes no sense to me. Why does that justify the shooting. If person A has a gun and person B tries to take it, why does person A get a pass on shooting person B? Is it assumed that person B would should A if he got the gun? Why? If person A can fear for his life if person B gets the gun, can't person B fear foe his life that A has it and therefore warranted to try to take it? I just don't get A hodlint a gun but being so scared of B getting it that he can kill B. The same argument was made in the Arbery killing. It made no sense there either. In this case, the killer shot at the victims feet. Of course the victim feared for his life so he tried to take the gun. The killer shouldn't get a pass bc of that. Like you don't get to be a raging dickhead and threaten people with a gun and then cry self defense when people try to disarm you.
I live in California so from what I understand once he took the two steps backwards he had the obligation to get away. At that point he was longer in danger. But, again that’s California law.
Mind you, he “went for the gun” after the fucker escalated the level of force by retrieving his gun and after he then again escalated by shooting at his feet
Could’ve easily went inside, locked the doors and called the cops. Instead you walked in, grabbed a gun and committed a fucking murder. So easily avoidable. Clearly he wanted the opportunity to shoot.
One surviving parent and they’re married to the person who killed your other parent… this’ll work out well. Could grandparents/family make a case that’s an unhealthy/unsafe living situation for that kid and get custody over the mother?
He literally fired a shot at the man's foot prior to the man going for his gun. The man was calmly asking where his kid was. It didn't escalate until the killer went and got a gun. That's what escalated it. If someone is on your lawn, call the cops. Walk inside. You can't shoot someone for standing on your lawn.
Okay, but clearly their DA disagrees if this happened on the 5th and is free? You could debate some of the bolded as interpretation.
That’s all it takes for someone to say they genuinely feared for their life and acted accordingly. Thus giving reasonable doubt to the murder argument. Everything else is overthinking. Or what we all understandable are doing, venting our frustration at our justice system.
Take your pick: you want a '00 Badgers vs. Bruins (we won) Wells Fargo Sun Bowl sweatshirt, another '99 Badgers Rose Bowl victory sweatshirt vs. UCLA, or a '94 Badgers Rose Bowl victory sweatshirt vs. UCLA sweatshirt? I have till the end of today to PM "Santa Claus". Might do it.
I think Hego Voss is going to get shit not because he is advocating the law but because he understands it. I disagree with the law but agree with his interpretation. In California this is murder in Texas it isn’t
Did you not see the first part of the video? The victim was yelling and screaming at the shooter’s wife before and while the guy went to get his gun. Wasn’t a lot of calmly about it.
dude, I'm not mad at our justice system, I'm mad people like Kyle Carruth exist and that America funds them and gives them ample opportunity to murder with cause with dumbass amendments made by old, rich slave owners from hundreds of years ago. if someone shot Kyle Carruth in the fucking face tonight I'd donate to their defense fund tomorrow. people like Kyle Carruth should be culled, end of story. e: that's myopic, let me be more clear: pro-2A people should be culled.
But why? Why can A have the gun but not B? Could B have pulled out a gun and killed A bc he had a gun? Of course not. So why does A get to have the gun but is justified to kill B for trying to take it after A literally shot at B?
We are talking about two different aspects of the same situation. I agree with you completely. But I was only talking about the murder vs self defense aspect.
Absolutely this is a case of we clearly see a murder happening on camera but technically, the legal talk says he’s covered. It’s fucked but it’s technically not illegal.
He was 6 feet away talking somewhat loud. Nowhere close to screaming or physically threatening her. Nothing about that conversation warranted introducing a gun to the situation.
You should read up on what is legal or acceptable on your own property vs public vs someone else’s private property.
I'm not talking legal. We have some really stupid fucking laws, especially in Texas. I'm talking about a person with common sense watching that video. If you're OK with what happened, fuck you. It's that simple. We need to re-write so many fucking laws.
Yeah it’s the property part and repeatedly telling the guy to leave that’s probably gonna allow Carruth to walk, unfortunately.
Which is so fucked up. You shouldn't be able to kill someone for being on your lawn. Go inside, call the police. Our laws allow these 2a nuts to literally murder people and get away with it.
No is arguing it isn’t. I don’t think Hego Voss is arguing anything else but what the law says. In California that’s murder in Tejas it’s justifiable.
If you got that I’m okay with what happened then you’re even fucking dumber than you come across in your posts. I was literally only saying that the shooter’s self-defense argument is solid in our current legal system. Like you, I think it’s bullshit, that guy is a gun-happy murderer, and he deserves to be punished. But unfortunately common sense doesn’t always prevail in our justice system. Being pissed at me is fucking silly. I didn’t create the system, and sure as fucking hell can’t change it single-handedly. So maybe if you put as much time in to making a real difference in the world as you do to being an asshole on TMB then maybe these things could actually change.
The concept of "fearing for my life" is some ridiculously subjective bullshit and yet it's the standard for officer-involved shootings in our country. It's absurd for law enforcement because they can always argue they were fearful and there's some text-book explaination they all know to provide to support their decision but it's absolutely, ridiculously, over-the-top horseshit when civilians use it like this. The most intelligent of the crazy Second Amendment types can basically entrap someone to put themselves in a justified murder situation like this if they really want to. Not saying this one is that because (based on the videos shown) I still don't think this is justified but it's absolutely terrifying that the possibility exists in this country.