Cellphone Video of Shooting In Texas

Status
Not open for further replies.
Very disturbing and senseless, very unlikely a legal shooting even with the failure to depart private property. Can't argue with the effectiveness of that 9mm carbine though.
 
I had read somewhere that the shooter was cleared of charges (due to Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground) and that the deceased parties family is suing in civil court.

Don't take the above as fact, because I can't find where I heard/read that but was wondering if anyone has an update that can substantiate what I wrote above or dispute it.


The shooter could've retreated with his party into the house (as he did to retrieve his rifle) lock the door and call the cops and held that his home's door was the last line of defense before taking more drastic measures with a rifle.

However, the fact of the matter is, is that the deceased was on someone else's property in an aggrivated/aggressive posturing, and was told to leave and refused. And then it looks to be that he grabs the rifle and begins a struggle at which point there would be justified fear for the shooters life. Based on Texas' Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground laws, the deceased was given adequate time to leave but escalated when he got in the face of the shooter. Some would say the shooter escalated by retreated and getting the rifle, however it is his property (my assumption) and he has a right to defend his person/property correct?

Regardless of the outcome this was a tragedy. There are much better ways of dealing with custody battle disputes, it's called evidence of the other party breaking the custody procedures and present them to a court to dispute the case. Instead we have a dead father and a person who has to live with his actions of taking a life.
 
Last edited:
Any officer who worked patrol has seen this exact scenario played out more times then he can count. Fortunately most don't end with a shooting. A lot of people simply can't be rational in those situations. The number of people involved who filmed this incident gave us views from several angles but that's also a sign that this was an ongoing dispute that finally blew up. This is a good example of why you shouldn't intervene in a domestic dispute.
.
 
Ex husband comes to ex wifes home.
Refused to leave when asked
Verbally confrontational
New husband gets gun to defend wife and home
Ex husband warned repeatedly to leave
Ex husband gets physical with now armed new husband
New husband even fires warning shot
Ex husband grabs at gun
Ex husband gets shot.

Lady with the camera didn't seem all that upset. I'd wager the Ex husband has been violently confrontational in the past.

The ex husband was breaking the law. If he felt he was right to be there to retrieve the child, why didn't he have the police with him?

The ex husband instigated this and escalated to the bitter end.

Looks to me the new husband felt forced to act.

Justified shoot.

I would have handled it a bit differently (and have) I would have gotten wife in the house and locked doors, called police. I'll even bet the ex husband was violating an active restraining order. He seemed pretty comfortable confronting these people at home.

While the home defender could have made different choices, maybe, the perp could have as well.

I stand by my earlier statement, the ex husband started and pushed this situation and escalated at every point.

Justified self defence of family and home.
 
Ex husband comes to ex wifes home.
Refused to leave when asked
Verbally confrontational
New husband gets gun to defend wife and home
Ex husband warned repeatedly to leave
Ex husband gets physical with now armed new husband
New husband even fires warning shot
Ex husband grabs at gun
Ex husband gets shot.

Lady with the camera didn't seem all that upset. I'd wager the Ex husband has been violently confrontational in the past.

The ex husband was breaking the law. If he felt he was right to be there to retrieve the child, why didn't he have the police with him?

The ex husband instigated this and escalated to the bitter end.

Looks to me the new husband felt forced to act.

Justified shoot.

I would have handled it a bit differently (and have) I would have gotten wife in the house and locked doors, called police. I'll even bet the ex husband was violating an active restraining order. He seemed pretty comfortable confronting these people at home.

While the home defender could have made different choices, maybe, the perp could have as well.

I stand by my earlier statement, the ex husband started and pushed this situation and escalated at every point.

Justified self defence of family and home.

This exactly. Kyle's going to go broke, but justified homicide.

Kids weren't even there.

Nobody cared about the dead guy. No screaming, nothing.

And that damn rooster. I cant stop laughing at the rooster squaking.
 
I stand by my earlier statement, the ex husband started and pushed this situation and escalated at every point.

Justified self defence of family and home.
The former does not lead to the latter without other factors.
 
Yeah, he was obviously a complete ayhole but .... I can't believe you can shoot an unarmed man in this fashion and get away with it. God bless Texas, I guess...
 
Wait until you read their history.

Something like:
Daddy and camera wife were in prison for extortion. She doesnt even shake her camera hand when he bites it, because she's loving the idea of media attention.

Little gun guy was banging a legal secratary, kicked out of his marriage, and that trailer house is some kind of ghetto lawfirm that he's living in.

The only real tragedy is that anyone involved is still alive. Ban petite brunettes, not guns.

And he is screwed. Castle doctrine is void if you're already in the act of committing a felony. And the kid thing, is one. Seems like the guys got set up by the womenz.
 
Holding a long arm at the low ready, is a big nothing burger in Texas.
Ahem. Texas has 261,000 square miles of land area, not all of it is uniform, nor uniformly populated.
There are 254 Counties in Texas. 75% of the population lives in the ten major metro centers, which is only about 30 of those 24 Counties.

While strolling around Dallam County with a long arm at low ready might not attract much attention of the County's 7000 residents; doing so in downtown Dalhart, the County Seat, is like to attract a gimlet eye.

Wandering Dallas County in that fashion, though, will get you met by SWAT (population of 2.6million--near 3000/sq.mile--will be like that, no matter what the State).
 
Texas 25.03

No real idea if civil or whatever. Goog says felony.

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-25-03.html

Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 25.03. Interference with Child Custody
Current as of April 14, 2021 | Updated by FindLaw Staff

(a) A person commits an offense if the person takes or retains a child younger than 18 years of age:

(1) when the person knows that the person's taking or retention violates the express terms of a judgment or order, including a temporary order, of a court disposing of the child's custody;

(2) when the person has not been awarded custody of the child by a court of competent jurisdiction, knows that a suit for divorce or a civil suit or application for habeas corpus to dispose of the child's custody has been filed, and takes the child out of the geographic area of the counties composing the judicial district if the court is a district court or the county if the court is a statutory county court, without the permission of the court and with the intent to deprive the court of authority over the child;  or

(3) outside of the United States with the intent to deprive a person entitled to possession of or access to the child of that possession or access and without the permission of that person.

(b) A noncustodial parent commits an offense if, with the intent to interfere with the lawful custody of a child younger than 18 years, the noncustodial parent knowingly entices or persuades the child to leave the custody of the custodial parent, guardian, or person standing in the stead of the custodial parent or guardian of the child.

(c) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(2) that the actor returned the child to the geographic area of the counties composing the judicial district if the court is a district court or the county if the court is a statutory county court, within three days after the date of the commission of the offense.

(c-1) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(3) that:

(1) the taking or retention of the child was pursuant to a valid order providing for possession of or access to the child;  or

(2) notwithstanding any violation of a valid order providing for possession of or access to the child, the actor's retention of the child was due only to circumstances beyond the actor's control and the actor promptly provided notice or made reasonable attempts to provide notice of those circumstances to the other person entitled to possession of or access to the child.

(c-2) Subsection (a)(3) does not apply if, at the time of the offense, the person taking or retaining the child:

(1) was entitled to possession of or access to the child;  and

(2) was fleeing the commission or attempted commission of family violence, as defined by Section 71.004, Family Code , against the child or the person.

(d) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.

It doesn't look like this would apply as they didn't take the child out of the jurisdiction of the court.

I probably handled dozens of disputes like this when I was working. I worked in Illinois so I don't have any background in Texas law, but I don't see that statute as applicable. Never had one degenerate into gunfire but there were plenty of fists and baseball bats and other stupidity. There were couples who exchanged the children in the PD parking lot to avoid violence. A reading of all of the news articles makes it appear that the divorce was pending. We don't know if there was a temporary order spelling out custody and visitation. One of the big problems in these cases is that couples make verbal agreements that modify an order and then they think that's enforceable. Without knowing what (if anything) the court had ordered regarding custody and visitation we can't really say what family law statutes might be violated. I do believe the statute you cited references taking a child out of the jurisdiction of the court.

If you look at the video that was shot from inside the house it certainly appears that the father stepped towards the shooter after the disarm attempt. The video shot from the yard doesn't capture that. I think it's reasonable to assume the shooter was in fear of his life or great bodily harm when he fired.
 
Some thoughts, from a retired Texas LEO, (me,) who is not a lawyer:

The Teal Shirt Guy was very clearly trespassing. Failure to depart, after having received notice to do so, is failure to depart, after having received notice to do so.

Let’s keep in mind, that at contact distance, neither party was unarmed.

It appears that the Teal Shirt Guy was the more-powerful, physically.

An armed defender is not required, by any Texas law, to retreat from a trespasser, while on his own premises, or to allow a more-powerful attacker to be given a sporting chance to disarm the defender.

There may be facts not yet in evidence, and there may be politically powerful connections, on either side, that may influence things, but, having seen the video shot from the house, as well as the video shot from the street, I do not see a clear-cut case for murder.

None of the folks viewable in the video were/are candidates for acceptance into MENSA.

A grand jury will be looking into whether the actions of the shooter were reasonable.
 
Sad world we are living in now. Murder or not this is just wrong and will be viewed by most as such.
 
Some thoughts, from a retired Texas LEO, (me,) .

None of the folks viewable in the video were/are candidates for acceptance into MENSA.
.

I have a friend who got his masters degree by the time most graduate high school. He was a Mensa member and if I'm not mistaken, triple 9. He could have absolutely been either of the 3 main folks in the video and has done most all of the things seen in this video. If nothing else i learned one thing from him ...Don't ever mistake intelligence for being smart


What a bizarre video! No one involved seemed to think the shooting was a big deal at all... the camera woman didn't even gasp, scream, etc... just kept right on talking. The way they were all so casual about it kind of freaked me out.

Everyone I know who saw the video said the same thing. Ive been involved in two different disputes that ended in deaths and the scene was about ten thousand times more chaotic. Wailing, screaming, fighting, laying blame, panic, covering of the shooters ass, shock, awkward silence...... none of which was present in this video at all. Almost like it WAS staged as others have implied
 
Lubbock-shooting.gif


They made a GIF out of it?

Why would they make a GIF out of it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top