Creh smokes another creh on cam

[Ozymandeas]

Probably low key premeditated

Very much so. Let’s say the dad left after step dad pulled out the shot gun. What kinda relationship would those two have had going forward knowing step dad was ready to take it to gun play? And how would the kids have reacted knowing step pops pulled out a shotgun. That would’ve been it for peaceful co-parenting. He took it from 0 to 10,000. And that’s in an alternative timeline where he didn’t kill him. There’s no way they would’ve had a good relationship going forward. But since his wack ass really did murder him, those kids are going to be in a toxic environment living in the same house as someone that killed their dad. I hope they get taken away by other family members or something.

 

[Box Factory]

The guy in the video looks to be operating at a level 6 feet lower. Wonder how that’s going for him

I get that you're blind to why what happened in the video is abhorrent

I really do, you don't need to keep showcasing your programming. I understand what you think and why you do

 

[tDames]

“The children are aware that Kyle Carruth shot and killed their father in front of their mother, step-brother, and myself. Christina’s decision to allow either of these children to be in Kyle Carruth’s presence has caused, and continues to cause, significant impairment of their emotional well-being. The oldest child has expressed to me that he blames his mother for the shooting, and that he will run away from home if he sees Kyle there again."

Whole situation fukked up

 

[Voice of Reason]

A p*ssy with a gun is dangerous. The mf shooting up grocery stores & the fool hitting innocents with strays are the same.

Clowns who without a gun are food

Right! A bytch made cac

 

[5n0man]

at what point was ol buddy justified in going inside to get the gun?

He wasn't, anyone with a bit of sense knows dude was wrong for grabbing a gun over a man trying to see his son. But Texas gun laws are different, you don't need a reason to grab a gun. They walk around strapped for no reason out there, begging for someone to give them a reason to use it, and Texas gun laws make it easy to get away with it if they do.

Morally dude was wrong for grabbing the gun, but legally I don't know how it will turn out since dude tried to grab the gun after it was brought out. Texans think it's their God given right to stay strapped, and that right is far more important than human life to them.

 

[Turk]

I feel no sympathy

 

[Darealtwo1]

Quote the law that states it's okay to shoot someone because they "got in your face".

He didn't just get in his face....He attempted to grab his gun with both hands....He failed got popped.

Bronem never had to step out with the gun but ole boy shouldn't have tried to take it from him.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

You bout to get cussed & out & called everything but ya name

I see why he got his tag, there were 3 different lawyers telling him his shyt don't apply including the one HE quoted. Deception ass shyt right there purposely stopping his quote right before the part that showed it invalid.

Once again the argument you can't kill somebody in your home that won't leave, that's what you said I was talking specifically about that case to prove that point dumb ass

He's not inside the structure, nor had he ever forced his way into the structure. That was in the exact link that YOU provided, and you purposely left it out cause you knew it killed your case. Your link said castle doctrine only applies if you force your way into the physical structure of an inhabited house of car.

 

[Absolut]

I see why he got his tag, there were 3 different lawyers telling him his shyt don't apply including the one HE quoted. Deception ass shyt right there purposely stopping his quote right before the part that showed it invalid.





He's not inside the structure, nor had he ever forced his way into the structure. That was in the exact link that YOU provided, and you purposely left it out cause you knew it killed your case. Your link said castle doctrine only applies if you force your way into the physical structure of an inhabited house of car.

Why are you rambling on about these semantics when the only thing relevant is someone making a direct death threat to someone on their property, which you continue to ignore?

 

[Professor Emeritus]

He didn't just get in his face....He attempted to grab his gun with both hands....He failed got popped.

Bronem never had to step out with the gun but ole boy shouldn't have tried to take it from him.

That screenshot is after the first shot had already been fired. You're saying it's wrong to grab a gun in self-defense when someone has fired a shot at you.

And he wasn't grabbing the gun when the lethal shots were fired. He was 10 feet away, hands at side, unarmed, not advancing.

 

[boskey]

Devil shyt

 

[Heretic]

He wasn't, anyone with a bit of sense knows dude wasn't wrong for grabbing a gun over a man trying to see his son. But Texas gun laws are different, you don't need a reason to grab a gun. They walk around strapped for no reason out there, begging for someone to give them a reason to use it, and Texas gun laws make it easy to get away with it if they do.

Morally dude was wrong for grabbing the gun, but legally I don't know how it will turn out since dude tried to grab the gun after it was brought out. Texans think it's their God given right to stay strapped, and that right is far more important than human life to them.

You are 100% correct and I can't dispute anything you said. I'm not gonna pretend to know the law but I do know that the person that died shouldn't have. Mainly because there was no reason for a gun. Dude was pissed and rightfully so but he wasn't even in striking distance of either the wife or husband and when the guy got the gun that's when the situation escalated. Should the father have tried to distance himself after the gun came out? Absolutely, but at the same time I can see why it made him see red. Dude came to see his son and got a gun pulled on him. But at the end of the day most of us here would handle the situation 100 different ways. Shouldn't have grabbed at the gun but also the gun had no business being anywhere but in a gun safe. Dude didn't even go for a pistol, he went in and came right out meaning that gun was probably locked and loaded sitting right by the door. Kyle knew that gun was going to be used, either to kill him or to emasculate him.

 

[Master Teacher]

I see why he got his tag, there were 3 different lawyers telling him his shyt don't apply including the one HE quoted. Deception ass shyt right there purposely stopping his quote right before the part that showed it invalid.





He's not inside the structure, nor had he ever forced his way into the structure. That was in the exact link that YOU provided, and you purposely left it out cause you knew it killed your case. Your link said castle doctrine only applies if you force your way into the physical structure of an inhabited house of car.

That was in response to saying you can't shoot somebody in your house, that's not what happened the video, the man attacked him

you making up narratives is showing your character stop already

 

[Astroslik]

It’s confirmed that the shooter is connected in that town. He will get off.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Once again the argument you can't kill somebody in your home that won't leave, that's what you said I was talking specifically about that case to prove that point dumb ass

How can you "specifically" quote a law that DOES NOT APPLY as if it does?

The site you quoted said you have to be in the structure AND had to have forced your way into the structure or be an immediate threat to life or property. Not just have been asked to leave.

Why are you rambling on about these semantics when the only thing relevant is someone making a direct death threat to someone on their property, which you continue to ignore?

Why are you repeatedly ignoring actual case law and just trying to make shyt up as you go along?

What does "on their property" have jack shyt to do with it when we already proved Castle Doctrine doesn't apply?

And talking shyt to someone is not reasonable cause to kill them. Remember when everyone said that Makiya Bryant had the right to attack the girls who were yelling threats on her property? Nah, she's dead because she went at them, it didn't matter that it was her property. If this guy gets off it's because he's white and connected.

Or else show me all the legal experts who defended Makiya Bryant. YOU didn't even defend her, YOU were one of the ones justifying the cop for killing her even though she was on her own property and the people she attacked had been screaming threats.