EXACTLY.
dudes (no matter how wrong they are) love arguing on here to save face but this is a staunch reminder that shyt doesn’t play out well in the real world at all
Creh smokes another creh on cam
- Thread starter iFuxWiddit
- Start date
EXACTLY.
dudes (no matter how wrong they are) love arguing on here to save face but this is a staunch reminder that shyt doesn’t play out well in the real world at all
Well if he lives there, same difference
Occupants can tell you to leave just like the owner can.
Diondon
Thanks to the lawyers uh, I marbled the foyer
Baby Mama fukkery
mixed with redneck, gun culture obsession
Platinum thread
mixed with redneck, gun culture obsession
Platinum thread
Last edited:
Absolut
Legal Bookie
Doesn’t matter. If he stays there he has domicile rights
Dzali OG
Dz Ali OG...Pay me like you owe me!
Be so crazy and emotional that you attempt to grab a rifle after he shot you at your feet brehs
You just convicted the cac.
Warning shots are not part of self defense.
Field Marshall Bradley
Veteran
This is a dumb post…. So nikkas living outside of Texas don’t live in a real world….?
Y’all get on here and say any damn thing
Ineedmoney504
SOHH ICEY...WE EATIN
Seems Pretty clearly that’s his house bruh. I haven’t seen anywhere stated it’s the victims ex house
Dzali OG
Dz Ali OG...Pay me like you owe me!
Yall are conflating the event. You must unravel this shooting piece by piece to obtain when and if justification for shooting happened and if the shooter broke the law prior.
1. Victim was there to pick up his child as agreed in custody papers.
Any laws broken there or justification to shoot him?
2. Victim got into verbal exchange with the child's mother due to child not being there.
Is it justifiable to shoot him now?
3. Victim gets into verbal exchange with wife's boyfriend. No physical altercation. The shooter asks him to leave the property to which the victim refuses.
Is it justifiable to shoot him now? This is key. Can you shoot someone for not leaving your property?
4. Shooter retrieves a rifle and again asks victim to leave? Victim refuses and aggressively enters the shooters space.
Is it within the law to now shoot him? Can you shoot an unarmed person for threatening to take a weapon you introduced and using it on you? This maybe the key. There is a size difference.
5. Shooter fires a warning shot at the feet of the victim.
If the events from #4 aren't within guidelines for self defense Kyle should be cooked here as this MAY be the first illegal action. Warning shots are not allowable in self defense.
6. After the warning shot, victim attempts to disarm Kyle.
This hinges between assault and the victim attempting self defense. If the victim has not committed any other illegal actions, he has a claim to self defense. Kyle shot at his feet.
7. Kyle retains his weapon after being tossed about. From about 10 ft away he raises his rifle and fires two shots dropping the victim..
From Kyle's perspective, the victim has just physically assaulted him by trying to take his gun.
The question is, who committed the illegal act first. Was it the victim by refusing to leave when asked? And if it is illegal, did it give the right to shoot?
If the refusal to leave isn't illegal and a green light to shoot, was the verbal altercation sufficient? Is it legal to claim self defense due to verbal altercation? Is it legal to shoot due to someone being in your face in a aggressive nature? Taking into account size difference.
Once past this, the biggest issue is the shot fired (warning shot) at the victims feet. Not only does the introduction of a gun bring in his claim for self defense. But a warning shot definitely does.
be interesting to see how it plays out. Let's see how connected Kyle is and if his girlfriend offers some head booty and cock to the State Attorney 
.
1. Victim was there to pick up his child as agreed in custody papers.
Any laws broken there or justification to shoot him?
2. Victim got into verbal exchange with the child's mother due to child not being there.
Is it justifiable to shoot him now?
3. Victim gets into verbal exchange with wife's boyfriend. No physical altercation. The shooter asks him to leave the property to which the victim refuses.
Is it justifiable to shoot him now? This is key. Can you shoot someone for not leaving your property?
4. Shooter retrieves a rifle and again asks victim to leave? Victim refuses and aggressively enters the shooters space.
Is it within the law to now shoot him? Can you shoot an unarmed person for threatening to take a weapon you introduced and using it on you? This maybe the key. There is a size difference.
5. Shooter fires a warning shot at the feet of the victim.
If the events from #4 aren't within guidelines for self defense Kyle should be cooked here as this MAY be the first illegal action. Warning shots are not allowable in self defense.
6. After the warning shot, victim attempts to disarm Kyle.
This hinges between assault and the victim attempting self defense. If the victim has not committed any other illegal actions, he has a claim to self defense. Kyle shot at his feet.
7. Kyle retains his weapon after being tossed about. From about 10 ft away he raises his rifle and fires two shots dropping the victim..
From Kyle's perspective, the victim has just physically assaulted him by trying to take his gun.
The question is, who committed the illegal act first. Was it the victim by refusing to leave when asked? And if it is illegal, did it give the right to shoot?
If the refusal to leave isn't illegal and a green light to shoot, was the verbal altercation sufficient? Is it legal to claim self defense due to verbal altercation? Is it legal to shoot due to someone being in your face in a aggressive nature? Taking into account size difference.
Once past this, the biggest issue is the shot fired (warning shot) at the victims feet. Not only does the introduction of a gun bring in his claim for self defense. But a warning shot definitely does.
be interesting to see how it plays out. Let's see how connected Kyle is and if his girlfriend offers some head booty and cock to the State Attorney .
Terrible post
Playaz Eyez
Veteran
Field Marshall Bradley
Veteran
Already did. Like others have said, you are one of those who argue just to argue, even when you have been refuted. Just because you don't know or understand another states laws doesn't mean you are correct.
Always thought you were a terrible poster and you've proven it. Won't reply again to you
Was backing the blue til it happened to a white man
White people so full of shyt man
Similar threads
