View Full Version : Lubbock, TX Fatal Shooting: Castle Doctrine Applies ... Or Does It?
Vic Tory
11-26-2021, 14:45
This happened November 5th. I'm not offering an opinion ... yet.
https://100percentfedup.com/get-off-my-property-tx-man-not-charged-for-shooting-death-of-girlfriends-ex-husband-during-angry-child-custody-confrontation-on-front-porch-video/
https://www.ar-15.co/threads/185870-Self-Defense-as-Defense-in-Court?p=2351247&viewfull=1#post2351247
I think going crazy at someone Else's property (especially ex- ) is not smart.
No, that is not castle doctrine. There is sufficient video, it's a pretty clear case of murder 2.
Assuming that the father is right about the custody arrangement - and there's little reason to doubt that, prima facie, it's a shit-for-brains boyfriend that heavily escalated a situation and murdered a dad on behalf of a manipulative girlfriend. Not premeditated, no... but probably a "white knight" believing the shit she has been spewing and came riding in, dick out.
Castle doctrine, in most states requires a 1) Knowing and unlawful entry 2) Witnessing a crime or a credible belief that a crime is going to be committed and 3) A belief that you will be injured, no matter how slight.
When he brought out a firearm and threatened the dad, none of those three burdens were satisfied. Dad had never attempted, nor threatened to enter the house. He only threatened to subpoena shit-for-brains. Not only that, but custody awards certainly innumerate certain rights for a parent to retrieve their child from the other. If a child is at Mr. Boyfriends house, Mr. Boyfriend cannot allege trespass when dad goes to pick them up at the allotted time. Nor can he come out and threaten dad with murder.
Guy should get murder 2, end stop, firearm advocates should soundly denounce the stupidity and crucify the idiot.
First time ever maybe but I completely agree with foxtart.
Delfuego
11-26-2021, 15:45
I'm not offering an opinion ... yet.
You can't help yourself. Stop reading "the news" and get a life.
There are a few layers to this.
In Texas, it is legal to use force against a trespasser. One could argue that brandishing a firearm is that use of force.
Deceased then tells the shooter "I will take it from you and use it"
Chest bumping and warning shot (terrible idea in any situation)
Deceased then tries to get control of the gun (apparently didn't see what happened to that kiddie diddler in Kenosha). This could be perceived as an imminent threat at that point.
Shit-for-brains was already pointing the firearm at dad before dad did anything. So, create an imminent threat, and then allege ex-post-facto that you had a reasonable belief of an imminent threat? It doesn't work like that.
I've yet to see a domestic where a third party gets involved like that end with "Oh, Mr. White Knight, thank you for intervening by threatening me, I'll back off now".
People can argue if they like that Texas permits people to murder trespassers (?9.01), yet it doesn't hold weight, still has burdens that are not met, and ultimate reliance on the law for justifying immoral actions is a core fallacy if there ever is one. Nearly every atrocity and genocide across this world has been justified in law, trying to justify this one is a PR disaster that only provides ammunition against legitimate self-defense and cases like this will be used to water down actual, legitimate use of self-defense.
It would be far better for firearms advocates to say "There is no justification for this, period."
TRESPASSING IS NOT A CAPITAL CRIME.
Depending on where the dad's son was, it likely wasn't even trespassing.
I never said that the statutes allow someone to murder someone for simple trespass. The law may allow brandishing to remove a trespasser. The law also allows someone to shoot someone trying to take their weapon.
I never said I agreed with what happened. When idiots collide.
When idiots collide.
This summarizes what I thought. Two strong-willed, won't-back-down, willing-to-escalate-till-something-ugly-happens individuals came together.
Having lived through the same ugly situation (custody pickups at the other's residence turned ugly), instead of escalating, we removed ourselves from the property, awaited the arrival of the police before returning, then changed through the court the exchange location to the sheriff's department lobby in town. I also went through the drama of holding the other parent in contempt of court... instead of turning into a frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic, which could have landed me six feet under.
Life is all about choices.
Zundfolge
11-26-2021, 18:49
Guy should get murder 2, end stop, firearm advocates should soundly denounce the stupidity and crucify the idiot.
Assuming the whole story was told by the video, I could see him getting murder 1. Going back into the house for a gun after already being physically confronted and not harmed could be interpreted as premeditation. Now had he had the gun with him the whole time, he might be able to claim M2.
I think this guy is screwed. My money is on the Grand Jury recommending charges (but it's Texas so who knows).
I also assume there's more to the story than is being shown (especially when you had "film crews" on "both sides" filming this and then the argument afterward between the shooter and the shootee's "friends").
No winners here. I feel sorry for the kid.
Vic Tory
11-26-2021, 21:48
As usual, I don't believe we're seeing enough information on biased parties' videos. I have many questions.
Did the kid's mom LIVE with the boyfriend, or did the kid's dad stalk her to his house?
Does the answer to the above question make any difference in this tragic story?
Does the fact the homeowner told the bigger guy to leave make his refusal trespassing?
Does Texas Castle Doctrine apply if the so-called perpetrator didn't ENTER your house ... or does it apply to your property, too?
Does the fact the bigger guy threatened to take the gun away from the smaller guy and use it on him matter?
Does a warning shot help or hurt the smaller guy's case?
Also, why -- if you closed on a guy with a weapon -- would you throw him away, giving him space to shoot you with it?
I'm sure I'll have more questions, but these are my first batch.
Does the fact the homeowner told the bigger guy to leave make his refusal trespassing?
Does Texas Castle Doctrine apply if the so-called perpetrator didn't ENTER your house ... or does it apply to your property, too?
Yes
You want a real answer? Depends on a DA and a judge. It doesn't matter what anyone argues as to Texas law, a large number would put him away for at least 25, as they should. There are certainly a few that think you should be able to threaten, brandish, and murder anyone that so much as steps on your lawn, but they are an outlier for sure. Any law that purports to justify murder for trespass runs afoul of the US constitution itself, only only a minority would interpret/support it so.
Since you like hypotheticals to justify murder...
Lets say your girlfriends ex is a problem. Well, simply find a reason to get him on your property (keep his kid and deny his ordered visitation), say "get off my land" quietly once, and then you can murder him, it's the law!
See how the hypothetical game doesn't work too well?
.455_Hunter
11-27-2021, 00:04
When idiots collide.
I agree 100%, and a poster child case for activists who want to blame "presence of a firearm" to escalating a situation to homicide.
hurley842002
11-27-2021, 02:22
No, that is not castle doctrine. There is sufficient video, it's a pretty clear case of murder 2.
Assuming that the father is right about the custody arrangement - and there's little reason to doubt that, prima facie, it's a shit-for-brains boyfriend that heavily escalated a situation and murdered a dad on behalf of a manipulative girlfriend. Not premeditated, no... but probably a "white knight" believing the shit she has been spewing and came riding in, dick out.
Castle doctrine, in most states requires a 1) Knowing and unlawful entry 2) Witnessing a crime or a credible belief that a crime is going to be committed and 3) A belief that you will be injured, no matter how slight.
When he brought out a firearm and threatened the dad, none of those three burdens were satisfied. Dad had never attempted, nor threatened to enter the house. He only threatened to subpoena shit-for-brains. Not only that, but custody awards certainly innumerate certain rights for a parent to retrieve their child from the other. If a child is at Mr. Boyfriends house, Mr. Boyfriend cannot allege trespass when dad goes to pick them up at the allotted time. Nor can he come out and threaten dad with murder.
Guy should get murder 2, end stop, firearm advocates should soundly denounce the stupidity and crucify the idiot.
Completely agree.
hurley842002
11-27-2021, 02:27
You want a real answer? Depends on a DA and a judge. It doesn't matter what anyone argues as to Texas law
This, and while I'm sure it depends heavily on the geographical area of court proceedings, the "Justice system" has become completely political (Rittenhouse).
Great-Kazoo
11-27-2021, 09:16
This, and while I'm sure it depends heavily on the geographical area of court proceedings, the "Justice system" has become completely political (Rittenhouse).
You omitted zimmereman and darren wilson.
I won't be surprised if the shooter is charged. Or if he isn't. He's an idiot either way . . . and so is the guy who gets more confrontational when the weapon is introduced. At that point, call the cops and don't get shot. Jerks colliding.
What I AM surprised about is how calm everyone is and that the Karening continues with a guy who just got DRT'd on the porch.
Something that is telling, for me, is that the ex-wife/girlfriend stayed with the boyfriend - who killed her ex-husband - and they are trying to forcibly keep all of the ex-husband's kids in the house with Mr. shit-for-brains who murdered their dad.
A *relatively* normal mother would've dumped his ass no matter what their relationship *used to be*. There's so much baggage in that situation that it wouldn't work, and if she cared at all - even a tiny bit - for her kids... unless she was manipulating shit-for-brains in the first place and wanted an end result like this. Clearly, she was also manipulating and keeping the kids from dad against court orders.
Sadly, mom will be declared an innocent bystander in all of it. I've seen her type on more than a few occasions (professional). I'm happily married, never divorced, not venting about personal life.
JohnnyDrama
11-27-2021, 10:32
No winners here. I feel sorry for the kid.
Very much so.
...
Sadly, mom will be declared an innocent bystander in all of it....
I was thinking along a similar line. Wondered about mom and what kind of juju she had to attract two men that were so willing to self destruct. The really sad thing is that she will probably end up with another guy just like these two. Horrible example for the kid.
Vic Tory
11-27-2021, 12:51
You want a real answer? Depends on a DA and a judge.I think I agree.
It doesn't matter what anyone argues as to Texas law, a large number would put him away for at least 25, as they should. There are certainly a few that think you should be able to threaten, brandish, and murder anyone that so much as steps on your lawn, but they are an outlier for sure. Any law that purports to justify murder for trespass runs afoul of the US constitution itself, only only a minority would interpret/support it so.Pretty sure I do not agree. Did you pass the Bar in Texas?
Since you like hypotheticals ...If this is in reply to me, it's a whiff. I didn't ask one single hypothetical. I asked fact-finding questions (which seem to be obvious questions to me, a non-attorney).
... Wondered about mom and what kind of juju she had to attract two men that were so willing to self destruct. The really sad thing is that she will probably end up with another guy just like these two. Horrible example for the kid.Sadly, I suspect you have hit on something which will impact the kid(s) for decades.
I went to high school with someone who murdered a friend of mine. Didn't even get 25yrs for beating a woman to death with the blunt side of an axe in front of her 3yr old. Left the kid there on the bed with her until she was found the next day
Vic Tory
11-27-2021, 16:55
I went to high school with someone who murdered a friend of mine. Didn't even get 25yrs for beating a woman to death with the blunt side of an axe in front of her 3yr old. Left the kid there on the bed with her until she was found the next dayYikes! I'm betting he's not too popular at the class reunions, huh?
That's SICKENING!
Grand jury declined charges
https://www.kcbd.com/2022/04/01/homicide-chad-read-goes-before-lubbock-co-grand-jury-sources-say-no-charges-will-be-filed/
hollohas
04-15-2022, 08:41
This one makes me sick. Everything I've read indicates the Dad was there to get the kids under a valid custody agreement. He was not trespassing.
If there was any concern, the homeowner should have called the police and waited for them to arrive rather than going in and retrieving a gun to bring it to an argument he wasn't involved in.
That guy got away with murder. That's effed.
This one makes me sick. Everything I've read indicates the Dad was there to get the kids under a valid custody agreement. He was not trespassing.
I disagree with this. If you are on private property, no matter the reason, and you are asked by an "agent" of the property to leave, you must leave, otherwise you are trespassing. Come back with the cops, or argue your point from the public right of way.
Not that trespassing alone warrants a shooting, but I discussed that earlier in the thread.
hollohas
04-15-2022, 09:34
I disagree with this. If you are on private property, no matter the reason, and you are asked by an "agent" of the property to leave, you must leave, otherwise you are trespassing. Come back with the cops, or argue your point from the public right of way.
Not that trespassing alone warrants a shooting, but I discussed that earlier in the thread.
If someone is holding your kids illegally on a property, it's trespassing to stay there in an attempt to retrieve them?
I'd be guilty of trespassing too in that case. Especially considering the agent of the property those kids were on was obviously a dangerous individual.
But moot point. It was still murder, trespassing or not.
Yes. It is technically trespassing. I do not see an exception for children matters or court orders. First responders excepted. There are other exceptions for utility workers and tenants.
Brandishing a firearm against a trespasser is not illegal in TX. The moment the decedent grabbed the gun, he opened doors that a grand jury agreed with.
To be clear, I am not calling this a good shoot. There is a term I hear, "Awful but lawful"
^___ This, fuck that guy but it fits letter of the law,
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.