This is a clear case of 1st degree murder - not self defense.

[2aguy]

Andrew Branca is an expert? How many tens of thousands of words did he write explaining how the McMichaels were not guilty? All while Georgia Lawyers who were familiar with Georgia law kept saying they were going to be found Guilty?

But let’s talk about Texas.

I point to the case of Henry Magee.

Man who shot, killed Burleson County deputy serving time for drug charges

Henry Magee, who was not charged by a grand jury for killing a law enforcement officer during a no-knock raid, is now behind bars for another felony charge.

www.kbtx.com

Henry Magee must have been a local story not covered by your “national news”.

Anyway. Henry had a situation where in the wee hours people kicked his door in and came into his trailer serving a search warrant. These Deputies claimed they were calling out their identification for the search warrant. But the Grand Jury declined to indict saying that it appeared to be a case of Self Defense.

A cop lay dead and the only time Magee was to serve was 18 months for possession of Marijuana.

I wonder if your expert has heard of that case?

You are a petulant dumb ass……….

That story wasnt a National story you dumb shit……….

And, you dumb shit…….Branca went through that specific type of scenario in his discussions of the self defense law and its application to self defense in the shootings of the felons Hubert and grosscrud………you idiot

 

[2aguy]

Andrew Branca is an expert? How many tens of thousands of words did he write explaining how the McMichaels were not guilty? All while Georgia Lawyers who were familiar with Georgia law kept saying they were going to be found Guilty?

But let’s talk about Texas.

I point to the case of Henry Magee.

Man who shot, killed Burleson County deputy serving time for drug charges

Henry Magee, who was not charged by a grand jury for killing a law enforcement officer during a no-knock raid, is now behind bars for another felony charge.

www.kbtx.com

Henry Magee must have been a local story not covered by your “national news”.

Anyway. Henry had a situation where in the wee hours people kicked his door in and came into his trailer serving a search warrant. These Deputies claimed they were calling out their identification for the search warrant. But the Grand Jury declined to indict saying that it appeared to be a case of Self Defense.

A cop lay dead and the only time Magee was to serve was 18 months for possession of Marijuana.

I wonder if your expert has heard of that case?

You are a dumbshit……..

here is Branca looking at the case and the “citizens arrest“ statute….you doofus…..
=============
Naturally, then it’s in her interest to have the citizen’s arrest statute interpreted as narrowly as possible—and there’s definitely room for interpretation in this statute that was first made law back around the Civil War, and makes use of legal terms of art that likely don’t mean today what they might have meant back in the day.

Certainly, nobody drafting a citizen’s arrest statute today would construct it as this one is constructed.

The amount of ambiguity in the statute is really remarkable if only because of the statute’s brevity—it is only two sentences long. Those two sentences are:

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

My own reading of that statute, applying normal rules of statutory construction, is that the two sentences present two different scenarios for a citizen’s arrest. The second sentence refers explicitly to a felony scenario and sets out certain requirements for that scenario that differ from the requirements set out in the first sentence. My reading is that the first sentence is therefore contemplating the alternative criminal scenario, the non-felony, the misdemeanor.

So, if the citizen’s arrest is being made for a serious felony, like murder, the person making the arrest is required to have reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion, which Judge Walmsley is interpreting as probable cause. Fair enough.

If the citizen’s arrest is being made merely for a misdemeanor, however, then probable cause is not enough. After all, an arrest is a real burden on a person’s personal liberty, and ought not be done lightly

Before we’ll allow a citizen’s arrest for a relatively minor crime, then—imagine shoplifting, for example—we’ll require more than just probable cause, we’ll require that the offense was committed in the presence of the person making the arrest, or that they have immediate knowledge of the offense (perhaps observed from a distance, for example).
===========.

Arbery Case Trial: Judge Walmsley Drops the Ball On Ambiguous Citizen’s Arrest Law

Apparently the jury is to figure out how to apply a citizen’s arrest law that befuddles the lawyers and judge.

legalinsurrection.com

 

[Esdraelon]

If youre on someone elses personal property and causing problems and wont leave then if you get shot its your own fault. May not be how the law sees it but as far as Im concerned when youre on your property and someone else is on it then its an act of aggression to me if they are causing problems and wont leave.

Trespass isn't a crime punishable by death, even in TX. The little guy was as much a hothead as Read was. In the moment that Carruth pulled the trigger, Read was just standing there, facing him. No weapon, no attempt to close the distance. Carruth killed in cold blood.

 

[SavannahMann]

You are a petulant dumb ass……….

That story wasnt a National story you dumb shit……….

And, you dumb shit…….Branca went through that specific type of scenario in his discussions of the self defense law and its application to self defense in the shootings of the felons Hubert and grosscrud………you idiot

Oh the same way he went through the laws of Georgia before declaring the McMichaels innocent?

So far as near as I can tell. He has been right once. That hardly makes him an expert.

He never wrote a single word on Michael Hancock.

One article was written in the case of Andrew Coffee IV. After the verdict of Not Guilty. And not by your expert.

Another self defense case, Andrew Coffee found not guilty on 5 counts, including murder, attempted murder

But you won't hear this on CNN

legalinsurrection.com

For an expert in Self Defense Law. It would seem to me that he would read Drudge for any cases. I learned about all of those from checking Drudge. I guess that isn’t National enough.

Perhaps those stories were not carried on the Reich Wing news sites you get in your inbox daily.

 

[SavannahMann]

You are a dumbshit……..

here is Branca looking at the case and the “citizens arrest“ statute….you doofus…..
=============
Naturally, then it’s in her interest to have the citizen’s arrest statute interpreted as narrowly as possible—and there’s definitely room for interpretation in this statute that was first made law back around the Civil War, and makes use of legal terms of art that likely don’t mean today what they might have meant back in the day.

Certainly, nobody drafting a citizen’s arrest statute today would construct it as this one is constructed.

The amount of ambiguity in the statute is really remarkable if only because of the statute’s brevity—it is only two sentences long. Those two sentences are:

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

My own reading of that statute, applying normal rules of statutory construction, is that the two sentences present two different scenarios for a citizen’s arrest. The second sentence refers explicitly to a felony scenario and sets out certain requirements for that scenario that differ from the requirements set out in the first sentence. My reading is that the first sentence is therefore contemplating the alternative criminal scenario, the non-felony, the misdemeanor.

So, if the citizen’s arrest is being made for a serious felony, like murder, the person making the arrest is required to have reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion, which Judge Walmsley is interpreting as probable cause. Fair enough.

If the citizen’s arrest is being made merely for a misdemeanor, however, then probable cause is not enough. After all, an arrest is a real burden on a person’s personal liberty, and ought not be done lightly

Before we’ll allow a citizen’s arrest for a relatively minor crime, then—imagine shoplifting, for example—we’ll require more than just probable cause, we’ll require that the offense was committed in the presence of the person making the arrest, or that they have immediate knowledge of the offense (perhaps observed from a distance, for example).
===========.

Arbery Case Trial: Judge Walmsley Drops the Ball On Ambiguous Citizen’s Arrest Law

Apparently the jury is to figure out how to apply a citizen’s arrest law that befuddles the lawyers and judge.

legalinsurrection.com

Oh his musings were posted frequently. And the predictions he made were all wrong. While the sources I read. Lawyers from Georgia who know Georgia law all predicted this outcome.

 

[2aguy]

Oh the same way he went through the laws of Georgia before declaring the McMichaels innocent?

So far as near as I can tell. He has been right once. That hardly makes him an expert.

He never wrote a single word on Michael Hancock.

One article was written in the case of Andrew Coffee IV. After the verdict of Not Guilty. And not by your expert.

Another self defense case, Andrew Coffee found not guilty on 5 counts, including murder, attempted murder

But you won't hear this on CNN

legalinsurrection.com

For an expert in Self Defense Law. It would seem to me that he would read Drudge for any cases. I learned about all of those from checking Drudge. I guess that isn’t National enough.

Perhaps those stories were not carried on the Reich Wing news sites you get in your inbox daily.

Wow....you truly are an idiot.......for anyone actually interested in understanding the law....read Andrew Branca....savanahdipshit is a left wing hater.........Branca covers every aspect of a case, goes through the actual law, step by step, and is the best for analysis......

 

[SavannahMann]

Wow....you truly are an idiot.......for anyone actually interested in understanding the law....read Andrew Branca....savanahdipshit is a left wing hater.........Branca covers every aspect of a case, goes through the actual law, step by step, and is the best for analysis......

I read him. And his analysis was wrong. I knew that and pointed it out at the time quoting Georgia Lawyers.

This expert seems to be incredibly ignorant. The text of the law is the start. Not the end. Next there are court cases that define the law. Those in the legal field refer to these cases as Precedent. These precedent setting cases define the law. They define who may do what and they define what the law means.

If your expert was familiar with some of these he would have known how much trouble the McMichaels were in.

https://www.gabar.org/forthepublic/forteachersstudents/lre/teacherresources/upload/ch16.pdf

That is the study guide for the GA BAR that was in effect at the time that the McMichaels shot Arbery. The precedent setting case of Winn Dixie v. Nichols was mentioned many times by the Georgia Lawyers offering their opinion on the case. Oddly your Legal Expert failed to consider it and any other precedent even once.

It is why the instructions to the jury made it nearly impossible for them to find it was a valid citizens arrest. An objection from the Defense if you remember.

The Precedents are vital to understanding the law. And yet your Expert pretended all there was to the law was the text. And his interpretation. These precedents were on the books for decades. His ignorance showed through. And that is why he was wrong.

 

[2aguy]

I read him. And his analysis was wrong. I knew that and pointed it out at the time quoting Georgia Lawyers.

This expert seems to be incredibly ignorant. The text of the law is the start. Not the end. Next there are court cases that define the law. Those in the legal field refer to these cases as Precedent. These precedent setting cases define the law. They define who may do what and they define what the law means.

If your expert was familiar with some of these he would have known how much trouble the McMichaels were in.

https://www.gabar.org/forthepublic/forteachersstudents/lre/teacherresources/upload/ch16.pdf

That is the study guide for the GA BAR that was in effect at the time that the McMichaels shot Arbery. The precedent setting case of Winn Dixie v. Nichols was mentioned many times by the Georgia Lawyers offering their opinion on the case. Oddly your Legal Expert failed to consider it and any other precedent even once.

It is why the instructions to the jury made it nearly impossible for them to find it was a valid citizens arrest. An objection from the Defense if you remember.

The Precedents are vital to understanding the law. And yet your Expert pretended all there was to the law was the text. And his interpretation. These precedents were on the books for decades. His ignorance showed through. And that is why he was wrong.

Dipshit........you don't know what you are talking about........

Anyone truly interested in this should read Andrew Branca over at legalinsurrection....great analysis of the law and these national trials.....

He was right on Zimmerman and Rittenhouse, you dumb shit......

 

[Fang]

I am all for the right to self defense, and if it is a situation in which a person's life, and/or their family members' lives are in danger, use of lethal force is justified. However, here is a case in Texas where killing a man in supposed "self defense" was not at all self defense, but flat out 1st degree murder. In Lubbock, TX, ex-husband Chad Read was exercising his custodial rights with his son, the sorry excuse for the woman he unfortunately hooked up has a history of playing games with him and keeping their son past the time she is allowed for custody of their son. Read went to his ex-skank's boyfriend's house (Kyle Carruth) where she and her boyfriend were. Read got confrontational, but he was UNARMED. Carruth, all you have to do is look at him and realize he is a coward who isn't man enough to use his fists to settle a situation, the coward comes out with a rifle and eventually ends up killing the UNARMED Read. So, why not dial 911 and get the police out there to deal with Read??? There was no need for a firearm to be involved. Carruth should be charged with 1st degree murder in this case. Just like spineless coward, Lt. Byrd of the capitol police should be charged with 1st degree murder for killing an unarmed Ashli Babbitt.

"GET OFF MY PROPERTY!" TX Man NOT Charged For Shooting Death of Girlfriend's Ex-Husband During Angry Child Custody Confrontation On Front Porch [VIDEO] | The Gateway Pundit | by Patty McMurray

The Kyle Rittenhouse case shined a bright light on our Second Amendment and how it gives us the right to use a gun to protect ourselves from another person or people threatening our life.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

If Read got confrontational with Carruth I disagree that Carrruth is required to use his “fists” to solve it. That means anyone with size on you can come to your house and start a fought at any time. You have a right to defend yourself and house by any means necessary.

With that said, I agree this case does not sound like self defense.

#1 - Read had a right to be there since he was picking up his son.
#2 - Why is Carruth even involved? This was between Read and his ex.
#3 - It sounds like Read squared up on Carruth AFTER he got his gun.
#4 - Unless Read was getting violent and threatening (which is not stated in the article) why the gun??? It sounds like Read threatened legal action.

I once dated a woman who shared custody of her son with her ex. I knew going in the ex would always be involved. Luckily everything was cordial. But there were disagreements at times. I just stayed out of it. That’s the deal when you get involved with divorcees with kids.

 

[Fang]

This is the reality you republican dog turds have created.

DeAL with it.

Probably 3 more black kids dead in Chicago, Baltimore and Detroit at the hands of illegal guns as you typed this. When will Democrats pass a law saying gangs and criminals can’t own illegal guns?

 

[Crepitus]

What the heck are you talking about?

Did you miss the whole Rittenhouse thing?

 

[SavannahMann]

Dipshit........you don't know what you are talking about........

Anyone truly interested in this should read Andrew Branca over at legalinsurrection....great analysis of the law and these national trials.....

He was right on Zimmerman and Rittenhouse, you dumb shit......

I was wrong about Zimmerman. I was wrong about Rittenhouse. I was right on Guyger. I was right about Chauvin. I was right about the McMichaels. I was right on Drejka.

That makes my record 6-2. And in all honesty I said Rittenhouse would be found not guilty halfway through the trial.

But I’ll go with 6-2. Being as I am honest.

I am not counting the Bundy’s who once I learned about the Feds lying and getting caught would go free. The reason is that I can’t prove I said that, the message board I used at the time is history.

Six wins for two losses. Odd isn’t it that we don’t discuss the wins. Nope. All you want to focus on is the times I was wrong.

Now in the case for this thread. I honestly don’t know enough yet. For example. If he spoke to the police without a lawyer his odds of making it out unscathed drop dramatically. It isn’t mentioned in any of the reports. And frankly that is a piece of vital information regarding what the legal system will do.

As pointed out with the Henry Magee case, his lawyer spoke to the Grand Jury and headed off the Indictment. And Magee got a total of 18 months for growing marijuana and killing a cop.

And with pretrial confinement he was probably released that same day time served.

The ability to spin and phrase the story is what you pay the lawyer for. And that lawyer is vital to staying out of prison.

If this fellow had a lawyer it is at most a coin toss if he is charged or convicted. But again I don’t have enough information yet. Then again neither does your Legal Expert who is quick to pontificate without a tenth of the facts.

Right now I’ll say it is possible that the shooter walks. If he had a lawyer during questioning. A good lawyer. I’ll up that to probable. Better than even odds in other words.

And if you think I am backpedaling. Read my posts on the McMichaels and the many times I said they screwed up talking to the cops without a lawyer.

 

[Indeependent]

Most murder and suicide attempts by other means fail.

Irrational and/or depressed people usually fail at what they do; I think it's partly a desperate call for help.

 

[Indeependent]

What the heck are you talking about?

You're still giving credence to Creep?

 

[2aguy]

I was wrong about Zimmerman. I was wrong about Rittenhouse. I was right on Guyger. I was right about Chauvin. I was right about the McMichaels. I was right on Drejka.

That makes my record 6-2. And in all honesty I said Rittenhouse would be found not guilty halfway through the trial.

But I’ll go with 6-2. Being as I am honest.

I am not counting the Bundy’s who once I learned about the Feds lying and getting caught would go free. The reason is that I can’t prove I said that, the message board I used at the time is history.

Six wins for two losses. Odd isn’t it that we don’t discuss the wins. Nope. All you want to focus on is the times I was wrong.

Now in the case for this thread. I honestly don’t know enough yet. For example. If he spoke to the police without a lawyer his odds of making it out unscathed drop dramatically. It isn’t mentioned in any of the reports. And frankly that is a piece of vital information regarding what the legal system will do.

As pointed out with the Henry Magee case, his lawyer spoke to the Grand Jury and headed off the Indictment. And Magee got a total of 18 months for growing marijuana and killing a cop.

And with pretrial confinement he was probably released that same day time served.

The ability to spin and phrase the story is what you pay the lawyer for. And that lawyer is vital to staying out of prison.

If this fellow had a lawyer it is at most a coin toss if he is charged or convicted. But again I don’t have enough information yet. Then again neither does your Legal Expert who is quick to pontificate without a tenth of the facts.

Right now I’ll say it is possible that the shooter walks. If he had a lawyer during questioning. A good lawyer. I’ll up that to probable. Better than even odds in other words.

And if you think I am backpedaling. Read my posts on the McMichaels and the many times I said they screwed up talking to the cops without a lawyer.

Dipshit.....I don't follow you or your record........I don't care what you say...........you are nothing more than an anti-gun extremist....a real dipshit......

I am not sure why you think I care about you......

 

[DudleySmith]

I'm not surprised that you don't know what you are talking about.

The same tards who think Texas is anarchy will turn around and deny the fact that it is half minority and has an open border Democrats won't defend when babbling about 'gun violence' here; they hope to create the lie it's all redneck white people Trump voters doing all the gun violence. Typical hypocrites and gimps.

 

[DudleySmith]

You can watch it here: Horrifying moment gun-wielding Texas man shoots dead partner's ex

The father was pressing his chest right up against the boyfriend and pushing him. The father threatened to take the gun from the boyfriend. The boyfriend then fired a warning shot at the ground and then tried to get around the aggressive father. As the boyfriend moved to go around the father, the father tried to grab the rifle from his hands. Then the boyfriend shot him.

Divorce and custody battles are so ugly.

So it was self-defense; home invasions are frowned on here, armed or unarmed.

 

[SavannahMann]

Dipshit.....I don't follow you or your record........I don't care what you say...........you are nothing more than an anti-gun extremist....a real dipshit......

I am not sure why you think I care about you......

Yet you flipped out and started screaming I and every single lawyer in Georgia were wrong and your “expert” was the only one right.

You don’t care about me the way a teenaged girl doesn’t care about the guy who cheated on her. You are obviously obsessed.

 

[2aguy]

Yet you flipped out and started screaming I and every single lawyer in Georgia were wrong and your “expert” was the only one right.

You don’t care about me the way a teenaged girl doesn’t care about the guy who cheated on her. You are obviously obsessed.

Yeah.......

 

[Fang]

Just watched the video in this link. This is totally not self defense. Read was not being physically threatening in any way. In fact he says he’s already called the police and will go to to court again. This is not a man about to attack anyone. He only gets confrontational when Carruth gets his gun.

What we know about fatal shooting of Chad Read and suspect Kyle Carruth

Kyle Carruth's divorce with Judge Anne-Marrie Carruth was finalized two weeks after he was involved in a fatal shooting with his girlfriend's ex-husband.

www.lubbockonline.com