Justified shooting? What say you?

[Squincher]

Fair to argue he was trying to grab the gun to not get shot by a guy trying to murder him?

Probably not after he said he was going to take the gun and use it on the homeowner.

 

[sndmn11]

Does someone bringing a problem to your door restrict what you are allowed to do? I've never seen or heard of a child custody order that authorized trespass on private property.

I have seen numerous court ordered custody arrangements where the location of exchange is at the home the child is leaving. It eliminates the need to find a halfway point (miles or time?) and eliminates the possibility of one party being late. "At the front door threshold" was a common phrase.

The reason why I have seen these was because when mom and dad are being petty with each other and can't figure out their own nonsense, the judge has to micromanage. Part of the ones I have seen is also including instruction for law enforcement civil stand by notification X minutes ahead by the party who is driving to pick up.

 

[Squincher]

I have seen numerous court ordered custody arrangements where the location of exchange is at the home the child is leaving. It eliminates the need to find a halfway point (miles or time?) and eliminates the possibility of one party being late. "At the front door threshold" was a common phrase.

The reason why I have seen these was because when mom and dad are being petty with each other and can't figure out their own nonsense, the judge has to micromanage. Part of the ones I have seen is also including instruction for law enforcement civil stand by notification X minutes ahead by the party who is driving to pick up.

Stand by and keep the peace would have been a good idea with this bunch, but that doesn't mean the other parent can stay there and raise cain after being told to leave. In fact, had an officer been there he would probably have walked the father back to his car and advised him to contact his attorney to seek a remedy after they said the child wasn't there.

 

[sndmn11]

Stand by and keep the peace would have been a good idea with this bunch, but that doesn't mean the other parent can stay there and raise cain after being told to leave. In fact, had an officer been there he would probably have walked the father back to his car and advised him to contact his attorney to seek a remedy after they said the child wasn't there.

Not fact. The officer would have obeyed the ORDER and arrested those withholding the child. Orders are just that, they aren't optional. None read, "By order of the court, only if the parties feel like it...". Orders are designed to remove discretion and independent thought outside of the order.

That arrest would have been followed up with a search warrant of the premises to locate the missing and endangered child, and escalation in personnel and scope until that child is located.

 

[fngTony]

I wonder what his life insurance policy was . Sorry but the women look very at ease and shooter in shock/denial. Almost as if the shooter wasn’t in on this but the women knew exactly how to stage it and how each man would react.

 

[cod007]

How are you guys coming up with the idea that the shooter is somehow legally entangled /obligated in a child custody dispute that is between a set of parents??
Now, if there was proof or evidence that he was hiding the kid or interfering with parents rights, that’s another matter. But I see no obvious evidence that the shooter has any criminal intent to interfere in a custody dispute (taking place on his property , by the way).

 

[Broomd]

How are you guys coming up with the idea that the shooter is somehow legally entangled /obligated in a child custody dispute that is between a set of parents??
Now, if there was proof or evidence that he was hiding the kid or interfering with parents rights, that’s another matter. But I see no obvious evidence that the shooter has any criminal intent to interfere in a custody dispute (taking place on his property , by the way).

I think it goes beyond that.
When that woman backed up and out of the way as little man boyfriend went into the house to get the rifle, she looked to be preparing for chaos. Maybe it's just me, but I think they may have planned this outcome.
She knew Chad Read better than anyone after years of marriage. She knew his buttons.

 

[cod007]

My question still stands.....
Answer, anyone??

 

[Squincher]

Not fact. The officer would have obeyed the ORDER and arrested those withholding the child. Orders are just that, they aren't optional. None read, "By order of the court, only if the parties feel like it...". Orders are designed to remove discretion and independent thought outside of the order.

That arrest would have been followed up with a search warrant of the premises to locate the missing and endangered child, and escalation in personnel and scope until that child is located.

Child support orders are civil here; I don't know about Texas. Even still, the order would have applied to the mother, not the boyfriend.

It's a moot point anyway since there were no officers there at the time.

 

[grappling_hook]

How are you guys coming up with the idea that the shooter is somehow legally entangled /obligated in a child custody dispute that is between a set of parents??

He's not, as far as I can tell.

Now, if there was proof or evidence that he was hiding the kid or interfering with parents rights, that’s another matter.

If there was proof of that, he would potentially face child abduction charges. Seems pretty likely that it's all on the mom, though.

But I see no obvious evidence that the shooter has any criminal intent to interfere in a custody dispute (taking place on his property , by the way).

From my reading, it appears it's his girlfriend's property and not his own property, but he may or may not have set up residence there since separating from his wife (something for the court to decide, if any trespass arguments come into play).

But again, even if he was involved in illegally interfering with the parent's rights, it wouldn't preclude a self-defense argument since, as discussed above, involvement in a criminal act in and of itself doesn't mean he has no right to self-defense (though again, I personally see no good case for self-defense).

 

[cod007]

He's not, as far as I can tell.



If there was proof of that, he would potentially face child abduction charges. Seems pretty likely that it's all on the mom, though.


From my reading, it appears it's his girlfriend's property and not his own property, but he may or may not have set up residence there since separating from his wife (something for the court to decide, if any trespass arguments come into play).

But again, even if he was involved in illegally interfering with the parent's rights, it wouldn't preclude a self-defense argument since, as discussed above, involvement in a criminal act in and of itself doesn't mean he has no right to self-defense (though again, I personally see no good case for self-defense).

When I said ‘how are you all coming up with....’. I’m not referring to the poster himself. I’m referring/asking the vast majority on here that have replied.
If this was the ex wife’s place of residence, that would change my position entirely. The shooter has no right to order any one to do anything if it’s not his home.

 

[Bubblehide]

When I said ‘how are you all coming up with....’. I’m not referring to the poster himself. I’m referring/asking the vast majority on here that have replied.
If this was the ex wife’s place of residence, that would change my position entirely. The shooter has no right to order any one to do anything if it’s not his home.

A person can act as an agent of an owner of designated as such.

 

[Fatcamp]

Not fact. The officer would have obeyed the ORDER and arrested those withholding the child. Orders are just that, they aren't optional. None read, "By order of the court, only if the parties feel like it...". Orders are designed to remove discretion and independent thought outside of the order.

That arrest would have been followed up with a search warrant of the premises to locate the missing and endangered child, and escalation in personnel and scope until that child is located.

What? Are you LEO and have done this? This is not what I'm familiar with at all?

 

[Fatcamp]

Child support orders are civil here; I don't know about Texas. Even still, the order would have applied to the mother, not the boyfriend.

It's a moot point anyway since there were no officers there at the time.

Correct, civil. It seems a stretch LEO is going to start arresting and asking for warrants in these situations. It's been awhile since I was active in the divorce community but I have never heard of it, in fact, just the opposite.

 

[Rob5589]

It seems most of you are getting all emotional thinking on this one. Maybe cause kids are involved. If this episode took place at the shooters home (not the ex wive’s home), and the deceased fella came to this shooters home, it doesn’t matter WHY/WHAT reason he was there for. He has (as I see it), trespassed, been told to leave, threatened the owner of property, attacked owner of property, and property owner can rightfully claim fear of life.
Castle doctrine/self defense can be legally argued (and won).
It also seems that many here are willing to overlook all the dumb things the deceased did to get to the point it did. As he had married this nitwit ex. He came to someone’s home who (legally) had no relationship to a custody arrangement. He made a scene there rather than calling for appropriate help. He foolishly spoke boldly to an armed man on HIS property. Then, to top it off, attempted to assault the armed man on HIS property AFTER being warned to leave. Someone on another thread said.... “play stupid games, win stupid prizes.”
Now, pending still many unknown and some known other circumstances, this at best in court could only result in a hung jury. (IMHO).
Many of the circumstances brought up on this episode of events have little factual bearing on the final pertinent result of home owner pulling the trigger.

The deceased was there to retrieve his child. If the mother lives there as does the child at least part time, it would be reasonable to assume the deceased has a legal reason to be on the property.

As far as self defense; the shooter introduced a firearm into a verbal, one of which he seemed to have very little to do with, so it could be argued that the deceased was attempting to defend himself from the shooter after the gun was produced.

Will be interesting to see what happens.

 

[landman650]

I think the thing people are missing on self defense in Texas is that the shooter just has to FEEL like his life is in jeopardy or threatened. He doesn’t have to show that his life was actually in jeopardy.

 

[landman650]

As for the people saying he was 10’ away when he shot. I went back and watched the video from the inside of the house. The reason he’s 10’ away is because the deceased grabbed at the gun and appears to somewhat swing the smaller guy around and away from the house.

I’m not justifying the shooting. I haven’t really decided how I feel about this case. I just am pointing out that I see an issue with that assertion.

Not sure if anyone recalls the case of the father/son who killed a larger man a couple years ago. The man I believe had a bat and was telling the father/son to use their gun. I think this is the same case of too many illogical people in too small of a yard at one time. Cooler heads should have prevailed.

 

[MichaelO]

Correct, civil. It seems a stretch LEO is going to start arresting and asking for warrants in these situations. It's been awhile since I was active in the divorce community but I have never heard of it, in fact, just the opposite.

In Texas disobeying a court ordered custody agreement is up to a felony.

 

[Fatcamp]

In Texas disobeying a court ordered custody agreement is up to a felony.

Maybe so, but LEO arresting people on the spot and applying for warrants while holding people in custody? Man, I have never heard of that.

What I hear is LEO telling people to talk to the judge.

 

[sndmn11]

What? Are you LEO and have done this? This is not what I'm familiar with at all?

Used to be. Disobedience of most court orders turns the matter into criminal, orders are not optional. If a judge doesn't want an arrest for disobedience they specify in the order what action will be taken as an alternative, i.e. "failure to comply with this order will be addressed at our next scheduled hearing".

A child who is missing sure as bananas results in a search. It would likely result in a warrantless entry if the reasons can be articulated. I would think most any LEO should be able to articulate, "the guardian who previously had custody time was present, the child was not. The guardian who currently had custody time was present and had not seen the child. The guardian who previously had custody time said they didn't know where the child was. Based on these circumstances, I believed the child was missing." I can't imagine any LEO showing up at a missing child call shrugging their shoulders and leaving.