Reminds me of LD calling out Ole Ho back in the day! Originally Posted by WTFOle HO is another one that will never admit she's wrong.
She was even quoted to be a semi famous person in Houston. Heh...
Wink.
If you believe Rittenhouse was self defense in the first shooting, you have to also believe this was self defense. Factually, these are very similar shootings. What works to the favor of the shooter here is that he was on his own property or at least a property he seemed to reside at. And he told the other guy to leave. He also fired a warning shot.Nobody said anything about Arberry.
If you somehow equate what happened here in any way to the Arberry shooting, you’re dumb as a brick. Originally Posted by NoirMan
... Me problem is that we're ALL doing guesswork aboutMy first impression was the boyfriend went into the house to call the police, obviously not. This will be an interesting case.
the whole situation. ... We surely DONT KNOW if anyone
was in danger - or what threats were made. OR WHY he
returned with the weapon. ... We'll have to WAIT
for the trial.
Maybe Texas has "stand yer-own ground" laws, or
homestead laws... Lucas already mentioned that
Texas got property laws that may protect the
shooter bloke a bit.
I'd surely need to see and hear more of what
actually happened - not from the dead fellow's
family or barrister, but from the shooter and
the ex-wife there. Then I could give a better opinion.
But from what I seen on video - I reckon the
shooter got a fair arguement for self-defence.
just sayin'
#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again
no matter the legalities
it is highly disturbing
I tend to lean to the idea it is some sort of murder
to me, the entire set of facts in Rittenhouse seem quite a bit different than what i see here Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought
For the first shooting? How so? Aside from what I stated earlier that the shooter in this matter was on his own property. Originally Posted by NoirManNorman seems to have a good point