2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: changemyoil66 on November 25, 2021, 08:44:12 PM
-
CWunvzugAGQ/?utm_medium=copy_link
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
CWunvzugAGQ/?utm_medium=copy_link
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Dead link.
-
Dead link.
Az becuz da buggah wen mahke.
-
Lesson, don't argue with a guy who has a gun.
The people who understand this don't need a lesson.
The ones who don't get it can't be taught. They push beyond the point of civility until the consequences of reality come crashing down on them.
At some point, you have to accept that getting through to people who've been brainwashed their whole lives is futile.
They say a conservative is just a liberal who hasn't been mugged yet. That's often what it takes.
-
Az becuz da buggah wen mahke.
Dead ☠️ :rofl:
-
Az becuz da buggah wen mahke.
Dead ☠️ :rofl:
Mahke. Die. Dead. :shaka: ;D
-
is this the one?
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/
-
is this the one?
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/
BINGO.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
I get it.
But do you guys know the story ?
It’s pretty messed up by most accounts.
-
I get it.
But do you guys know the story ?
It’s pretty messed up by most accounts.
Child visitation that went south when the grown ups got into an argument.
-
I get it.
But do you guys know the story ?
It’s pretty messed up by most accounts.
Story is moot, dont argue with someone who has a gun.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Story is moot, dont argue with someone who has a gun.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Amen, live to fight another day.
-
Amen, live to fight another day.
The guy starting the fight and trespassing was the one shot.
You think he should be able to threaten his family another day?
-
Seems like the ex wife often did not have their kids ready for pick up at 3:15.
Custody battle……and messing with your ex on the pickup time…..in a way…I can see why the ex was redlining
The ex, if he had a cooler head, should have called have called the cops or whatever about his kid not being there to be picked up.
The new boyfriend, did he brandish a gun because he feared for his life or his gf’s life…..or was he trying to intimidate the ex into leaving since the ex wouldn’t leave without his kid?
What a mess up. For the kids, the mom’s bf killed their dad because their mom kept the kid from his dad.
I wouldn’t want to be the bf ….. id have my head on a swivel expecting payback from the ex husbands relatives
That a lot of lives that were affected by the mom keeping the kids from their dad.
-
In my opinion everyone in that scenario was:
Selfish
Immature (making big body)
Disrespectful of child custody laws (and each other)
Stupid
Regretful right now (too late fackahs...)
-
They're ALL losers.
But the biggest loser is the poor kid.
>:(
-
They're ALL losers.
But the biggest loser is the poor kid.
>:(
My mother used me as a weapon against my father, I remember it well.
Since now talking to her is optional. I exercise my option.
:wave:
:stopjack:
Domestic issues are always bad and if a gun involved even worse, just run away!
-
The guy starting the fight and trespassing was the one shot.
You think he should be able to threaten his family another day?
Whatever issue that guy had could have been resolved later through other channels.
Walk back to the curb, call the police, and let them resolve the issue. If the ex-husband had a legal right to his son then that means the ex-wife and her BF had no right to keep the son from him. So you potentially have a man protecting his property while simultaneously preventing another man from his child. The father shouldn't have been aggressive but at the same time you also can't kill someone who is just trying to get what is rightfully theirs.
Imagine if someone were keeping your kid from you.
-
Whatever issue that guy had could have been resolved later through other channels.
Walk back to the curb, call the police, and let them resolve the issue. If the ex-husband had a legal right to his son then that means the ex-wife and her BF had no right to keep the son from him. So you potentially have a man protecting his property while simultaneously preventing another man from his child. The father shouldn't have been aggressive but at the same time you also can't kill someone who is just trying to get what is rightfully theirs.
Imagine if someone were keeping your kid from you.
This happens every day in America -- a parent somewhere keeps their child when visiting hours/days are over. Even if the other parent consents, it's not legal. A court order mandates when the child will be with which parent. If either one deviates, they are potentially in contempt of court unless they clear it in advance with their case worker. Otherwise, it would be constant accusations of "He kept Sam an extra day without telling me;" "She agreed to it;" "No, I did not!" It could easily be a way of getting the other parent in trouble with the court, possibly as a ploy to gain full custody.
If a parent refuses to give the child to the parent that has legal custody, that can become kidnapping, which involves the feds if they take the child out of state.
You can't separate trespassing from "someone who is just trying to get what is rightfully theirs." Unless the child is in danger, you wait for the Cops, and then maybe the courts. Breaking a trespassing law, and maybe disturbing the peace or terroristic threatening, to try and enforce a visitation order is poor optics. You'll be looked at as a bad role model for your child -- using force rather than peaceable means. And, if arrested and convicted, you'll be on the path to "unfit parent."
Everyone has a cell phone that records voices, images and video. Just use it to record actual events and statements, and you'll have law enforcement and child welfare workers on your side.
Nothing that happened before, during or after the shooting can possibly be good for the child. That's the bottom line.
-
This happens every day in America -- a parent somewhere keeps their child when visiting hours/days are over. Even if the other parent consents, it's not legal. A court order mandates when the child will be with which parent. If either one deviates, they are potentially in contempt of court unless they clear it in advance with their case worker. Otherwise, it would be constant accusations of "He kept Sam an extra day without telling me;" "She agreed to it;" "No, I did not!" It could easily be a way of getting the other parent in trouble with the court, possibly as a ploy to gain full custody.
If a parent refuses to give the child to the parent that has legal custody, that can become kidnapping, which involves the feds if they take the child out of state.
You can't separate trespassing from "someone who is just trying to get what is rightfully theirs." Unless the child is in danger, you wait for the Cops, and then maybe the courts. Breaking a trespassing law, and maybe disturbing the peace or terroristic threatening, to try and enforce a visitation order is poor optics. You'll be looked at as a bad role model for your child -- using force rather than peaceable means. And, if arrested and convicted, you'll be on the path to "unfit parent."
Everyone has a cell phone that records voices, images and video. Just use it to record actual events and statements, and you'll have law enforcement and child welfare workers on your side.
Nothing that happened before, during or after the shooting can possibly be good for the child. That's the bottom line.
Depends on the stipulation of the divorce decree. Sometimes they are vague, just saying one parent gets the kid half the time while some divorce decrees spell it out to the specific date and time. I knew a military guy who had to exchange his kid at the police station on specific dates and times so it could all be documented and monitored.
As for the rest, like I said, live to fight another day. He should have called the cops and waited for them. Then, if he was in the right, he could have the smug satisfaction when the cops make the ex-wife hand the child over.
-
Depends on the stipulation of the divorce decree. Sometimes they are vague, just saying one parent gets the kid half the time while some divorce decrees spell it out to the specific date and time. I knew a military guy who had to exchange his kid at the police station on specific dates and times so it could all be documented and monitored.
As for the rest, like I said, live to fight another day. He should have called the cops and waited for them. Then, if he was in the right, he could have the smug satisfaction when the cops make the ex-wife hand the child over.
Cops don't enforce visitation orders. That's what the courts and social services do. If a child needs to be removed from one parent's custody, the Cop accompanies the case worker. The worker gives the orders. If the parent needs to be restrained to force compliance with the court order, the worker instructs the Cop to do it.
How do I know this? My ex worked for a state welfare agency that dealt with these issues. She was fired because she didn't follow these rules -- she showed up at a home without a Cop to provide protection because the girl that called her was being kicked out of her house along with her kid by the boyfriend/baby daddy. She felt it was an urgent situation, and she made a decision that could have ended much worse.
Anyway, a parent breaking a court order for visitation is not breaking a law that involves law enforcement. The other parent needs to go through the system to get an order of protection, modified custody/visitation, or whatever else is needed to fix the problem. Cops forcing parents to surrender children isn't the process.
-
https://youtu.be/2PYC3kcgkG8
-
Cops don't enforce visitation orders. That's what the courts and social services do. If a child needs to be removed from one parent's custody, the Cop accompanies the case worker. The worker gives the orders. If the parent needs to be restrained to force compliance with the court order, the worker instructs the Cop to do it.
How do I know this? My ex worked for a state welfare agency that dealt with these issues. She was fired because she didn't follow these rules -- she showed up at a home without a Cop to provide protection because the girl that called her was being kicked out of her house along with her kid by the boyfriend/baby daddy. She felt it was an urgent situation, and she made a decision that could have ended much worse.
Anyway, a parent breaking a court order for visitation is not breaking a law that involves law enforcement. The other parent needs to go through the system to get an order of protection, modified custody/visitation, or whatever else is needed to fix the problem. Cops forcing parents to surrender children isn't the process.
Cops can and do enforce custody but the document needs to be very clear. If it is vaguely worded like every other weekend then that is hard to enforce (no way to know whos weekend is whos) and the cops tell them to go back to court.
-
Cops can and do enforce custody but the document needs to be very clear. If it is vaguely worded like every other weekend then that is hard to enforce (no way to know whos weekend is whos) and the cops tell them to go back to court.
Is it your belief that Cops will use force to get the parent they believe is in the wrong to comply with the visitation order on the spot? How much force is justified? What if the parent has the child hidden somewhere other than the immediate location? Will the Cops bring in a search team?
My understanding is that Cops are not supposed to escalate the situation. They can try to get both sides and reason with the parents, but if one is adamant that they will not surrender the child, I don't think the Cop will have many option other than to write a report and have the other parent ask for a contempt charge.
-
Seen a child being transfered from dad to mom outside HPD HQ in downtown. Very sad.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
What happens when a guy with a gun argues with a guy with a gun?
Crazy.
Maybe guys with guns shouldn’t argue.
Wonder what one of them said to make the other draw? Must have been so bad that he was ready to draw to both get shots off.
Or both were threatening to shoot each other.
“ Emmit King, a former track star at the University of Alabama and a member of two Olympic teams, was one of two men shot and killed during an argument in Bessemer, Alabama, on Sunday, police said.
According to NBC News, witnesses said that King, 62, and Willie Wells, 60, were having an argument outside a house when both men pulled guns and fired at each other. Wells died at the scene, while King was taken to a hospital and died there. The Jefferson County Coroner’s Office identified both men on Monday. ”
-
What happens when a guy with a gun argues with a guy with a gun?
Crazy.
Maybe guys with guns shouldn’t argue.
“ Emmit King, a former track star at the University of Alabama and a member of two Olympic teams, was one of two men shot and killed during an argument in Bessemer, Alabama, on Sunday, police said.
According to NBC News, witnesses said that King, 62, and Willie Wells, 60, were having an argument outside a house when both men pulled guns and fired at each other. Wells died at the scene, while King was taken to a hospital and died there. The Jefferson County Coroner’s Office identified both men on Monday. ”
He with the bigger gun wins of course. Unless it's a PCC, then automatic loss.
-
I didn’t want to ask earlier but what gun does that guy have in the original post ?
Looks like a 9mm PCC but I don’t recognize the type.
-
He with the bigger gun wins of course. Unless it's a PCC, then automatic loss.
What? Such heresy! I mean…. HK MP5? Kriss Vector? Mac-10? Uzi? Or are some of these not PCCs but SMGs?
-
What? Such heresy! I mean…. HK MP5? Kriss Vector? Mac-10? Uzi? Or are some of these not PCCs but SMGs?
If you got a MP5 (SP5) and slap the handle, then it's all G. It would be an automatic win.
-
I didn’t want to ask earlier but what gun does that guy have in the original post ?
Looks like a 9mm PCC but I don’t recognize the type.
Looks like the Ruger PCC in 9mm.
-
it's Texas, I presume very strong Castle Doctrine.
if the guy says get off my property, you refuse, and then start getting confrontational, physical, I think he put his hand on the dude's gun, I think it's game over. I think that's the end, Darwin nominee, trying to look manly in front of his woman. Teal?
I think the warning shot is drama.
unless you believe the child is there in the house and in imminent physical danger, but I don't think that applies.
I think the Castle Doctrine takes precedence over a child visitation dispute, no ifs, ands, or buts.
I'm not a lawyer.
-
it's Texas, I presume very strong Castle Doctrine.
if the guy says get off my property, you refuse, and then start getting confrontational, physical, I think he put his hand on the dude's gun, I think it's game over. I think that's the end, Darwin nominee, trying to look manly in front of his woman. Teal?
I think the warning shot is drama.
unless you believe the child is there in the house and in imminent physical danger, but I don't think that applies.
I think the Castle Doctrine takes precedence over a child visitation dispute, no ifs, ands, or buts.
I'm not a lawyer.
In many states, firing a warning shot lessens your claim of self defense. If you were truly in fear for your life, why would you fire a warning shot instead of aiming at the threat? You couldn't have been so afraid if you thought a warning shot was enough when you fired.
The warning shot can also be seen as a provocation. The father wasn't going for the gun until after the shot. That could be seen as him grabbing for the gun in self defense.
Who was the aggressor? The father who didn't want to leave without his son, or the one who threatened to shoot him if he didn't leave and then fired a warning shot to emphasize what he intended to do? Obviously, the guy with the gun escalated the situation by threatening to use lethal force. The father made the decision to remain and not call/wait for law enforcement.
Bad judgement on all sides, including the mother.
-
What if it was a ND and not a warning shot?
-
What if it was a ND and not a warning shot?
Context? :rofl:
Now face-to-face, Carruth fires one shot into the floor at the pair’s feet, which does not
appear to deter Chad Read, who continues to push against Carruth.
-
it's Texas, I presume very strong Castle Doctrine.
if the guy says get off my property, you refuse, and then start getting confrontational, physical, I think he put his hand on the dude's gun, I think it's game over. I think that's the end, Darwin nominee, trying to look manly in front of his woman. Teal?
I think the warning shot is drama.
unless you believe the child is there in the house and in imminent physical danger, but I don't think that applies.
I think the Castle Doctrine takes precedence over a child visitation dispute, no ifs, ands, or buts.
I'm not a lawyer.
This is a tough one for me. I’m all for a strong no nonsense castle doctrine but I think I found this one instance that shakes my faith in that type of law. As someone who’s gone through this before, child disputes are absolute hell. They make fathers sit up at night thinking about very very dark things. I have no doubt this dad has been stewing about this shit for months and family courts take for fucking ever to act if they even act at all. Meanwhile it’s been six months since you last saw your son because mom wants to play games.
There was no reason other than for ego to go and grab his gun. If he could take the time to grab his gun he had time to pick up the phone and call the police.
-
The gun guy makes law-abiding gun owners look bad.
Guarantee the anti-gun nuts will use him as an example.
-
WRONG, all you guys argue with each other all the time constantly!!!! ;)
-
WRONG, all you guys argue with each other all the time constantly!!!! ;)
Do not! Do not!! :geekdanc:
Not for that last couple of weeks anyway. It's been quite pleasant lately.
Unfortunately, we only have another 2 weeks or so of this until the food fight starts again. :popcorn:
-
WRONG, all you guys argue with each other all the time constantly!!!! ;)
i heard there was almost a fight on the rifle side on sunday
2 guys were described as "screaming at each other"...
-
Do not! Do not!! :geekdanc:
Not for that last couple of weeks anyway. It's been quite pleasant lately.
Unfortunately, we only have another 2 weeks or so of this until the food fight starts again. :popcorn:
^^^this
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
WRONG, all you guys argue with each other all the time constantly!!!! ;)
Missing an adjective in there. Don’t argue with a stupid/immature/irresponsible guy with a gun. O0
I was at a range in AK. On the range clubhouse wall was a sign that said (something like, since I don’t remember exactly) no “lively debating” with firearms on person. Basically, no arguing with guns.
-
^^^this
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
What?
-
i heard there was almost a fight on the rifle side on sunday
2 guys were described as "screaming at each other"...
Stop shooting the wrong target frame Mac. :D
-
Stop shooting the wrong target frame Mac. :D
not my fault he put his target on the low left of mine...
-
Is it your belief that Cops will use force to get the parent they believe is in the wrong to comply with the visitation order on the spot? How much force is justified? What if the parent has the child hidden somewhere other than the immediate location? Will the Cops bring in a search team?
My understanding is that Cops are not supposed to escalate the situation. They can try to get both sides and reason with the parents, but if one is adamant that they will not surrender the child, I don't think the Cop will have many option other than to write a report and have the other parent ask for a contempt charge.
If the divorce decree clearly states that parent A will have the child on that specific date and time but parent B refuses to hand over the child then parent B can be placed under arrest. How much force is justified? Depends on the situation, just like with any arrest. The force would be the same as if a child was deemed in danger and authorities needed to take the child from the parent. Is parent B just running late because they are stuck in traffic? Probably no arrest. Is person B standing there saying "F*&^ the judge, I am not giving up my child"? they are more likely toy be placed under arrest. My understanding is that it quite rarely comes to that level though, no cop wants to yank a child out of a parent's hands. Most situations can be resolved by calm talking.
Of course different jurisdictions may have specific laws which may change how these things are handled so I am making a general statement, not a universal one.
-
He with the bigger gun wins of course. Unless it's a PCC, then automatic loss.
Smaller bullet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1tU2nKY7QQ
-
If the divorce decree clearly states that parent A will have the child on that specific date and time but parent B refuses to hand over the child then parent B can be placed under arrest. How much force is justified? Depends on the situation, just like with any arrest. The force would be the same as if a child was deemed in danger and authorities needed to take the child from the parent. Is parent B just running late because they are stuck in traffic? Probably no arrest. Is person B standing there saying "F*&^ the judge, I am not giving up my child"? they are more likely toy be placed under arrest. My understanding is that it quite rarely comes to that level though, no cop wants to yank a child out of a parent's hands. Most situations can be resolved by calm talking.
Of course different jurisdictions may have specific laws which may change how these things are handled so I am making a general statement, not a universal one.
I was unaware that the police or sheriff had the duty to enforce family court orders without a specific warrant to be executed.
My understanding is that calling 911 will get a police report filed, and they may try to talk to the party violating the visitation schedule. Beyond that, unless the child is in danger or the uncooperative parent's conduct rises to the level of being criminal, the Cops are most likely going to tell you to go to family court and have a judge sort it out.
The judge can issue a warrant for the parent's arrest (criminal contempt of court?), issue a court order demanding the child be turned over to the other parent, etc. But the Cops are unlikely to be the enforcer of a visitation agreement. This is not a CRIMINAL court case -- it's family court. Just like Cops don't get involved in civil law matters unless a crime is committed.
i'm not a lawyer, but I've seen how these courts function. They have distinct and separate areas of law, and the Cops are only part of the criminal justice side.
Sheriff deputies would most likely be the ones to execute a family court order anyway, just like they handle evictions and other civil matters.
-
I was unaware that the police or sheriff had the duty to enforce family court orders without a specific warrant to be executed.
My understanding is that calling 911 will get a police report filed, and they may try to talk to the party violating the visitation schedule. Beyond that, unless the child is in danger or the uncooperative parent's conduct rises to the level of being criminal, the Cops are most likely going to tell you to go to family court and have a judge sort it out.
The judge can issue a warrant for the parent's arrest (criminal contempt of court?), issue a court order demanding the child be turned over to the other parent, etc. But the Cops are unlikely to be the enforcer of a visitation agreement. This is not a CRIMINAL court case -- it's family court. Just like Cops don't get involved in civil law matters unless a crime is committed.
i'm not a lawyer, but I've seen how these courts function. They have distinct and separate areas of law, and the Cops are only part of the criminal justice side.
Sheriff deputies would most likely be the ones to execute a family court order anyway, just like they handle evictions and other civil matters.
It could be different in other states, I just know that here it is possible under the right circumstances.
-
It could be different in other states, I just know that here it is possible under the right circumstances.
Your wording could have been chosen better, such as:
"You're right, but there may be exceptions." which could apply to pretty much everything in government.
-
https://youtu.be/7L3dYJWy198
Collin Noir and WPS John Lovell discuss
-
Your wording could have been chosen better, such as:
"You're right, but there may be exceptions." which could apply to pretty much everything in government.
Fair enough