Also, the Teal shirt guy is ordered to leave the property. Legally, he has been trespassed. Refusing to leave at that point is criminal trespass. From the moment he was told to leave, the Teal shirt guy no longer has any legal justification for being on that property. Yet he chooses to not only remain, but to:
1) move in a threatening manner towards the gun owner
2) physically come in contact with the gun owner
3) attempt to take (larceny) the fire arm from the gun owner
4) when the gun owner discharges (warning shot?) he advances on the gun owner
Teal shirt is the aggressor here. If I am on the jury, and this video is presented into evidence, I would not convict.
You can not go to someone else’s house, get up into someone’s face, refuse to leave when told to do so, assault and batter them, and then be portrayed as the innocent person.
The guy who got shot had a shared custody arrangement with the ex wife. He had an absolute right to come pick up his kid and was trying to do just that——trespassing would be hard to claim?
Maybe, maybe not. My understanding is that he had a right to be there pursuant to a order of visitation.
I’m with you on this one. Teal shirt should have left when he was told to.
A man not leaving when told to leave is not a sufficient reason to intimidate him with a gun and then shoot him, especially when he was there to get his rightful legal custody of his son.
The smaller guy should have called the police and had them remove him. No one needed to die over this bunch of stupidity. The son didn't need his father killed.
lesson to be learned....just because you have a gun, doesn't mean you should be grabbing and using it....one moment you think you're just showing strength and the next moment you've shot someone.