Only in Texas

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

Why do you insist on trying to find him guilty, when a jury which heard all the evidence found otherwise?

To be fair, the husband's murder charge was dropped. He never went to court.

Thanks, but to be fair again, it did go to a grand jury.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

In Reply To
Really, cut your losses and bow out.

Wink

Ok, if you want to continue, please so we can have an informed discussion, spend some time reading up on the Texas Penal Code. It'll be easier when you understand what you're trying to argue.

Here's a link for you:

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/pe.toc.htm

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Thanks, but to be fair again, it did go to a grand jury.

That doesn't mean anything. All that means is that the DA (district attorney) wants to present the case to a grand jury in an attempt to persue a case. The grand jury decides if there is enough evidence of a possible violation of Texas law in order to warrant a trial.

So the grand jury decided there wasn't even enough evidence to have a criminal trial in the first place.

Seriously, turn Law and Order off and read up on real law.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

Thanks, but to be fair again, it did go to a grand jury.

That doesn't mean anything.

John was the one that made the statement "Why do you insist on trying to find him guilty, when a jury which heard all the evidence found otherwise?" If you have a gripe, take it up with him.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Not relevant in this case, since there was no rape. Take you hypotheticals elsewhere

Got it...YOU brought it up, but when called out on it you refuse to answer.

Typical for you.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

Responsible gun ownership should include the ability to deter a crime by showing your gun and only firing it when absolutely necessary.

1. You don't pull a weapon you do not intend to use. This shows to me your lack of firearms experience. You might have well as said something crazy like, "He should of shot the truck keys out of his hand".

2. You were there? So you know what the situation was? The police and justice system seems to think he acted in a reasonable manner given the data they have...And I bet they have a bunch more info than any of us.

I am all for responsibility, but this guy was told by his wife that she was being raped while he saw a guy on top of her.

I guess you would just have sat back and watched?

Quote

In your opinion, was this a "deadly force scenario" then?

Texas law allows the use of deadly force to prevent a rape.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

There was NO rape. There was NO crime to stop.

You are STILL avoiding answering the question. Like normal you avoid answering things that proves your point is silly.

Quote

I take it, then, that in murder for hire situation you'd be OK if the hit-men get off scot free .

Do you, or do you not admit that there is a difference between trying to stop a crime and being hired to commit one?

Not relevant in this case, since there was no rape. Take you hypotheticals elsewhere.

And the grand jury no-billed the husband, so there was no murder. Take your strawmen elsewhere.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Responsible gun ownership should include the ability to deter a crime by showing your gun and only firing it when absolutely necessary.

Do what now?

Responsibility in regards to carrying a weapon is only drawing the weapon in a deadly force scenario. Drawing your weapon in situations outside of a deadly force scenario is a prime example of a lack of maturity and a lack of responsibility.

Not to mention constituting 'brandishment' which is, if I recall correctly, an actionable offense under Texas law, isn't it?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Not relevant in this case, since there was no rape. Take you hypotheticals elsewhere

Got it...YOU brought it up, but when called out on it you refuse to answer.

Typical for you.

I brought up what exactly? You keep going on about preventing a crime from being committed, but there WAS no crime being committed.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

There was NO rape. There was NO crime to stop.

You are STILL avoiding answering the question. Like normal you avoid answering things that proves your point is silly.

Quote

I take it, then, that in murder for hire situation you'd be OK if the hit-men get off scot free .

Do you, or do you not admit that there is a difference between trying to stop a crime and being hired to commit one?

Not relevant in this case, since there was no rape. Take you hypotheticals elsewhere.

And the grand jury no-billed the husband, so there was no murder. Take your strawmen elsewhere.

And in Texas, if you call a tail a leg, a dog has 5 legs and no tail.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Not relevant in this case, since there was no rape. Take you hypotheticals elsewhere.

And the grand jury no-billed the husband, so there was no murder. Take your strawmen elsewhere.

And in Texas, if you call a tail a leg, a dog has 5 legs and no tail.

All your non-sequiturs are belong to us.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rhys 0]

Even though I dislike guns, I appreciate the law is the law, and if rapists are allowed to be shot if that is what they are doing...,

She deserves the time. stupid bitch.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

I wasn't there, I don't know exactly what occurred and am unable to comment specifically on this case; however, an aggravated sexual assault can be considered a deadly force scenario. Once again, though, people are looking for a black and white argument or example. There really is no such thing as a true black and white in the law. You only think that (in black and white in terms of situations and law) if you're a new recruit just starting the academy.

That's a cop out. A deadly force scenario is if you see that the other person is armed. And none of the reports so far support that to be the case. The victim was unarmed and trying to get away. In your own words, the husband's action was "a prime example of a lack of maturity and a lack of responsibility".

in texas ? i bet the guy probably had a gun in the truck, and that is what i would think if i was there.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So there was no crime except the homicide, and the trigger man got off. OK.

Still avoiding the question huh? Would it kill you to be honest just once and not dodge simple questions?

Rape is. He was told she was being raped.

Do you not recognize a difference between stopping a crime and being hired to commit one? If so, then your other bit was nothing more than an emotional distraction.

There was NO rape. There was NO crime to stop.

If I tell someone that you are robbing me does that entitle them to shoot you dead?

in texas and some other areas yes. great crime deterant isn't, if you could die from your actions. may make a couple people think twice. the lack of enforcement to punishments is imho the main cause of skyrocketing crime rates.

Do you not think there's a duty to establish whether or not there ACTUALLY is a REAL crime before resorting to gunfire?

If everytime somone cries "WOLF" there's an immediate outbreak of shooting at the supposed wolf, I think we will be in a pretty bad way.

rape is a violent attack, therefore something more than "hey what are you doing" is probably needed. maybe shooting was a little much, but i feel the cheating wife and her boyfriend got the results they deserve.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Not to mention constituting 'brandishment' which is, if I recall correctly, an actionable offense under Texas law, isn't it?

The short answer is yes. Depending on the situation there are a handful of different statutes that can be applied ranging from a Class C offense well up into the Felony 2 and 1 range.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

You keep going on about preventing a crime from being committed, but there WAS no crime being committed.

Your hindsight is outstanding. He saw a guy with his wife who was in a robe and underwear screaming rape. He believed, because of his wife, a violent crime was being committed.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

You keep going on about preventing a crime from being committed, but there WAS no crime being committed.

Your hindsight is outstanding. He saw a guy with his wife who was in a robe and underwear screaming rape. He believed, because of his wife, a violent crime was being committed.

The standard for killing someone ought to be very very high. IMO, just believing a crime was committed is not an acceptable reason.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 801]

I stands to reason then that you're not a Texas lawmaker.

Might have a good shot at the same situation here in Florida. Protecting others from violent crime has stood up to legal reviews in the past as well as being one of the defensible reasons for drawing a concealed weapon.

Is this not the same logic applied to making it illegal to scream "fire" when in fact there is not?
The consequences of falsely reporting/claiming a crime can be deadly.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You keep going on about preventing a crime from being committed, but there WAS no crime being committed.

Your hindsight is outstanding. He saw a guy with his wife who was in a robe and underwear screaming rape. He believed, because of his wife, a violent crime was being committed.

The standard for killing someone ought to be very very high. IMO, just believing a crime was committed is not an acceptable reason.

the standard for defending your wife should be very very high

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You keep going on about preventing a crime from being committed, but there WAS no crime being committed.

Your hindsight is outstanding. He saw a guy with his wife who was in a robe and underwear screaming rape. He believed, because of his wife, a violent crime was being committed.

The standard for killing someone ought to be very very high. IMO, just believing a crime was committed is not an acceptable reason.

the standard for defending your lying cheating slutty wife should be very very high

Dunno that a lying cheating slut's worth killing for.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You really should read the multiple news stories which have been referenced in this thread. There WAS a self-defense claim - he acted in defense of his wife whom he thought was being raped.

It seems difficult to see this as a valid claim - unless he's running back to the truck to fetch a dildo or handcuffs, the rape is past tense. She's no longer being raped, she was raped. Which still is going to generate strong emotions in the husband, but is no longer self defense, rather a 'I'm going to get that sunabitch.'

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property;

Did he steal her virtue?

This is closer to a legal reason for the dismissal, though it still is fair game in a topic marked "only in Texas."

Most states do not allow to shoot thieves in the back, and only permit the castle doctrine. So the topic of should this be ok is still open game.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You keep going on about preventing a crime from being committed, but there WAS no crime being committed.

Your hindsight is outstanding. He saw a guy with his wife who was in a robe and underwear screaming rape. He believed, because of his wife, a violent crime was being committed.

The standard for killing someone ought to be very very high. IMO, just believing a crime was committed is not an acceptable reason.

the standard for defending your lying cheating slutty wife should be very very high

Dunno that a lying cheating slut's worth killing for.

i guess that would depend on wether or not he knew she was a lying cheating slut.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Quote

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property;

Did he steal her virtue?

This is closer to a legal reason for the dismissal, though it still is fair game in a topic marked "only in Texas."

Most states do not allow to shoot thieves in the back, and only permit the castle doctrine. So the topic of should this be ok is still open game.

This was backing up a claim from an earlier post. I was enjoying researching Texas penal code. Agreed, it has nothing to do with justifying the shooting.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You keep going on about preventing a crime from being committed, but there WAS no crime being committed.

Your hindsight is outstanding. He saw a guy with his wife who was in a robe and underwear screaming rape. He believed, because of his wife, a violent crime was being committed.

The standard for killing someone ought to be very very high. IMO, just believing a crime was committed is not an acceptable reason.

What standard would be higher than knowing? His wife said she was being raped. It wouldn't get any clearer than that for me. You're using hindsight again. If the guy could take a time out, move forward in time a few days, see how it all played out, then go back and make a decision, then I'm sure his actions would've been different. It was a split second decision based on his wife's screaming rape.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.