Off Topic Off Topic (Possibly Controversial)

clampdaddy said:
...I honestly can't say which way this will go but I don't think it will be first degree murder, especially since they were let out on bail.
Click to expand...

I read that they were out on 25k bond each for 20 days until the out of town news media started spreading the story around and spinning it they way they do these things. Apparently, locally it was pretty much ignored, and the east/west coast media was all that wanted to push it once they found out about it. The DA then requested the judge up the bond, which he did to 250k as "they are a threat to the community", and now they are back in jail awaiting trial. Also, the two of them were standing up to at least four people. The NYP video is a few seconds longer and you can catch a glimpse of at least one guy to the wife's left and (per her story) the dead guy's brother was to his right slipping him the bat, so there were at least four adults. You can also see the dead guy missing a chunk of the back his skull (exit wound) laying face down in the alley.
 
No one here looks sane....relatively speaking. I am not a parent and like it has been said here before, we don't know exactly what transpired prior to this video between these too but holy shit....your're going the threaten two people with guns when you have kids. Put your F*%#ing hands up....leave, Call the cops and let them handle it.
 
More good comments. And not to throw too much humor onto (sort of), a tragedy - although most of the time, the active participants get what they deserve in life. But I’ve seen a lot of movie Texas gunfights, and never seen Clint; McQueen; Lancaster; Audie; Van Cleef, let alone The Duke - show up like Jed and Jethro here. If nothing else, ya’ might be heading to jail, so put on an upper body garment. And see I’m not the only one here who thinks this.
 
Demon613 said:
Texas removed a duty to retreat in 1995.
Click to expand...

Generally yes, but not when the user of deadly force provoked the threat against which they claim to be defending. In that case, they must disengage before they can regain the right to defend themselves. See Tex. Penal Code § 9.31 (e) ("A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section" (emphasis added)); see also id. § 9.31 (b)(4) ("The use of force against another is not justified . . .  if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless . . . the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter;  and . . . he other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor"); § 9.31(b)(5) ("The use of force against another is not justified . . . if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was . . . carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02 ;  or possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05."); cf. id. § 9.31(a)(2) ("The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor . . . did not provoke the person against whom the force was used . . .").

And all that is assuming the threat posed to Shirtless Pistol User was unlawful; as I noted above, there's a strong argument based on the video that Shirtless Pistol User himself posed an unlawful threat justifying deadly force the moment he brandished his weapon without adequate justification.

Like me, I presume a number of posters in here are or have been licensed to carry...judging by some posts, a refresher on one's local law re: justification might be wise. As we say in rebreather diving, it's not what you don't know that's most likely to kill you--it's what you know that just ain't so.
 
Last edited:
The word "and" immediately after the provocation sentence makes lawyers have a reason to argue in court.

The elements for that offense appear to not apply to people not otherwise committing a separate criminal offense.

The trial will be interesting. I hope they accept no plea bargains.

Plea bargains skew reality and give people false impressions, like with Michael Slager.
 
JohnTheTexican said:
Maybe I'm not understanding the story right, but it seems that the Shirtless Guys with Guns were just being a-holes from the start. I don't get a sense of the time period over which it happened, but the story seems to be Big Guy put mattress in dumpster, one or both of the Shirtless Guys pull it out and throw it in his yard. Big Guy later puts mattress in the dumpster again and Big Guy or his wife tells one or both of the Shirtless Guys the trash won't get picked up if it's not in the dumpster. Shirtless guys again take it out and throw it in Big Guy's yard. Big guy must have put it in the dumpster again, because it's in the dumpster in the video. Now Shirtless Fat Man with a handgun stuffed in his shorts and Bozo Son with a shotgun come out, apparently so they can pull it out of the trash again and throw it in his yard. Big Guy turns into Big Angry Guy when Shirtless Fat Man pulls gun from his waistband and starts yelling at him. Shirtless Fat Man passively-aggressively taunts Big Angry Guy, who gets more and more worked up. Then for reasons not shown on, Shirtless Fat Man shoots Big Angry Guy twice, and for no apparent reason other than the shooting's started, Bozo Son chimes in with a shotgun blast.

That being somewhat the case, I think Shirtless Guys were doing enough provoking that if they feared Big Guy would use force against them, they had a duty to retreat, even with Texas's Stand Your Ground Law, and their failure to do so means their resort to deadly force was legally unjustified.
Click to expand...
I'm with John, here....what the hell is the story with the mattress? Whose dumpster is it?

The "history" of any of the people involved is not immediately relevant. The guy was trying to throw away a mattress, and he was throwing it into a dumpster. Unless there are extenuating circumstances that have not been revealed yet, that is perfectly reasonable and normal behavior; which means that the two grits provoked the guy who got shot.

One can conclude that the victim was not smart to tangle with two armed men; but that is only the tragic aspect of the story. As far as legality goes, the first thing I would find out is why Manboob and his son felt the need to interfere in someone throwing out garbage....in a dumpster.

So....question 1: whose dumpster was it, and on whose property?
 
LOL.... "Manboob."

BlackKnight86 said:
One can conclude that the victim was not smart to tangle with two armed men
Click to expand...

"Ya can't fix stupid."

And fortunately (for me sometimes, at least), stupidity isn't illegal. You'd think by the time you get to my age, you don't make stupid mistakes. But I still do. Still, not stupid enough to threaten to kill a man with a gun already drawn.
 
I’m sorry. I prefer my designation of Jed and Jethro. Think we’ve pretty much covered this and it’s been eclipsed by the Kavanaugh debacle. Much wisdom, and common sense in the preceding pages. What a great group here on BF, and I would feel confident we all would make up a fine, and impartial jury.
 
One criminal case here, this past summer, and was surprised at that pick. Defense Attorneys tend to dismiss ex military, ex rule enforcement. Was actually a pretty enjoyable and educational six hour trial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top