1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

  2. Week 25 of the BladeForums.com Year of Giveaways is live! Enter to win a Spyderco Manix 2

    Click here to enter the drawing for your chance to win a Spyderco Manix 2 , Bladeforums.com swag or memberships!
    Be sure to read the rules before entering, and help us decide next week's giveaway by hitting the poll in that thread!

    Entries will close at 11:59PM Saturday, June 22 ; winners will be drawn on Sunday @ 5pm on our Youtube Channel: TheRealBladeForums. Bonus prizes will be given during the livestream!


    Questions? Comments? Post in the discussion thread here

Off Topic Off Topic (Possibly Controversial)

Discussion in 'Busse Combat Knives' started by Rob_Mob, Sep 22, 2018.

  1. oktec60

    oktec60 Gold Member Gold Member

    42
    Jul 8, 2005
    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.
     
    Sharpener Image, Rob_Mob and tuica like this.
  2. Chingon1988

    Chingon1988

    303
    Jul 6, 2009
    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.
     
    ctrsurf, Rob_Mob and tuica like this.
  3. Demon613

    Demon613

    548
    Oct 13, 2010
    Your right to self defense doesn't evaporate simply because you're armed, or an asshole.
     
    Sharpener Image and Rob_Mob like this.
  4. JohnTheTexican

    JohnTheTexican Gold Member Gold Member

    Jul 1, 2006
    But it does if you provoked the other guy and you could avoid the need to use force by just backing off. At least that's the law in Texas.
     
  5. knifeleather

    knifeleather Sheathmaker Extraordinaire

    404
    Jul 14, 2012
    sorry, didn't mean to offend anyone! :p
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2018
    Morgo, Patrice, Yonose and 5 others like this.
  6. Maqua

    Maqua Gold Member Gold Member

    Jan 21, 2005
    I'm no expert, but them boys need to be wearing shirts.
     
    Morgo, Rob_Mob, tuica and 1 other person like this.
  7. Demon613

    Demon613

    548
    Oct 13, 2010
    Texas removed a duty to retreat in 1995.
     
    Sharpener Image and Rob_Mob like this.
  8. tuica

    tuica Gold Member Gold Member

    Jul 30, 2013
    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.
     
    Maqua and Rob_Mob like this.
  9. Dr. Lecter

    Dr. Lecter Gold Member Gold Member

    343
    Nov 17, 2009
    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: Sep 27, 2018
    BlackKnight86, tuica and Yonose like this.
  10. JohnTheTexican

    JohnTheTexican Gold Member Gold Member

    Jul 1, 2006
    See Dr. Lecter's post.
    I don't normally play a lawyer on the Interwebs, but it is my job IRL.
     
    BlackKnight86 and tuica like this.
  11. Demon613

    Demon613

    548
    Oct 13, 2010
    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.
     
    Sharpener Image and tuica like this.
  12. BlackKnight86

    BlackKnight86 Gold Member Gold Member

    Oct 14, 2003
    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?
     
    Yonose and tuica like this.
  13. dogboye

    dogboye Gold Member Gold Member

    Nov 23, 1999
    LOL.... "Manboob."

    "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.
     
    tuica likes this.
  14. tuica

    tuica Gold Member Gold Member

    Jul 30, 2013
    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.
     
  15. Demon613

    Demon613

    548
    Oct 13, 2010
    I tend to get dismissed from jury selection.
     
    tuica likes this.
  16. Rob_Mob

    Rob_Mob

    Oct 16, 2013
    Maybe if you stopped offering the judge a lap dance — they’d keep you
     
    Leonardo63, dogboye and tuica like this.
  17. Demon613

    Demon613

    548
    Oct 13, 2010
    Bruhhhh, I fucken HATE judges
     
    Rob_Mob likes this.
  18. oktec60

    oktec60 Gold Member Gold Member

    42
    Jul 8, 2005
    Guess I'm lucky, I've been on three criminal cases and one civil and was voted jury foreman all four times.
     
    Rob_Mob and tuica like this.
  19. tuica

    tuica Gold Member Gold Member

    Jul 30, 2013
    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.
     
    Rob_Mob likes this.
  20. Yonose

    Yonose

    Jul 10, 2017
    One idiot dead; two more to go and justice will have come full circle.
     
    ctrsurf, Rob_Mob and tuica like this.

Share This Page