TexasCHLforum.com

If nothing else, this episode has been a good reminder that relying to media reports to determined what actually happened is fraught with difficulties and uncertainties. While it is instructional, and natural, to discuss events like this, one must keep a certain level of flexibility for the facts which may not be apparent or disclosed until some later time.

The media is not to be trusted, not only because of frequent biases, but because they oftentimes don't understand the ramifications of what they are told or see, and consequently over emphasize some aspects, neglecting other aspects entirely, and it is all but impossible to figure out which at the time.

3dfxMM wrote:

BigGuy wrote:Not taking a stance either way. I simply don't know enough. But I've got a couple of questions.
Was her lawyer and pastor there at the scene? If so, how did they get there so fast?

All of the parties were kept at the scene for many hours. The first video reports from the scene show the pastor but not the lawyer. That report was aired more than four hours after the incident. The lawyer is not mentioned until a few hours later. I wouldn't call that fast. It seems perfectly reasonable to me for someone to call their pastor for guidance and it seems pretty reasonable for that pastor to go to the scene when called. The lawyer, to me, also makes sense. Aren't we always saying on here that one of your first calls should be to your lawyer? Why are people finding it odd that she did that?

For someone like her, a young black woman, I don't find that odd or unusual at all to give a call first to her pastor, who would hustle right over. Wasn't this a Monday morning? What else do preachers have going on Mondays? The pastor likely was thinking straight and knew to call the lawyer, right away. The young woman likely did not know who to call. The preacher would be far more likely to have come up with that.

I'm speculating here, of course, assessing the probabilities based on what I've seen done in the past.

I hope someone in Houston will alert us when the 911 tape is released, or the gas station security videos.

In one of the video's, assuming it was the truck the young man was driving, was damaged not in rear but in the front, wrinkled hood, etc. It is hard to say what the "fender bender" consisted of. It didn't much look like a rear-ender.

smoothoperator wrote:

barstoolguru wrote:Now correct me if I am wrong but the law says you can't claim self-defense if you instigate or antagonize another

PC §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE.
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity,

That's right. If you provoke the fight you lose the justification of self defense.

An unintentional minor collision, "fender-bender", is not going to be provocation, in and of itself, and certainly not criminal.

This young man's death certificate will list the primary cause of death as a gunshot wound, but it seems to me the secondary cause is likely to be testosterone poisoning, a common affliction in that age group, although not always fatal. A pity, if accurate.

barstoolguru wrote: no one finds it funny that her lawyer and pastor are at the ctime scene and doing all the talking for her

That's the way you would want it in her spot. I am not a criminal lawyer (they haven't caught any of MY clients yet!) but the last thing you want to be doing in that situation is giving interviews to the media hounds. In fact, my suggestion is that you say as little as possible, other than identifying yourself and generally cooperating, as possible until your lawyer shows up and you can get him/her up to speed.

Your statements are admissions, "can be used against you in a court of law" as the saying goes. The lawyer stating your version is not admissible, at least not here in CA. Let the lawyer give your version, in writing and edit it for the "final answer." The first liar never has a chance.