TexasCHLforum.com

bizarrenormality wrote:If I remember right, Falstaff was comic relief.

Hundreds of accidents blamed on Houston road rage (over 900 to be exact) but 1780 people didn't shoot one another

what you need to ask your self how did all these people work things out with out killing each other. my option is because the gun was not the first and only option

no one seen it not even the guy STANDING 20 ft away; it is just her word (or her lawyer word because she made no statement to the press)

I have to say did all this actually happen (him beating on her car and/or breaking the window but NEVER making entry) or DID her lawyer tell to say it? When was the statement made… before the lawyer showed up or after?

Her account of what happened seemed to match that of witnesses in the area, sheriff's deputies said.
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... 871363.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

barstoolguru wrote: I never said NOT TO CALL a lawyer but when the lawyer in on the scene it would be hard(er) to get a clear picture of what happen. After all, their job is to bend the law in their clients favor.
Fact here is a SINGLE mom (maybe she was abused by her husband) gets into a confrontation with a man (road rage) and because SHE rear ended him. Then she shoots him because she was in fear for her life which is fine if the circumstances where different but she instigated it and the cry’s victim; that I have a problem with.
Was he wrong; sure but was he wrong to the point of being killed for it? After all she had other options but only exercised one. She had a gun and she wasn’t backing down

barstoolguru wrote: I am sorry you and so many others take this as just another page on an internet board and call it justified. Laws are created to help people defend themselves but never meant for something as simple as a road rage incident. Being a truck driver for many years I seen these things happen and they seem to work themselves out. Say she didn't have a gun then what would have happened; would she have been beaten to death in the parking lot? Or maybe she just gets punched in the nose and the cops show up and he gets arrested BUT for a man to lose his life because she was "scared" or "feared for her life". Did he have a weapon; NO, but she did and because of that she limited her options to one!

AJHutton wrote: Also, for you knowledgeable types here, barstoolguru has mentioned that the family ought to retain an attorney, presumably in a wrongful death lawsuit. If the grand jury does not file charges, doesn't a CHL status provide a pretty strong defense against such a suit? Assuming the grand jury finds in the CHL's favor, won't such a wrongful death lawsuit be dismissed as soon as the CHL-holder's attorney files that motion?

CPRC § 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

barstoolguru wrote: Was there someone else driving her car? Last time I checked it took two to have an accident. SHE rear ended someone. We call that failure to control your vehicle. all she had to do was let him go but she chose to fight because SHE HAD A GUN AND NO ONE WAS GOING TO PUSH HER AROUND