TexasCHLforum.com

sodchemist wrote:i am glad that she was indicted. i am getting sick of the excuse "i feared for my life". it is getting out of hand. there are victims who are truly fouled in this game of life, and the perps deserve a penalty--two shots in the chest here--but there are also certain types of "victims" that chose to engage in "flopping", i.e., crying foul at minimal contact. we must have the wisdom to distinguish the two. for example, you are in your car and you have to shoot someone (twice) because they are breaking your window? drive away or, just brandish and call them off. respect human life. this weekend's verdict is another good example. someone wants to be a neighborhood watchman; someone wants to pursue "strangers" walking around. great. but the watchman can't even handle a fight with a stoned teenager who is walking back to his dad's house with some munchies? so watcher-man ends up shooting the stoner as soon as he gets a bloody nose? maybe he shouldn't be a watchman. i wouldn't want him walking around my neighborhood near my teenage sons.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

barstoolguru wrote:

I admit that I'm late to this thread, but I've now read the vast majority of posts. I can't believe the stuff you've been posting. You make things up out of whole cloth simply to further a fight with one or more Members. You're comments about the way safety glass acts in response to being struck is clearly wrong. Your pontificating on the law is wrong; your rendition of the facts are contra to what was supported by LEO investigation, witness accounts, and (apparently) video surveillance records.

"Cutting each other off" is hardly an admission of even a traffic offense, much less a criminal offense. What was meant by that statement? What did it entail? The woman stated that the man would pull in front of her and slam on his brakes. Perhaps she went around him and got in front. I have no idea if that's what happened, but it's certainly logical, it would fit the description of "cutting each other off" and it is not a crime or traffic violation by any stretch of the imagination. Regardless how you want to spin it, it doesn't constitute provocation that deprives one of their right to defend themselves.

You're repeatedly claimed the attacker never "threatened" anyone because no one else saw/heard it. First, a threat doesn't have to be verbal, it can be physical. More importantly, a verbal threat isn't even necessary and often doesn't not exist in self-defense shootings. Perhaps you would consider reading TPC §9.32. Also, the news report indicated the deputies interviewed witnesses who corroberated the woman's statement and they reviewed the video of the incident. If so, they have firm facts as opposed to your rank speculation.

As others have noted, the videos I saw showed damage to the front of his vehicle, so it appears he hit her car.

Perhaps she could have driven away, perhaps not. The important point is that there was no duty to drive away before defending herself (TPC §9.32(c)). In fact, if she were to go to trial, the jury could never even be told that she had an opportunity to "retreat" and chose not to do so. (TPC §9.32(d)). The Texas Penal Code expressly prohibits the argument (driving away) you are making now. Why? Because it's irrelevant to self-defense and it's introduction into the trial would be motivated solely by a desire to unfairly and unlawfully prejudice the jury against the defendant.

I don't know precisely what happened because I was not involved in the investigation, nor have I read the case file. I am confident that the Harris County Sheriff's Dept. investigators have fully investigated the case. I'm also confident that the Harris County DA's Office will do likewise and that a Harris County Grand Jury will have all of the information it needs to make a responsible decision as to whether this case should go to trial.

As others have said, you are race-baiting and it's going to stop now. I don't care if it's white v. black, black v. white, or pink v. blue, it has no place here on the Forum.

As Keith warned many posts ago, keep this debate civil or I will be more than happy to take care of the problem. You love pushing the envelope and it has been pushed to the breaking point. If you insist in trying to provoke a heated discussion on issues, then you can do so using your real name as your screen name. Post it here on this thread and I'll change your screen name and we will verify it is correct.

Chas.

TPC §9.32 wrote:Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

• (b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
  
  (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
  
  (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
  
  (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
  
  . . .
  
  (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
  
  (c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
  
  (d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

Jaguar wrote:

Now it’ll be up to a grand jury to decide what, if anything will happen in the wake of the man’s death.

http://www.khou.com/news/Girlfriend-of- ... 28896.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

barstoolguru wrote:If she didn't have a gun would this have been handled any differently; would have to say "yes"! People get into heated discussions every day settle differences without shooting each other. We talk about her defending herself, I am all for it but not when she escalated it to the level she did. She was a will participant in a road rage incident. She made no effort to defuse the situation


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,

barstoolguru wrote:You've obviously got a problem with women....it hard to keep an open mind and on the subject if you stoop to personal attacks. I have no problem with woman what I do have is a problem with this woman and the way she is justifying taking a life

barstoolguru wrote:The physical disparity between men in women is measurable and indisputable…. So if gang banger comes up to you and starts to whip your butt you are going to take it BECAUSE she is a woman? Do I really need to list names of gun fighters, boxing, karate champs and not to mention killers that are all woman and what about equal rights; are they only equal when it beneficial to the woman? I always thought is a court of law everyone is equal but now you are saying different!

barstoolguru wrote:He could have stayed in his truck and let her come to him….. Really? Is there a law that says he has to? By law he has to ID himself and trade info and cops don't come out to fender benders anymore.
When you choose to do battle with another you lose the right to claim “I was frail and weak” and she chose to. She had a gun and she was flexing her “GUN MUSSELS”. Like I said over and over she chose to stay and fight so don’t complain when you get a bloody nose

Frankie wrote:

Scott, 23, told deputies she and Ables had been cutting each other off.

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

with some of this.

She did not deescalate, she escalated the encounter, bBy her own admittance. If she did actively participate in aggressive driving, as her statement says, she escalated what very well could have been a nonevent and certainly a nonviolent event. If he was instigating with wreak less driving, she could have been on the phone with 911 prior to the accident and kept on driving away from him while giving information to 911.
I don’t have all the facts so I’m on the fence but, if she was actively participating in aggressive behavior by cutting him off, she was as much an aggressor and he was and probably looking for a fight. I will stop short of saying her CHL gave her the confidence to engage in such behavior but I would be very interested in knowing a few more facts. One being, how long she has had her CHL? Not to mention the 911 tapes and surveillance video from the gas station.

Edited to fix my poor grammar.

barstoolguru wrote:I am not going to address anyone in general but wanted to bring up some points:

someone mention Disparity of force; she is a big girl, not crippled not underweight, not old so I fail to see why her being a "woman" qualifies her for that definition !

She was a willing combatant in a game of road warrior; at no time did she ever try and get away (by her own words).

She had a gun and an attitude that she wasn't going to back down

Why wasn't she arrested: I am sure the pastor and lawyer at the scene painted a picture of her being a model citizen and it was all a big misunderstanding? Not to mention her lawyer claiming "she was in fear for her life" who knows how many times.

Did he break the window? No one saw it but her! Witness one said he was 15-20 ft away and heard nothing. Witness two which we heard nothing from BUT what he told the parents and that was their son made no threats to her

Looks to me she shot through the window, I pointed it out at three different places.

Was there some anger on both people; sure they were going down the road cutting each other off. So why is it he is the only on in the wrong? Because she is a woman; Here is a study that says woman are more prone to road rage. Woman is quicker to use a car as a weapon.
http://blog.esurance.com/women-more-prone-to-road-rage/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (major ins co study)

We don't know who started it all we know is it is a share blame for the accident (the way the cops will see it and the insurance co, been there done that and have a tee shirt) all we know is he approached her and she felt threatened (public gas station with other around). Is that justification to shoot and kill another?

anygunanywhere wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

barstoolguru wrote:

VMI77 wrote: The only problem I have with your scenario is the hint of a suggestion that his reaction to her is reasonable. It simply isn't. If an adult man in this day and age is so clueless he doesn't understand the reasons for a woman to act the way you propose in your scenario, then he is dangerously stupid. And aside from the issue of a lone female dealing with two men, and aside from bump and rob events, chasing after someone then pounding on their window is not a justified or intelligent reaction. I had a guy run into me in Austin and then take off.....I didn't chase after him....I wrote down his license plate number and filed a report with the police.

Go back and read the last article posted about the parents grieving and it adds a lot to what DID happen. They bumped and then PULLED into the gas station so the accident just accrued. She was out there doing the white line mumbo with him; She helped instigate it and then she claims self defense!!!

Yeah, I'm sure the grieving parents will add a lot of objective comments. Based solely on the information in the media, which is all we know, she fled or ran away --whatever term you want to use-- to a public place, called 911, remained in her car, and did not threaten or attack the driver or passenger of the truck. The driver of the truck followed, chased her --again, whatever word you want to use-- got out of his truck in a rage and pounded on her window, thus threatening her. You can pretend otherwise all you want, but following a woman in a truck with two men and hitting on her window in a rage is a threat --it is INTENDED to intimidate, at a minimum. He was a "big man" because he was pounding on the window of a young woman, whom he no doubt did not fear in the least. You think he would have acted in the same way and pounded on the window of some 6'4" muscled up and tatted gang banger? If he did, then he'd do it looking for a fight, because anyone in his right mind knows that is what would happen. Pounding on this woman's window, whether he broke it or not, wasn't to hand her a bouquet of flowers --it was deliberate intimidation and had the sole intended purpose of forcing the woman to respond to him either by rolling down her window or exiting the car....both of which would have been stupid moves for her under the circumstances.

The police have a 911 recording, they took witness statements, and they watched a video of the incident. THEY LET HER GO WITHOUT ARRESTING HER. I don't know if you have it out for this particular woman, or you've got a chip on your shoulder about women in general. I don't really care either way; it doesn't change the reality, which is that a lone woman is vulnerable, very vulnerable, in a confrontation with one man, let alone the potential threat of two men. A man who either doesn't understand this, or doesn't care, and acts like a fool, as this guy apparently did, gets no special consideration for his ignorance or malice, which is, quite frankly, inexcusable. Not only did he have no business approaching a woman this way, his actions were pretty stupid under any circumstances, since he had no way of knowing what kind of person was in the vehicle he approached threateningly and pounded on. In the old days, he might have been beaten by one of the men nearby merely for his treatment of a woman. If I walked into a parking lot and found a man treating my wife like he did that young woman I'd be approaching with one hand on my gun.

Edited for clarity.

You have been studying TAM's posts and technique.

Nicely done!

If someone was doing that to my wife though I would probably have the gun drawn.

Anygunanywhere

barstoolguru wrote:

VMI77 wrote: The only problem I have with your scenario is the hint of a suggestion that his reaction to her is reasonable. It simply isn't. If an adult man in this day and age is so clueless he doesn't understand the reasons for a woman to act the way you propose in your scenario, then he is dangerously stupid. And aside from the issue of a lone female dealing with two men, and aside from bump and rob events, chasing after someone then pounding on their window is not a justified or intelligent reaction. I had a guy run into me in Austin and then take off.....I didn't chase after him....I wrote down his license plate number and filed a report with the police.

Go back and read the last article posted about the parents grieving and it adds a lot to what DID happen. They bumped and then PULLED into the gas station so the accident just accrued. She was out there doing the white line mumbo with him; She helped instigate it and then she claims self defense!!!

barstoolguru wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

barstoolguru wrote:

VMI77 wrote:
No, he lost his life because he lost control of himself and threatened a young mother. And wow.....for some reason drove off???? I hope you're not married and you don't have any daughters. She did exactly what a woman in that situation....hit by a truck with two men....is supposed to do: go to a public place. So, she should drive off from a public place [b]while two guys in a truck chase her and try to run her down?[/b] I just hope if you do have a wife and daughter they're getting better advice from someone else because they're sure not getting it from you.

"Two white guys"... looked Mexican to me so let’s switch it, if it was a white driver and a black man beating on the window everyone would have said is was racially motivated. I love the part "they were trying to run her down? She drove off from an accident she caused. Maybe they were trying to get her to stop! His poor reactions do not justify hers. This is a quote from the 2nd article:

The 23-year-old woman behind the wheel of a silver sedan told them the young man walked up to her car and was yelling and beating on her window. He grabbed for her door and she grabbed her gun and fired.

no entry was ever made, she over-reacted because she HAD a gun. How would she have done it different if she didn’t have a gun; drove off again, maybe hit the horn and draw attention or her panic button on her key fob? After all she was in a gas station with other around; that was the whole point of driving there in the first place wasn’t it? and if I had a SON and he was shot down like this I would be mad

I think you've got race on the brain....maybe it is coloring your perception of events. No where in my response did I mention the race of the guys in the truck, because I have no idea what race they were. READ IT AGAIN: while and white are two different words that mean two different things. You really have to twist both grammar and spelling to get "two white guys" out of what I wrote. Yesterday another poster said the guy who got shot was Caucasian, but even if that's correct, I still wouldn't know the race of the passenger. You've obviously got something against the woman in this case and you seem to be focused on race, so I wonder what it could be?



And if your son got shot in the same circumstances, you should be mad: at him, for acting like a fool and getting himself killed.

I think I'm done with you....you sound like some of the anti-gun liberals with your responses. And the "would have done it differently if she didn't have a gun" is not only a standard liberal whack job phrase, it's also quite ridiculous in the context of a forum about concealed carry.[/quote

Sorry; I need to increase the font size, so I will retract one part of my statement and no one would have gottin killed if she didn't over react. she was wrong by law read PC 9.31 2&3

XinTX wrote:Probably a difference of 'perspective'. Just one POSSIBLE scenario of how it went down.

She hits the guys truck. Nothing major, just a fender bender. But she continues until she finds a 'safe' place to stop. From his point of view, he sees someone who has just smashed his vehicle and continued to drive. She pulls in to the gas station. He gets out to talk to her. He is still apprehensive that she's going to fled. She calls 911. He walks up, expecting her to get out and have insurance available. He sees a woman still in the car talking on the phone. He knocks on her window. She continues to talk on the phone and doesn't get out. She sees two men (apparently worked in the oil field, so he may have been dressed in some grimy coveralls or some such), with one knocking on her window. Doubtful he's in "Mr. Rogers" mode at this point. I'm sure he's agitated at the sight of a woman who has just crunched his vehicle and now appears (to him) indifferent toward the matter. He knocks on her window, she doesn't respond. He knocks harder. She is now afraid, and it all goes downhill from there.

As far as why she didn't just drive away, this was on 1960. At times it's a parking lot. So she may not have been able to get far. And her car vs a pickup truck wouldn't be a good matchup.

The pictures I've seen don't appear to show a window that's been 'shattered'. I guess when the stores videotapes show up, we may know more.

barstoolguru wrote:

Ables was shot to death, investigators say by Crystal Scott following a minor accident that spilled over into a gas station parking lot on Monday near FM 1960 and Perry Road. Scott, 23, told deputies she and Ables had been cutting each other off. After they hit and both pulled in to the gas station, Scott said Ables walked up to her car yelling and beating on her window. She claims he grabbed for her door, and that fearing for her life, she grabbed her gun and opened fire.

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,

she did both so how is she not wrong ?

barstoolguru wrote:

VMI77 wrote:
No, he lost his life because he lost control of himself and threatened a young mother. And wow.....for some reason drove off???? I hope you're not married and you don't have any daughters. She did exactly what a woman in that situation....hit by a truck with two men....is supposed to do: go to a public place. So, she should drive off from a public place while two guys in a truck chase her and try to run her down? I just hope if you do have a wife and daughter they're getting better advice from someone else because they're sure not getting it from you.

"Two white guys"... looked Mexican to me so let’s switch it, if it was a white driver and a black man beating on the window everyone would have said is was racially motivated. I love the part "they were trying to run her down? She drove off from an accident she caused. Maybe they were trying to get her to stop! His poor reactions do not justify hers. This is a quote from the 2nd article:

The 23-year-old woman behind the wheel of a silver sedan told them the young man walked up to her car and was yelling and beating on her window. He grabbed for her door and she grabbed her gun and fired.

no entry was ever made, she over-reacted because she HAD a gun. How would she have done it different if she didn’t have a gun; drove off again, maybe hit the horn and draw attention or her panic button on her key fob? After all she was in a gas station with other around; that was the whole point of driving there in the first place wasn’t it? and if I had a SON and he was shot down like this I would be mad

barstoolguru wrote:

Mike1951 wrote:

Kawabuggy wrote:Here's a scenario-the shooter ran into the shootee, and then refused to stop to exchange information. The shootee follows her until she finally turns into a gas station. As he approaches her window-she draws a gun and shoots him.

In the Fox video, the window is shattered but intact. There is no bullet hole visible in the shattered glass. Since the window was still fully closed, the shot must have occured through an open door.

"He was attempting to open (Scott's) car door while striking the driver's side window," said Thomas Gilliland, a Harris County sheriff's deputy.

she shot through the glass. It is tempered glass and if pounding on it would have broken it; it would have shattered totally (nothing left in the door) and if tinted it would have been pushed in from him pounding on it (tint holds the glass in place )
on the second article it shows what looks to be a bullet hole in the upper left side of the window (1:09 mark) and might I add that all statments are maid by the pastor or her lawyer. one minute he is trying to het in and the next he opens the door, so what is it