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.
