Of drunks and criminal mischief

[Venus Pax]

The guy that shot the doper for attacking his car was also in deep East Texas. They tend to have a lower tolerance for crime than city folk; I can see where a jury in East Texas may rule differently than one Houston or DFW.

[stevie_d_64]

That guy, that shot the drunk/druggie that was messing up his car (I think it was with a chunk of wood?).

I remember that incident. We never got a complete account of what happened. The deceased may have attacked the vehicle owner.

- Jim

The defendent (shooter) was found not guilty, IIRC...That determination was made recently, within the last month or so...

Like PB&J, the search for that thread goes on...

If someone chases you with a bat...And you run away to difuse the situation...And they continue pursuit...You stop and draw, and they still continue to close the distance, raising that bat above their head in the process...

I seriously doubt they are going to be hugging you when they catch up to you...

At which point...The decision has been made...And you were not the one that made that decision...

The rest is elementary...

[seamusTX]

The defendent (shooter) was found not guilty, IIRC...

He was no-billed by the grand jury.

The deceased's history of irrational behavior probably helped.

- Jim

[Flatland2D]

If anyone can identify this story, please let me know. It probably happened a while ago. My CHL instructor gave it as an example of case law regarding deadly force, but didn't recommend it.

This guy kept having his truck vandalized at night (beating with bats, breaking windows, that kind of thing). After the third time or so, he decided to stake out his truck from his roof. When the BGs showed up and starting doing it again, he opened fire and killed most of them. Turned out they were all kids/teenagers. He was either no-billed or not guilty.

If no one else can back this up, please ignore. I've never been able to find this case after the instructor told us about it. In all respect to the instructor, I question this story's credibility.

[seamusTX]

This guy kept having his truck vandalized at night (beating with bats, breaking windows, that kind of thing). After the third time or so, he decided to stake out his truck from his roof. When the BGs showed up and starting doing it again, he opened fire and killed most of them. Turned out they were all kids/teenagers. He was either no-billed or not guilty.

I've heard the story, too, but never saw documentation.

It does meet the standard of criminal mischief in the night time.

- Jim

[hi-power]

If anyone can identify this story, please let me know. It probably happened a while ago. My CHL instructor gave it as an example of case law regarding deadly force, but didn't recommend it.

This guy kept having his truck vandalized at night (beating with bats, breaking windows, that kind of thing). After the third time or so, he decided to stake out his truck from his roof. When the BGs showed up and starting doing it again, he opened fire and killed most of them. Turned out they were all kids/teenagers. He was either no-billed or not guilty.

If no one else can back this up, please ignore. I've never been able to find this case after the instructor told us about it. In all respect to the instructor, I question this story's credibility.

I heard a version of that story from a DPS trooper when I took the instructor's class in 1995. It was during a discussion of some surprising court tests of the deadly force statutes - not that the trooper advocated it at all. I can't find anything about it on the 'net.

Also heard the one about a guy who lived in the country and had been burglarized several times. He decided to play hooky from work one night and be a sniper and was later found not guilty of murder.

There's probably a lot more to each of those stories, (at least I hope there is), because I wouldn't feel I was justified doing either of these things.

[pbandjelly]

The defendent (shooter) was found not guilty, IIRC...

He was no-billed by the grand jury.

The deceased's history of irrational behavior probably helped.

- Jim

The shooter (and this was said in that thread as well) didn't know his irrational behavior.
it being in East Texas, aside, I still say it's a precedent.
it was also during the day, which was expounded would be the shooter's demise.
I'm going off of what was reported, cause that's all the info I have. guess we could get the court records and what have ya, but I don't think that will include the Gran' Jurrah hearing.

regardless, the POINT I was trying to make in all this cluster bomb, is that you MAY be legally in the right, but will you be MORALLY in the right?
there's an ocean's difference between beating your mode of transportation with a 2x4, and somebody scratching up the paint job.
that's an individual decision to make.
I STG we've all said this before.....

[seamusTX]

There's probably a lot more to each of those stories, (at least I hope there is), because I wouldn't feel I was justified doing either of these things.

The law on use of deadly force is perfectly clear (other than that pesky bit about a reasonable person retreating, which goes away Sept. 1). If the grand or petit jury agrees that you met the conditions, you walk.

Sitting here dumb and happy, I wouldn't use deadly force simply to protect property. But I can see becoming frustrated by repeated attacks and angry enough to do it.

- Jim

[hi-power]

There's probably a lot more to each of those stories, (at least I hope there is), because I wouldn't feel I was justified doing either of these things.

The law on use of deadly force is perfectly clear (other than that pesky bit about a reasonable person retreating, which goes away Sept. 1). If the grand or petit jury agrees that you met the conditions, you walk.

Sitting here dumb and happy, I wouldn't use deadly force simply to protect property. But I can see becoming frustrated by repeated attacks and angry enough to do it.

- Jim

Before pbandjelly's head asplodes , his rhetorical question bears repeating:

regardless, the POINT I was trying to make in all this cluster bomb, is that you MAY be legally in the right, but will you be MORALLY in the right?

[LedJedi]

Before pbandjelly's head asplodes , his rhetorical question bears repeating:

regardless, the POINT I was trying to make in all this cluster bomb, is that you MAY be legally in the right, but will you be MORALLY in the right?

If it's a repeated event, I might just use DF to stop it if i'm legally justified in doing that.

I honestly wish i could find a more respectful way to phrase this. I thought about it for a few minutes, so keep that in mind. I apologize in advance if you take offense as that is in no way my intent.

"I'm not talking about morality. It's not for you to decide. I'm talking about what is justified by law. With respect, I just don't care what you think is morally right or wrong."

That being said, I do respect your opinion on the subject and I'm not in any way trying to be ugly, rude or disrespectful. Please understand that there's a difference between law and morality. We're asking about law.

[stevie_d_64]

The defendent (shooter) was found not guilty, IIRC...

He was no-billed by the grand jury.

The deceased's history of irrational behavior probably helped.

- Jim

Thanks...I really forgot the particulars...When, and who took care of this...

[Xander]

Before pbandjelly's head asplodes , his rhetorical question bears repeating:

regardless, the POINT I was trying to make in all this cluster bomb, is that you MAY be legally in the right, but will you be MORALLY in the right?

If it's a repeated event, I might just use DF to stop it if i'm legally justified in doing that.

I honestly wish i could find a more respectful way to phrase this. I thought about it for a few minutes, so keep that in mind. I apologize in advance if you take offense as that is in no way my intent.

"I'm not talking about morality. It's not for you to decide. I'm talking about what is justified by law. With respect, I just don't care what you think is morally right or wrong."

That being said, I do respect your opinion on the subject and I'm not in any way trying to be ugly, rude or disrespectful. Please understand that there's a difference between law and morality. We're asking about law.

But you have to remember that the law is gray. All of the law we've been discussing requires that the force you use has to be that which a "reasonable person" deems justified. In the end, the prosecutor and a jury get to decide what's reasonable...Not you. *If* they decide, that your action was so morally wrong that it simply wasn't a course of action that a reasonable person would take, you could meet every other requirement the law puts forth, and still go to prison for a very long time.

-Xander

[pbandjelly]

[stevie_d_64]

Well I feel compelled to force an increase in pressure in someones cranium...

If I am legally in the right in the successful use of deadly force...

Whether or not I am morally right, is not my call...He and I will take care of that somewhere down the road...

I have an extremely high degree of confidence that it (decision) will be the right one...

[JKDubb]

Was having dinner with a fellow CHLer last night and had some interesting debates as always and a few things came up.

1) He mentioned that it was under any circumstance unjustified to use deadly force on the intoxicated as indicated by his CHL instructor. I find that a bit difficult to believe and can't seem to find anything in the penal code about it. It seems to me that if someone is drunk that doesn't negate your right to defend yourself and yours.

2) We were also discussing protection of property and there was some discussion of criminal mischief vs theft. Someone keying your car is I believe criminal mischief. Deadly force is not justified in that incident is it?

These are hypothetical, just curious. I'm especially interested on seeing the legal quotes behind this as I'm not able to locate them at the moment.

To answer Question 1, I will say that I have been there, I can't discuss the situation because the investigation is ongoing but, no shots were fired. The guns were pulled out on us first and we retreated, we were pulled over and after speaking with the LEO's they told me that because of the location (Club) a shooting would be unjustified sober or not. I understand the 51% rule and the altercation took place outside, I have to say that I partially believe them because they will be the ones testifying. I did not want to get into the premises argument, Oh by the way I did not recieve a ticket for the traffic infraction that got us pulled over, maybe it was the CHL the world may never know...

So I said all that to say that it would probably depend on the location of the altercation AND the circumstances but IANAL...

For Question 2 I think that the nighttime rule would have to come into play but, w/o the castle law you would 99% catch a civil lawsuit i would imagine.

So don't shoot anyone keying your car in the daytime j/k...