TexasCHLforum.com

txinvestigator wrote:To what "stuff" are you referring?

Don't worry about it, only if you have an antennae and tuned your channel to a certain wavelength will you recieve the broadcast.

stevie_d_64 wrote: I believe it is another illustration of how horrible things have become in society where someone believe its ok to mess around with obviously young girls at his age, and not see there is something wrong with the whole situation...

Great post overall Stevie.
One thing that really makes he go hmmm...is the fact that people think that this is a new phenonmenon. Of course it is appalling to think that others don't have the morals that you do. But don't act like you didn't know it happens. When people make fun about what goes on near the border of Mexico, it is not appalling? When alot of their buddies in the corporate circle travel to Southeast Asia where this kind of thing is rampant, it is not appalling? But as soon it hits near home, here comes the outcry. You can't be self righteous only when it hits home. You need to open your eyes to what is going on in the world everyday and speak up.

casselthief wrote:
The parents are equally culpable in how this daughter is "acting out."

TXi wrote: Mon Mar 12, 2007 12:08 pm
I didn't realize you knew them. Can you give us some insight?


casselthief wrote:
I understand full well that you are bringing up the absurdity of me making personal judgements based on little facts.

that said, I am tired of people (not any one here) that run off at the mouth (on Dr Phil, of course) "Mah chald's gone crazy, I cahn't cuhntrol her!"
well, did you teach them discipline, be over-bearing where it necessitated? get involved?
or did you let them be raised by eMpTyV.
I apologize if that simply does not apply in this case, but I have seen it many a time, and therefore am quick to throw that particular judgement out.

TXi wrote: Mon Mar 12, 2007 1:07 pm
However, I agree with you that in most cases the parents caused the problems.


Does anybody keep up with this stuff?

txinvestigator wrote:So you are not referring to the person in the article which is the subject of this thread? He had a shotgun, not a handgun. 46.02 matters not.

For those now crossing the finish line, I am referring to anyone in the future that might happen to be faced with this scenario. That ONE (universally meaning any and everybody) should make sure they know this statute before you think you are going to use it. There is nothing complex to over analyze about what I said. Instead of us discussing the angles that a person with CHL would be faced with in a similar scenario. We are playing symantics, looking for where I said "shotgun." Although from the get-go I have used the word gun and never specified.

Obviously I'm not debating about the legal ramifications for the dad because we don't know the whole story.
But trying to use what he was faced with, in our own scenario where we are free to make judgements on your legal standing.

nitrogen wrote: I'd argue that he's raping her, and as far as the law is concerned, it IS statutory rape.

That leads me to a good question. I realise it's a HUGE strech, but the law allows defense of 3rd parties from rape, does that include statutory rape as well? Does Texas look at both the same, or are they different crimes?

My question would be how you explain that the suspect is dead outside the home fully clothed? So was he sexually assaulting her? Still applies right? Better be physical evidence. He could have been just sitting at the island eating milk and cookies.

txinvestigator wrote:

Lucky45 wrote:

KD5NRH wrote:
He wasn't "carrying in violation" of any part of the statute; he had a shotgun in his own home when the guy came back onto the property.

I never said he was carrying in violation. Read my post again. I said everyone should remember this Penal Code.

??

A shotgun is not a weapon covered in 46.02, so please explain to this simpleton how 9.31(b) (5) applies.

I want everyone to read the original post again. I post on the CHL side and was referring to CHL holders. I said, "But if you come home and see someone with your "who you thought was innocent" daughter, then you pull a gun after they flee. Remember this. PC §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE"


PC §46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits
an offense if he intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or
about his person a handgun, illegal knife, or club.

Was it an offense to grab a gun after the suspect had fled?
Was it an offense to carry a gun when the suspect return to talk? or was it reckless?
Was it an offense to display the gun since the suspect was not armed and seeking an explanation from or discussion with the dad concerning their differences?


Obviously he is not going to say that he decided to end this guys life for being in the house with his daughter because that would be considered MURDER I presume.
So I guess he will say that he shot the suspect in self defense.

KD5NRH wrote:
He wasn't "carrying in violation" of any part of the statute; he had a shotgun in his own home when the guy came back onto the property.

I never said he was carrying in violation. Read my post again. I said everyone should remember this Penal Code.

Also, if you check all the news reports in Houston, you will see that the guy was shot outside the home near his vehicle. The police are now investigating the mother for lying because she said there were two people in the house and one of the suspects shot the other suspect when he was trying to get into the car. Now, we find out that the dad shot the only guy that was present.

Also, they lived in a townhouse so they were not in the physical building when the shots were fired. Per penal code definition.

So at first reports all together, IN MY OPINION, the mom came home found a strange car in her driveway, peeped in and saw a guy with girl in house, called dad and 911. Somehow entered the home, they both flee the home. Suspect scurrying around trying to escape and making way back to car got shot somehow. So when police arrive, we have a story of one suspect shooting the other and the girl is nowhere to be found. Now we have an Amber Alert for a missing girl and suspect. Until she returns and now investigations are ongoing.

Not believable??? Well, over that last 25 years I have heard many of these stories first hand from my MOM who still works in the JUVENILE PENAL SYSTEM for GIRLS. She ain't no guard either. Kinda like a Warden. This case is trivial to some I know about. There are alot of girls that leave home with a change of clothes and lay up in older men's houses all day, "enjoying" the gifts or riding around in flashy car and come home with all kinds of stuff that parents think nothing of.

Perfect case was a week ago, while watching America's Most Wanted about that sexual predator guy from California that they caught in Lousiana. He worked at some autoshop in Humble/Woodlands area and he had girls in his office and would take them shopping to the mall etc. And this one girl was up on my TV with her MOM talking about he would take her to the mall and buy her all kinds of things, clothes etc. Now which one of you parents out there would show your face on TV with that mess.

What was on the news last week, Uhhhhh.....yes, I would have to administer a therapeutic hold on her for corrective measures. Seriously.


Your thoughts??

06:43 AM CDT on Monday, March 12, 2007
KHOU-TV
From 11 News staff reports


Houston police now say a father shot and killed a 27-year-old man he found with his teen daughter Saturday night.
The man died at the scene.
Initially, an Amber Alert was issued night for 13-year-old Tesa Taylor, and then she returned home Sunday at 11 a.m.
But the details are still coming out.
The incident began just before 11 p.m. Saturday when her parents arrived home at 6900 Chasewood Drive and found the two.
Police said the man and the girl ran out, and when the man returned to talk with the parents, the girl's father had a loaded shotgun.
After a struggle, the father allegedly shot and killed the man, Houston police said.
Police are considering charges against the father, and it's not clear if the mother will be charged for lying.
Initially the mother told HPD that there were two men inside and they were strangers, and as she entered, the suspects ran out.
Off-camera, some members of her family told 11 News she had run away to a friends house, fearing she’d get in trouble for inviting two male friends over.
They said Taylor apparently met them through a chat line.
Police have yet to confirm the story and said they're still looking for pieces to put this puzzle together.

This is sad. But if you come home and see someone with your "who you thought was innocent" daughter, then you pull a gun after they flee. Remember this.

PC §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b),
a person is justified in using force against another when and to the
degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful
force.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being
made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's
presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is
unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by
the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of
unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates
to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely
abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use
unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the
other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person
while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section
46.05.(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or
person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force
than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the
force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's
(or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than
necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter
except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.