TexasCHLforum.com

Liberty wrote:

FightinAggieCHL wrote:Have there been any updates on whether or not this is going to trial?

The Grand Jury will decide that.

Yes...but when will it go to the GJ? Anyone know? It seems like everytime I read something about this, it says it will be another 10 days before it is presented.

DoubleJ wrote:
NOT THE "FEAR OF MAH LIFE" THING AGAIN!!!!!!

Fear, is an emotion. emotions have no place in PenalCode.
Facts, however do. they (they being those quoted) say "fur of mah lahf," because saying, "I witnessed an attempted illegal use of deadly force against myself." just wouldn't "pop" right
the justification has NO bearing on fear. it has to do with what a "reasonable person" perceived at the time.
I'm full aware that saying "Ah wuz scurred" will play well with the Police, as well as the Grand Jury, but it is not part of the justification.

call it extenuating circumstances, or some such nonsense.

I will replace fear and instead say I had reason to believe I was at immediate risk of serious bodily injury and/or death because the BG had a Tire Iron...had motive because he did not want to go to jail...had the oprotunity to as he was only seconds away from being in striking distance...and showed intent by lunging at me. Had I not acted, i would either be seriously injured or dead now.

Is that better? At that second in time as the BG is lunging at you with a tire iron, is it "reasonable" to believe you are in imediate danger of serious bodily injury and/or death? Would a reasonable person feel the need to take a defensive posture i.e. arms in front to protect oneself from a strike or defensive action to thwart serious bodily injury and/or death? The second he lunges...is he in the act of "attempting" to cause serious bodily injury and/or death? Is it reasonable to assume that? Would it make a differense if the BG had the tire iron raised in a stiking manner as he was lunging?

In the video of Officer Brown...the BG did not have a weapon pointed at Brown...he simply had it in his hands behind his leg. Brown jumped out and fired the first shot...at which point the BG raised his weapon.

Photoman wrote:

pt145ss wrote:One thing this attorney did not mention, which was mentioned in news reports is that one of the suspects had a tire iron which was used to break the glass. If this is fact, and the one who supposedly came at Horn in the front yard was the who had the tire iron, I would believe he feared for his life. I also believe that because he was on his own porch he had no duty to retreat…just my 2 cents.

Ok...I'll take this one TXI.

Being in "fear for your life" is not justification for use of deadly force.

Being "on your own porch" etc. etc... You have no duty to retreat if you are ~anywhere~ you are legally allowed to be.

I would disagree…I think coming at someone with a weapon in hand that could cause serious bodily injury or death would justify the use of deadly force. The code specifically says attempted. If the BG has a tire iron in hand, and is within 15 feet as purported, and the BG just got busted for burglary, then I would say there is reasonable fear and belief that the bad guy is there to do harm. One, motive, not wanting to go to jail could make one want to use deadly force to neutralize a witness. Two, means, a tire iron could most definitely cause serious bodily injury or death. Three, means, the BG was within 15 feet of the victim it would only take a second or two to cover that ground, to close the gap to within striking distance. Four, intent, the BG lunged towards the victim even though they had a shotgun pointed at them, the BG obviously wants to eliminate the threat of going to jail even if it puts himself at risk of death.

Many court cases have proven that one does not need to wait for something to happen in order to respond. For example, an officer, has his weapon pointed at a suspect, the suspect reaches for a weapon of his own in his waist band, does the officer have to wait for the BG to shoot first before he responds…No. The BG has motive, means, intent, and opportunity. The officer is not required to wait. Does it matter that the BG was possibly pulling out the weapon to drop it on the ground in order to be weapon free before being arrested...No, at the time, the officer has reason believe that if he does not act, that he or someone else is in immediate danger of serous bodily injury or death.

§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.31;
(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation
would not have retreated; and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

Edited because I wanted to add examples...i know this one was in SC but the theory still applies. http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/stra ... ryid=93647 The officer shot first...and here is a quote from the DA.

Wilson said, "I have found Officer Brown acted reasonably and lawfully." Wilson said South Carolina's Castle Doctrine justified Officer Brown's actions.

She said, "A person is not required to wait till his assailant gets the drop on him." That's what Wilson says Antonio Rivers, who appears in a green striped shirt in the video, tried to do.

Also, I can;t remember the name...trying to find it now, the CHLr in Austin, TX caught a BG breaking into his girlfiends vehicle, followed him at gun point, when the BG turned around the CHLr shot and killed the BG. It was justified because at the time he feard for his life.

Taz65TX wrote:http://www.johntfloyd.com/comments/november/29a.htm
Anyone know this attorney? And is he right on this. Some lib. had linked him to Chron.com site in this heated debates:
http://www.chron.com/disp/commnts.mpl/n ... entPage=11

That was an interesting read. I know little to nothing about the whole indictment process but I believe that grand juries are held in private and that defense attorneys are not present (unless otherwise “invited� by the DA). From my understanding it is basically the DA asserting their case and then the grand jury decides if there is enough probable cause that a crime was committed and that there is enough probable cause that that it was the defendant that did it. Given the arguments made by this attorney and specifically the 911 recording it is entirely possible that the DA could convince a GJ that there is enough probable cause to warrant a trial. I think during a trial, the defense stands a small chance in proving fear of immediate danger. One thing this attorney did not mention, which was mentioned in news reports is that one of the suspects had a tire iron which was used to break the glass. If this is fact, and the one who supposedly came at Horn in the front yard was the who had the tire iron, I would believe he feared for his life. I also believe that because he was on his own porch he had no duty to retreat…just my 2 cents.

DoubleJ wrote:

pt145ss wrote:The talk around the water cooler this morning is that this case is going to the grand jury tomorrow. Can anyone confirm if that is true?

yes. I can confirm that there is a watercooler, and there is talk that goes on around it.

as far as Joe Horn... nope, sorry.

I guess I had that one coming...if I wanted a clear and concise answer, I should have asked a clear on concise question.

So is that nope…it is not going to the grand jury tomorrow?…or is that nope you can not confirm that it is going to the grand jury tomorrow?

The talk around the water cooler this morning is that this case is going to the grand jury tomorrow. Can anyone confirm if that is true?