TexasCHLforum.com

TAM wrote:

I would have hoped that the milk of human kindness flowed a little more freely.

, a pint of Mogen David might have prevented this most unfortunate incident.

WildBill wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Somebody said that, "It ain't over until it's over". Once it is over, everyone will know what the final score was. Sometimes, life just ain't fair; however, "we all pays our fare and we takes our chances". (somebody said that, too)

It is "over" and we know the final score. One man is dead and the other is serving probation.

The point that I apparently failed to make was that the car owner, now on probation, could not have known where the game was going nor what the final score would be when he was first accosted. Yes,I did use the word accosted because, IMO, the driver was accosted by a person of the street after he failed to heed various warnings.

It could happen here and it could happen to any of us. Bon Voyage!

seniorshooteress wrote:

juggernaut wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I don't think that the car's owner deserves a prison sentence, but he did cause a man's death in retaliation for a very minor offense, even if the result was unintentional.

Consider a similar situation.

A woman is walking and a man starts to approach her. She tells him to stop. He keeps coming.
Moore told Davis to get away from his car. He didn't.

She tells him again to stay away from her. He keeps coming.
"Davis ignored requests to stop"

She displays a gun and repeats her request to stop. (force but not deadly force)
"Moore pushed Davis away" (force but not deadly force)

The man takes a step back, trips, falls, hits his head on the pavement and dies.


"Davis fell, hit his head on the pavement and died."

Do any of you think she should be charged in his death in this situation?

Totally different Like comparing apples to oranges.

Somebody said that, "It ain't over until it's over". Once it is over, everyone will know what the final score was.

It seems that there is a lot of after the fact Monday Morning Quarterbacking going on here about something that happened in Kalifornia, the brokest and most liberal state in the Union.

Granted, the panhandler may not have deserved an accidental death; however, our lives are replete with various warning signs. As has eloquently been pointed out in a recent thread, our actions have consequences. Apparently, the deceased did not heed the warning signs given off by the person who could not foresee the final score in this unfortunate event.

Sometimes, life just ain't fair; however, "we all pays our fare and we takes our chances". (somebody said that, too)

tacticool wrote:

seniorshooteress wrote:Why should there have been an altercation at all?

I agree. There's no good reason for a panhandler to get aggressive or commit criminal mischief.

There's absolutely no reason for the guy with the spittle soaked rag to take his knife to your car's finish or break out the windshield or tear off the mirror simply because you have a shiney new car and he/she doesn't.

Peace be upon you, brothers and sisters.

seniorshooteress wrote:Why should there have been an altercation at all? Driving a BMW, let the guy wash the windows, hand him a $5 drive off.

Interesting point of view.

There have been several threads on how to deal with panhandlers approaching you on the street, how do you deal with one who has you trapped (?) in your vehicle at a traffic light? This oughta' get good.