http://blogs.star-telegram.com/crime_ti ... t-bar.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... 5AFG1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Genius.
![banghead :banghead:](./images/smilies/banghead.gif)
- Jim
Well, I think the customs agent was clearly in the wrong. However, he may get away with it because the owner pointed a gun at him (according to him.) He at least has a plausible argument (possibly) that he was defending himself. If I were the DA, I would try the guy and let a jury decide if his escalation led to the death, which would make him guilty of manslaughter, I would think.seamusTX wrote:Well, now we get to line up and take sides on who may have been justified, the bar owner who is legally allowed to pack to maintain order in his establishment, or the "customer" who got into an "altercation" in a bar.
- Jim
Plausible defense? How so? He was thrown out and his life was in no danger. All he had to do was leave. He came back with a gun. That's not self-defense. If you or I did that we'd go to prison.baldeagle wrote: He at least has a plausible argument (possibly) that he was defending himself. If I were the DA, I would try the guy and let a jury decide if his escalation led to the death, which would make him guilty of manslaughter, I would think.
Well, logic would dictate that “seeing a gun” in a holster would not be justification to shoot. If the gun is in the persons hand pointed at the ground that would still not be justification to shoot. Raising the gun in your direction or pointing it at you would be justification to shoot.seamusTX wrote:The licensed premises of a bar often include the parking lot.
Whether the bar owner was legally entitled to carry on the exact square foot of ground he was standing on is irrelevant. It would be a misdemeanor if he were in the wrong.
Maybe the open carry advocates can explain how someone who "sees a gun" is entitled to shoot the person with the gun. That could get messy if it were a widespread practice.
- Jim
I agree that self-defense would be justified in response to an unprovoked act. However, in this case, it seems that the aforementioned customs agent "asked for it" by being confrontational in the bar and then "taking it outside."Raising the gun in your direction or pointing it at you would be justification to shoot.
IMO, this is the main reason for existence of the 51% Sign.seamusTX wrote:I don't suppose testosterone was involved. - Jim