TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.kwtx.com/news/headlines/1003 ... ml?ref=574" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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.

- Jim

The AP article adds some interesting detail that is missing from the other two.

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

The part that seems undisputed is he went to his truck and instead of leaving, he grabbed a gun and escalated the altercation.

I don't suppose testosterone was involved.

- Jim

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

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.

Alcohol and gunpowder can produce a potion most vile. Of course, being born with less than a full deck doesn't help matters either.

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.

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.

As usual all we have is initial media reports. The AP story makes the situation more complicated then it originally seemed. Note that none of the stories says the office went to his truck, got his gun and went back into the bar, but rather that the fight continued outside after he was ejected and the bar owner came outside. More information is needed. Just out of curiosity does the bar owner still have the right to carry a weopan once he is outside the bar? This may depend if he was still on premises he owned (which again we dont know).

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

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

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.

Just my opinion. And I am not an open carry advocate.

Raising the gun in your direction or pointing it at you would be justification to shoot.

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."

- Jim

More information in the story:

http://www.krgv.com/news/local/story/Mo ... fNOEg.cspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I do not think it looks very good for Jose Elizondo (the customs officer).

seamusTX wrote:I don't suppose testosterone was involved. - Jim

IMO, this is the main reason for existence of the 51% Sign.
This can be represented by the algebraic expressions:
Testosterone + Ethanol = Trouble
Testosterone + Ethanol + Guns = Big Trouble

I want to be clear. I do not think what the customs agent did was right. In fact, I think he is the reason the bar owner is dead (not for the obvious reason that he's the one who shot him but because he may have precipitated the incident and pushed it to the point that the bar owner's death occurred.) I was just speculating that he may have a legal window to slip through that will keep him from being convicted. I think his case will come down to the jury and what they think of him and his actions. If he was in the middle of the fight, that's different than if he was trying to separate his brother from the others. The articles don't say, so that testimony will be critical to the outcome.