TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.mintpressnews.com/212740-2/212740/

I used the title from the article but the article says he shouted "Go back to Islam" before the guy attacked the shooter. The title is misleading. The wife of the man shot calls it a "hate crime". A law professor agrees.

No evidence he said that.

Dead man should have learned from Tavai to stay in your car.

Grand Jury got it right.

Grozny wrote:

Solaris wrote:No evidence he said that.

Dead man should have learned from Tavai to stay in your car.

Grand Jury got it right.

I wonder if the president will come out and say to the Muslim community not to judge all infidels based on the actions of this one?

II found this quote interesting

If somebody’s in the car, the ignition is on, the foot is on the gas pedal, then they can easily drive away,’ she said. ‘If it was a white, upper-class mother getting out of her car and approaching a car, [and she were shot], do I think there would be an indictment? Yes, there would be. It makes a difference who the victim is.

Personally, I think the size, sex, and demeanor of the person approaching the car should be relevant to a decision on whether or not to indict. So yes, absent all other facts, I would expect an indictment would be more likely if the person shot was a woman versus a man. Race shouldn't come into play, but the demeanor and appearance of the person should. It goes to whether the shooter had a reasonable fear for their life.

That said, I personally would have used the best weapon I had available, my vehicle, to get safely out of that situation. I wouldn't use my gun unless I had no other options.

Also, doesn't a "hate crime" have to involve an actual crime? If the shooters actions were not a crime, then does it really matter that he dislikes muslims?

There are some lessons to learn from this. First, if you're going to post stuff on social media, it could come back to haunt you if you are later involved in a shooting incident. Second, even if he yelled what the wife claims he yelled, that doesn't justify the husband's attack on him. (And I find myself wondering how he would have know the guy was a Muslim - unless he just assumed it.) Third, the wife has a vested interest in seeing the shooter punished, so I would discount her testimony and look for other witnesses. Was the husband really punching at him? If so, the shooting is justified.

Apparently the grand jury either believed the shooter's story or there were corroborating witnesses that supported his story.

Deceased should have stayed in his car. Since he got out, I will presume that he felt "safe" enough to do so.
The person in the car remained in his car. As an outsider looking in, the deceased appears to have been an agressor here.
Tragic event nonetheless.

As far as the "go back to Islam" comment, that was certainly uncalled for. Tied with the comments he made on the social media, it affirms a narrative of him.

There is so much misinformation, misunderstanding and outright lying about Texas law on self-defense that it prompted me to write "The Truth About the Texas Castle Doctrine." I wrote the article on January 18, 2013 in response to false claims and allegations by the usual suspects. I guess I need to update the article, but only the names of the prevaricators would change. The legal points remain the same.

Chas.

Richbirdhunter wrote:I wonder if the president will come out and say to the Muslim community not to judge all infidels based on the actions of this one?

The "journalism" exhibited in that article reminds me of this youtube video.....is the "reporter" in the video the same "reporter" who wrote the article?