Girl Shoots Boyfriend To Death In YouTube Stunt

[cheezit]

Ya think just maybe you would try that theory before holding the book.. still a bad idea but

[puma guy]

I can't imagine anyone that stupid, but I get amazed everyday; in this situation it's two stupid people. During one of Texas more well known prison escapes the convicts used books as blockades and defense as they tried to exit to a vehicle. I can't recall the main player, but I think he was a drug dealer with a famous lawyer brother back in the 70's. Didn't work out. Maybe they chose from the light reading section instead of anatomy books.

[Flightmare]

I can't imagine anyone that stupid, but I get amazed everyday; in this situation it's two stupid people.

Nancy Pelosi keeps getting reelected. I think it is safe to say there is an abundance of stupid people out there.

[Pawpaw]

[bblhd672]

Darwin award candidate!

I'm casting my vote for this one as the June winner.

[The Annoyed Man]

What's even sadder is that they have reproduced. I hope the kids don't inherit the stupidity gene.

I had the exact same thought when I was reading the story.

[n5wmk]

Nancy Pelosi keeps getting reelected. I think it is safe to say there is an abundance of stupid people out there.

[locke_n_load]

Now a fun question, would you have been legal in Texas if you were in the crowd, came down, and demanded the firearm? If they did not put down the weapon, could you have drawn on them in order to confiscate the .50?

You can use force to stop force, and drawing a firearm is only the use of force, but he consented to the force, but there isn't anything in there about consenting to deadly force... Legal conundrum!

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

Sec. 9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH. (a) A person is justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself.
(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the other's life in an emergency.

[Jusme]

Now a fun question, would you have been legal in Texas if you were in the crowd, came down, and demanded the firearm? If they did not put down the weapon, could you have drawn on them in order to confiscate the .50?

You can use force to stop force, and drawing a firearm is only the use of force, but he consented to the force, but there isn't anything in there about consenting to deadly force... Legal conundrum!

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

Sec. 9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH. (a) A person is justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself.
(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the other's life in an emergency.

I don't know what "crowd' you are referring too, since this was done in the privacy of their home for a Youtube video.
Lawmakers, erroneously believed, that no one would be this stupid, so they didn't adequately cover it in the statutes.
I always say, no matter how "idiot proof" something may seem, they will always come up with a better idiot.

[locke_n_load]

Now a fun question, would you have been legal in Texas if you were in the crowd, came down, and demanded the firearm? If they did not put down the weapon, could you have drawn on them in order to confiscate the .50?

I don't know what "crowd' you are referring too, since this was done in the privacy of their home for a Youtube video.
Lawmakers, erroneously believed, that no one would be this stupid, so they didn't adequately cover it in the statutes.
I always say, no matter how "idiot proof" something may seem, they will always come up with a better idiot.

Oh, I thought they did it in front of a small group of people.
Your statement gave me a good chuckle though.

[bblhd672]

[krieghoff]

I can't imagine anyone that stupid, but I get amazed everyday; in this situation it's two stupid people. During one of Texas more well known prison escapes the convicts used books as blockades and defense as they tried to exit to a vehicle. I can't recall the main player, but I think he was a drug dealer with a famous lawyer brother back in the 70's. Didn't work out. Maybe they chose from the light reading section instead of anatomy books.

That dude was Fred Carrasco. I believe it was 1974.

[Abraham]

Yes and the phone books didn't work...

[puma guy]

I can't imagine anyone that stupid, but I get amazed everyday; in this situation it's two stupid people. During one of Texas more well known prison escapes the convicts used books as blockades and defense as they tried to exit to a vehicle. I can't recall the main player, but I think he was a drug dealer with a famous lawyer brother back in the 70's. Didn't work out. Maybe they chose from the light reading section instead of anatomy books.

That dude was Fred Carrasco. I believe it was 1974.

Thanks! I'm getting old and can have CRS. Can't Remember Stuff!

[rotor]

Stupid yes, but is this criminal? Being charged.