Anonymous123 wrote:On the topic of the stance, The news report says that, the suspect TURNED facing, and ill say it again, facing the homeowner, and by then he had chosen to shoot,.
Why I had brought this up is because, why does the owner feel the need to falsify this claim, trying to justify his right for self-defense, when he has it regardless according to castle doctrine.
Meaning the homeowner more than likely did not shout a warning, prior to releasing the first shot.
Being said, makes the situation more suspicious as to what information or details the homeowner is guarding
Felony/Drug Charges = No gun in Texas. He should not even possess a firearm,. Neither condone the selling of drugs out of his residence, HE IS AWARE, of what his son is doing.
The point of all this is, There is no SET bad guy, both partys are in the wrong, 16 year old with a handgun is someones home is wrong regardless, but why let the drug dealer duo son and father get the justice and glorification of self-defense in this story. I strongly believe that this was a drug deal gone wrong, I have clarified the information from a LEO that there was no sign of forced entry to the home. So the Castle Doctrine can justify the shooting/killing of anybody just if they're on your property? Especially if you're a drug dealer? That is a very illegitimate claim and the law should be discluded if you're conducting illegal activities KNOWING that what you're doing and you are AWARE that you're family is in danger at all times due to criminal conduct. So now due to The State of Texas, the 16 year old is going to face 2-99 prison time, for more than likely a mutual agreement gone sour, while the drug dealer and home owner will continue to orchestrate such events. Justice 0, Morality 0, Criminals 1. I'm 17 years old by the way
Many things happen in gun fights and the police are very good at crime scene reconstruction. People move, twist, turn, etc and the bullet may enter from a side or back, when the threat was perceived head on a few moments before. It happens all of the time.
It could be a drug deal gone bad, but that doesn't relieve the person shot from their poor choice of occupation, aggravated robbery. It is still a self defense claim. A "mutual agreement gone sour" is a civil issue, robbing someone is not. Someone shorts you on some dope, don't buy from him anymore. Go to his house in the middle of the night to recoup your losses, bad things can and do happen.
As for giving a "warning?" None is required, this ain't the movies and I am not John Wayne. Someone in my house in the middle of the night for what ever reason would be shot from the best position I can obtain without any warning. They don't pay me to fight fair, only to win! There is also a saying, "If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck."
Being 17 years old I can give you the benefit of some experience, follow the "3 S" rule: "Don't go Stupid places, do Stupid things, with Stupid people." Follow these rules and you will make it to a ripe old age without being killed or killing anyone.
"Justice" and "Morality" have nothing to do with each other in the real world. The 16 year old made some really poor choices and had a terrible outcome and will face consequences for HIS actions, not the home owner's actions, not the dope dealer's actions, but HIS actions. Sometimes it hurts to violate the "3 S" rule.
One last thing, in gun fights perceptions are not necessarily reality. People will think they only shot once, when they emptied the gun. They will think they did somethings when they didn't and they will have done things that they don't remember. It is well documented in the literature. Here is a link to some good research at the Force Science Institute.
http://www.forcescience.org/articles.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Best wishes and learn from these people's mistakes.
