TomAiello 26 #101 November 25, 2008 QuoteA deadly force scenario is if you see that the other person is armed. And none of the reports so far support that to be the case. Are you certain? A moving motor vehicle is a pretty deadly thing. Without being there, or seeing some forensics, it'd be difficult to tell where exactly the vehicle was moving relative to the pedestrians, and whether or not it might have been reasonable to assume it could be used as a weapon.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #102 November 25, 2008 QuoteQuoteA deadly force scenario is if you see that the other person is armed Not always. You don't have to have a weapon to pose a significant threat to life. Perhaps not. But at the very least, you have to be attacking someone rather than just running away. As has been said before, this had nothing to do with protection and everything to do with revenge. They were right to hold the wife accountable for contributing to the death. They were dead wrong to let the husband off the hook. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #103 November 25, 2008 Quotethis had nothing to do with protection and everything to do with revenge. They were right to hold the wife accountable for contributing to the death. They were dead wrong to let the husband off the hook. So you were a witness?--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #104 November 25, 2008 QuoteQuotethis had nothing to do with protection and everything to do with revenge. They were right to hold the wife accountable for contributing to the death. They were dead wrong to let the husband off the hook. So you were a witness? Did you see OJ kill Nicole? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stitch 0 #105 November 25, 2008 I hate bringing up stereotypes. Especially with Obama just being elected president. It just seems the name "Devin LaSalle" screams Mandingo persuasion. If so, you could almost see how the Texas cracker husband could become enraged at the thought of his wife being raped. She was wearing a bathrobe afterall."No cookies for you"- GFD "I don't think I like the sound of that" ~ MB65 Don't be a "Racer Hater" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #106 November 25, 2008 You can dodge all you want; however, you have passed judgment on someone you have never even met and solely on a report in the media? Well done sir! What I'm wondering is what your level of education of Texas Penal Code is. The large majority of people I have contacted have learned "the law" by watching TV and what sitcom writers have told them was true. You've already said that deadly force could only be applied if the acting party was "armed." That implies anything short of a knife or a gun results in a non-deadly force scenario to you. Well, there is case law as well as penal law that shows that opinion to be untrue. I'm just wondering what sort of documentation you are going to present to show that the jury in this case acted inappropriately or perhaps they made their judgment in error. Although I do appreciate your non-legal based personal opinion in the matter, I really don't think that you nor I have the full amount of information available to us at this time to fully pass judgment.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #107 November 25, 2008 Quote That's a cop out. A deadly force scenario is if you see that the other person is armed. Quote Here's the definition. No mention of being armed. (3) "Deadly force" means force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury. Also found this useful to the argument, particularly section B. 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 (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. Source -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites likearock 2 #108 November 25, 2008 QuoteAlthough I do appreciate your non-legal based personal opinion in the matter, I really don't think that you nor I have the full amount of information available to us at this time to fully pass judgment. Perhaps not. But an unarmed man was shot and killed and there doesn't even seem to be a claim that he was shot in self defense. Why do you insist on making excuses for him? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #109 November 25, 2008 QuoteResponsibility in regards to carrying a weapon is only drawing the weapon in a deadly force scenario. Yes, but let's not confuse the situation. Once you're in a deadly force situation, and you draw your gun, you still don't necessarily have to shoot. If the offender sees your gun and runs away, you can stand down. That's one of those situations where guns can be displayed but not fired. And there are a lot of criminal situations defused in this manner. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AggieDave 6 #110 November 25, 2008 See, now you're just being mean, its already obvious that he has no personal knowledge of the Texas Penal Code or any other set of laws specifically.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AggieDave 6 #111 November 25, 2008 QuoteWhy do you insist on making excuses for him? I'm not. At no point did I specifically defend the person who has been exonerated in a court of law. I have, however, simply given example to people's quick to judge attitudes when the only information they have are a couple of media reports. No hard facts, no true information, no court documentation...nothing, just the media.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #112 November 25, 2008 QuoteA deadly force scenario is if you see that the other person is armed. And none of the reports so far support that to be the case. You're incorrect. In Texas, deadly force can be used to stop a rape, even if the rapist is unarmed. It can also be used to stop an arson, for example, even if the arsonist has nothing more than a match in one hand and a can of gasoline in the other. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites likearock 2 #113 November 25, 2008 QuoteQuoteResponsibility in regards to carrying a weapon is only drawing the weapon in a deadly force scenario. Yes, but let's not confuse the situation. Once you're in a deadly force situation, and you draw your gun, you still don't necessarily have to shoot. If the offender sees your gun and runs away, you can stand down. That's one of those situations where guns can be displayed but not fired. And there are a lot of criminal situations defused in this manner. That's what I thought. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #114 November 25, 2008 QuoteBut at the very least, you have to be attacking someone rather than just running away. Wrong again. In Texas in some circumstances you can shoot a fleeing thief, for example, at night. And the news stories differ on whether or not he was driving away when shot, or still in the car with the wife in the driveway. You keep making judgments about this case without even having a grasp of what the law says, or what all the news reports say. That's a really bad combination, and it's showing... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AggieDave 6 #115 November 25, 2008 Quote Yes, but let's not confuse the situation. Once you're in a deadly force situation, and you draw your gun, you still don't necessarily have to shoot. If the offender sees your gun and runs away, you can stand down. That's one of those situations where guns can be displayed but not fired. And there are a lot of criminal situations defused in this manner. John, at no point did I say that you had to shoot if you draw a weapon. I was taking offense to the previous post that implied that brandishing a weapon was a crime deterant in and of its self. I was stating that the generic statement was untrue and that a weapon should be drawn in a deadly force scenario or in a scenario in which the armed person believes is or will become a deadly force scenario. You know me personally, you know I have a decent amount of experience in those scenarios.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #116 November 25, 2008 Quotean unarmed man was shot and killed and there doesn't even seem to be a claim that he was shot in self defense. Why do you insist on making excuses for him? You really should read the multiple news stories which have been referenced in this thread. There WAS a self-defense claim - he acted in defense of his wife whom he thought was being raped. Why do you insist on trying to find him guilty, when a jury which heard all the evidence found otherwise? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites likearock 2 #117 November 25, 2008 QuoteQuoteYes, but let's not confuse the situation. Once you're in a deadly force situation, and you draw your gun, you still don't necessarily have to shoot. If the offender sees your gun and runs away, you can stand down. That's one of those situations where guns can be displayed but not fired. And there are a lot of criminal situations defused in this manner. John, at no point did I say that you had to shoot if you draw a weapon. I was taking offense to the previous post that implied that brandishing a weapon was a crime deterant in and of its self. That's not what I said. I said "Responsible gun ownership should include the ability to deter a crime by showing your gun and only firing it when absolutely necessary." Brandishing the gun is not a deterrent in and of itself. Brandishing the gun and having the potential to fire it is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites FallingOsh 0 #118 November 25, 2008 QuoteQuoteBut at the very least, you have to be attacking someone rather than just running away. Wrong again. In Texas in some circumstances you can shoot a fleeing thief, for example, at night. You keep making judgments about this case without even having a grasp of what the law says. That's a bad combination... You guys keep arguing. I learn a lot by looking shit up. § 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AggieDave 6 #119 November 25, 2008 Quote You guys keep arguing. I learn a lot by looking shit up. I'm not arguing, I'm pointing out serious errors. I happen to have a pretty danged good understanding of the Texas Penal Code. As well as the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Transportation Code, Health and Safety Code, Family Code... --"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #120 November 25, 2008 Quote Quote Yes, but let's not confuse the situation. Once you're in a deadly force situation, and you draw your gun, you still don't necessarily have to shoot. If the offender sees your gun and runs away, you can stand down. That's one of those situations where guns can be displayed but not fired. And there are a lot of criminal situations defused in this manner. John, at no point did I say that you had to shoot if you draw a weapon. I was taking offense to the previous post that implied that brandishing a weapon was a crime deterant in and of its self. I was stating that the generic statement was untrue and that a weapon should be drawn in a deadly force scenario or in a scenario in which the armed person believes is or will become a deadly force scenario. You know me personally, you know I have a decent amount of experience in those scenarios. What you said was correct, of course. I wasn't trying to imply that you were saying that once you draw, you must shoot. I know that you know that this isn't so. I was just clarifying your advice for the person to whom we are both responding who doesn't seem to pay much attention. I thought that HE might misunderstand your statement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #121 November 25, 2008 QuoteThat's not what I said. I said "Responsible gun ownership should include the ability to deter a crime by showing your gun and only firing it when absolutely necessary." Brandishing the gun is not a deterrent in and of itself. Brandishing the gun and having the potential to fire it is. Well if you're brandishing it, the offender is going to assume that you have the potential to fire it. So I don't see the distinction you're trying to draw. How is the perpetrator going to know whether or not your gun is loaded? Really, cut your losses and bow out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #122 November 25, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteBut at the very least, you have to be attacking someone rather than just running away. Wrong again. In Texas in some circumstances you can shoot a fleeing thief, for example, at night. You keep making judgments about this case without even having a grasp of what the law says. That's a bad combination... You guys keep arguing. I learn a lot by looking shit up. § 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; Yep. Thank you for confirming the facts as I stated them. Are you listening, likearock? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AggieDave 6 #123 November 25, 2008 QuoteI thought that HE might misunderstand your statement. That's probably right. On a side note, I've pointed my pistol at a lot more pit bulls then people. Then again, I haven't shot either, although I've tasered both!--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites FallingOsh 0 #124 November 25, 2008 Quote Why do you insist on trying to find him guilty, when a jury which heard all the evidence found otherwise? To be fair, the husband's murder charge was dropped. He never went to court. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites likearock 2 #125 November 25, 2008 Quote Quote That's not what I said. I said "Responsible gun ownership should include the ability to deter a crime by showing your gun and only firing it when absolutely necessary." Brandishing the gun is not a deterrent in and of itself. Brandishing the gun and having the potential to fire it is. Well if you're brandishing it, the offender is going to assume that you have the potential to fire it. So I don't see the distinction you're trying to draw. How is the perpetrator going to know whether or not your gun is loaded? Exactly, and had the husband showed that kind of restraint, a man's life would have been spared. Quote Really, cut your losses and bow out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 5 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
likearock 2 #108 November 25, 2008 QuoteAlthough I do appreciate your non-legal based personal opinion in the matter, I really don't think that you nor I have the full amount of information available to us at this time to fully pass judgment. Perhaps not. But an unarmed man was shot and killed and there doesn't even seem to be a claim that he was shot in self defense. Why do you insist on making excuses for him? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #109 November 25, 2008 QuoteResponsibility in regards to carrying a weapon is only drawing the weapon in a deadly force scenario. Yes, but let's not confuse the situation. Once you're in a deadly force situation, and you draw your gun, you still don't necessarily have to shoot. If the offender sees your gun and runs away, you can stand down. That's one of those situations where guns can be displayed but not fired. And there are a lot of criminal situations defused in this manner. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #110 November 25, 2008 See, now you're just being mean, its already obvious that he has no personal knowledge of the Texas Penal Code or any other set of laws specifically.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #111 November 25, 2008 QuoteWhy do you insist on making excuses for him? I'm not. At no point did I specifically defend the person who has been exonerated in a court of law. I have, however, simply given example to people's quick to judge attitudes when the only information they have are a couple of media reports. No hard facts, no true information, no court documentation...nothing, just the media.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #112 November 25, 2008 QuoteA deadly force scenario is if you see that the other person is armed. And none of the reports so far support that to be the case. You're incorrect. In Texas, deadly force can be used to stop a rape, even if the rapist is unarmed. It can also be used to stop an arson, for example, even if the arsonist has nothing more than a match in one hand and a can of gasoline in the other. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #113 November 25, 2008 QuoteQuoteResponsibility in regards to carrying a weapon is only drawing the weapon in a deadly force scenario. Yes, but let's not confuse the situation. Once you're in a deadly force situation, and you draw your gun, you still don't necessarily have to shoot. If the offender sees your gun and runs away, you can stand down. That's one of those situations where guns can be displayed but not fired. And there are a lot of criminal situations defused in this manner. That's what I thought. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #114 November 25, 2008 QuoteBut at the very least, you have to be attacking someone rather than just running away. Wrong again. In Texas in some circumstances you can shoot a fleeing thief, for example, at night. And the news stories differ on whether or not he was driving away when shot, or still in the car with the wife in the driveway. You keep making judgments about this case without even having a grasp of what the law says, or what all the news reports say. That's a really bad combination, and it's showing... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #115 November 25, 2008 Quote Yes, but let's not confuse the situation. Once you're in a deadly force situation, and you draw your gun, you still don't necessarily have to shoot. If the offender sees your gun and runs away, you can stand down. That's one of those situations where guns can be displayed but not fired. And there are a lot of criminal situations defused in this manner. John, at no point did I say that you had to shoot if you draw a weapon. I was taking offense to the previous post that implied that brandishing a weapon was a crime deterant in and of its self. I was stating that the generic statement was untrue and that a weapon should be drawn in a deadly force scenario or in a scenario in which the armed person believes is or will become a deadly force scenario. You know me personally, you know I have a decent amount of experience in those scenarios.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #116 November 25, 2008 Quotean unarmed man was shot and killed and there doesn't even seem to be a claim that he was shot in self defense. Why do you insist on making excuses for him? You really should read the multiple news stories which have been referenced in this thread. There WAS a self-defense claim - he acted in defense of his wife whom he thought was being raped. Why do you insist on trying to find him guilty, when a jury which heard all the evidence found otherwise? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #117 November 25, 2008 QuoteQuoteYes, but let's not confuse the situation. Once you're in a deadly force situation, and you draw your gun, you still don't necessarily have to shoot. If the offender sees your gun and runs away, you can stand down. That's one of those situations where guns can be displayed but not fired. And there are a lot of criminal situations defused in this manner. John, at no point did I say that you had to shoot if you draw a weapon. I was taking offense to the previous post that implied that brandishing a weapon was a crime deterant in and of its self. That's not what I said. I said "Responsible gun ownership should include the ability to deter a crime by showing your gun and only firing it when absolutely necessary." Brandishing the gun is not a deterrent in and of itself. Brandishing the gun and having the potential to fire it is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #118 November 25, 2008 QuoteQuoteBut at the very least, you have to be attacking someone rather than just running away. Wrong again. In Texas in some circumstances you can shoot a fleeing thief, for example, at night. You keep making judgments about this case without even having a grasp of what the law says. That's a bad combination... You guys keep arguing. I learn a lot by looking shit up. § 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #119 November 25, 2008 Quote You guys keep arguing. I learn a lot by looking shit up. I'm not arguing, I'm pointing out serious errors. I happen to have a pretty danged good understanding of the Texas Penal Code. As well as the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Transportation Code, Health and Safety Code, Family Code... --"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #120 November 25, 2008 Quote Quote Yes, but let's not confuse the situation. Once you're in a deadly force situation, and you draw your gun, you still don't necessarily have to shoot. If the offender sees your gun and runs away, you can stand down. That's one of those situations where guns can be displayed but not fired. And there are a lot of criminal situations defused in this manner. John, at no point did I say that you had to shoot if you draw a weapon. I was taking offense to the previous post that implied that brandishing a weapon was a crime deterant in and of its self. I was stating that the generic statement was untrue and that a weapon should be drawn in a deadly force scenario or in a scenario in which the armed person believes is or will become a deadly force scenario. You know me personally, you know I have a decent amount of experience in those scenarios. What you said was correct, of course. I wasn't trying to imply that you were saying that once you draw, you must shoot. I know that you know that this isn't so. I was just clarifying your advice for the person to whom we are both responding who doesn't seem to pay much attention. I thought that HE might misunderstand your statement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #121 November 25, 2008 QuoteThat's not what I said. I said "Responsible gun ownership should include the ability to deter a crime by showing your gun and only firing it when absolutely necessary." Brandishing the gun is not a deterrent in and of itself. Brandishing the gun and having the potential to fire it is. Well if you're brandishing it, the offender is going to assume that you have the potential to fire it. So I don't see the distinction you're trying to draw. How is the perpetrator going to know whether or not your gun is loaded? Really, cut your losses and bow out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #122 November 25, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteBut at the very least, you have to be attacking someone rather than just running away. Wrong again. In Texas in some circumstances you can shoot a fleeing thief, for example, at night. You keep making judgments about this case without even having a grasp of what the law says. That's a bad combination... You guys keep arguing. I learn a lot by looking shit up. § 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; Yep. Thank you for confirming the facts as I stated them. Are you listening, likearock? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #123 November 25, 2008 QuoteI thought that HE might misunderstand your statement. That's probably right. On a side note, I've pointed my pistol at a lot more pit bulls then people. Then again, I haven't shot either, although I've tasered both!--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #124 November 25, 2008 Quote Why do you insist on trying to find him guilty, when a jury which heard all the evidence found otherwise? To be fair, the husband's murder charge was dropped. He never went to court. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #125 November 25, 2008 Quote Quote That's not what I said. I said "Responsible gun ownership should include the ability to deter a crime by showing your gun and only firing it when absolutely necessary." Brandishing the gun is not a deterrent in and of itself. Brandishing the gun and having the potential to fire it is. Well if you're brandishing it, the offender is going to assume that you have the potential to fire it. So I don't see the distinction you're trying to draw. How is the perpetrator going to know whether or not your gun is loaded? Exactly, and had the husband showed that kind of restraint, a man's life would have been spared. Quote Really, cut your losses and bow out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
