Liberal Forum

The guy in Texas is in big trouble.
The last 5 shots were unnecessary especially the last "anchor" shot.

Squatchman » 08 Jan 2023, 9:43 am » wrote: ↑

08 Jan 2023, 9:43 am

The guy in Texas is in big trouble.
The last 5 shots were unnecessary especially the last "anchor" shot.

I read the story in the Post earlier.  He may have been able to explain the first 4 but the last once was unnecessary.

Z09 » 08 Jan 2023, 9:54 am » wrote: ↑

08 Jan 2023, 9:54 am

The dead guy is in bigger trouble

 Nope. He's dead.
The guy that killed him is looking at years of trouble ahead of him.
 He wasn't wrong,up to a point.
 Once the threat was down he should have stopped firing.
His last shot will get him prosecuted. 
 

Z09 » 08 Jan 2023, 10:10 am » wrote: ↑

08 Jan 2023, 10:10 am

Not sure about that....
When you threaten someone with a gun you have a right to defend yourself....
Not sure who tells who how many times you can shoot back

For each shot you have to show you still feared for your life and the person is still a threat.  

Squatchman » 08 Jan 2023, 9:43 am » wrote: ↑

08 Jan 2023, 9:43 am

The guy in Texas is in big trouble.
The last 5 shots were unnecessary especially the last "anchor" shot.

In Texas we have an old saying;
"Don't do the crime.......
  if you can't do the time".                              

Squatchman » 08 Jan 2023, 10:03 am » wrote: ↑

08 Jan 2023, 10:03 am

 Nope. He's dead.
The guy that killed him is looking at years of trouble ahead of him.
 He wasn't wrong,up to a point.
 Once the threat was down he should have stopped firing.
His last shot will get him prosecuted.

This is how to stop all black shop-lifting.
Make it legal to shoot them, if they are stealing anything of any value.
That was the way it was back in the good old days.

Taipan » 08 Jan 2023, 3:03 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Jan 2023, 3:03 pm

This is how to stop all black shop-lifting.
Make it legal to shoot them, if they are stealing anything of any value.
That was the way it was back in the good old days.

Agree... stop the creeps. When i was a kid- We couldn't steal BUBBLE GUM! wtf?
 

Squatchman » 08 Jan 2023, 9:43 am » wrote: ↑

08 Jan 2023, 9:43 am

The guy in Texas is in big trouble.
The last 5 shots were unnecessary especially the last "anchor" shot.

The guy was 'going for his gun'.

Huey » 08 Jan 2023, 10:24 am » wrote: ↑

08 Jan 2023, 10:24 am

For each shot you have to show you still feared for your life and the person is still a threat.

If you "panic shoot" all rounds without a pause, you have fear still motivating you.
The pause to "check for survivors" is the cold blooded part... Gets frowned on.
 Of course if he has a jury full of me... leniency is still in the picture.

Z09 » 08 Jan 2023, 9:37 am » wrote: ↑

08 Jan 2023, 9:37 am

The video and witness reports show the suspect, who police say was in his 20s, wearing a black ski mask entering the restaurant and pointing his pistol at patrons and demanding their money.

What's a 13 year old walking around at 4 AM breaking into cars?
Where's his parents...?????????????

Police in Washington, D.C. are investigating after reports a 13-year-old boy was shot dead by a homeowner for allegedly breaking into cars in the Fifth District.

Metropolitan police said officers responded to a shooting in the 1000 block of Quincy Street in the northeastern part of the city around 3:56 a.m. Saturday. At the scene, officers found the teenager, who has been identified as Karon Blake, with gunshot wounds.

Poor lil angel...        13 year old Valedictorian he was...

Squatchman » 08 Jan 2023, 9:43 am » wrote: ↑

08 Jan 2023, 9:43 am

The guy in Texas is in big trouble.
The last 5 shots were unnecessary especially the last "anchor" shot.

He should have re-loaded.

DeezerShoove » 08 Jan 2023, 3:48 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Jan 2023, 3:48 pm

If you "panic shoot" all rounds without a pause, you have fear still motivating you.
The pause to "check for survivors" is the cold blooded part... Gets frowned on.
 Of course if he has a jury full of me... leniency is still in the picture.

I would be lenient as well.  

I have taught firearm safety as well as discussed castle laws/stand your ground/deadly force issues. Some states are more lenient, others not so much.  In this case he could explain the four shots.  He may have issues with the point blank shot.

Taipan » 08 Jan 2023, 3:03 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Jan 2023, 3:03 pm

This is how to stop all black shop-lifting.
Make it legal to shoot them, if they are stealing anything of any value.
That was the way it was back in the good old days.

I suppose you would just spank the White shop lifters, yeah.
That's the "Libertarian" way.

Huey » 08 Jan 2023, 4:30 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Jan 2023, 4:30 pm

I would be lenient as well.  

I have taught firearm safety as well as discussed castle laws/stand your ground/deadly force issues. Some states are more lenient, others not so much.  In this case he could explain the four shots.  He may have issues with the point blank shot.

The Jury makes the Call.

Xavier_Onassis » 08 Jan 2023, 4:34 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Jan 2023, 4:34 pm

I suppose you would just spank the White shop lifters, yeah.
That's the "Libertarian" way.

Nahhhhhh........
Let's shoot them, too.                    

Huey » 08 Jan 2023, 4:30 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Jan 2023, 4:30 pm

I would be lenient as well.  

I have taught firearm safety as well as discussed castle laws/stand your ground/deadly force issues. Some states are more lenient, others not so much.  In this case he could explain the four shots.  He may have issues with the point blank shot.

I didn't see that in a vid.
The censors were trying to not offend the "delicates" of the world.

Z09 » 08 Jan 2023, 9:36 am » wrote: ↑

08 Jan 2023, 9:36 am

Houston armed robbery suspect shot dead by armed customer, police looking to question shooter

https://www.foxnews.com/us/houston-arme ... on-shooter

https://www.foxnews.com/us/washington-d ... Washington DC 13-year-old shot, killed by homeowner after allegedly breaking into cars

bang bang shoot em up!!...I just love happy endings

Z09 » 08 Jan 2023, 7:41 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Jan 2023, 7:41 pm

Have you noticed liberals always pull for the criminals?

I sure have.
If there were just a few liberals, I would laugh it off as lunacy.
But, their numbers are so high now, that I am worried that my poor, little, 
country will deteriorate into another African **** nation.

Maybe we can work it all out.
Let's try to be strong.......& keep going forward.                                 

He was a good boy. A very good boy. He wanted to make a lowrider out of the junker truck he drove. He was only two years behind on the support payments for his three children. He was working hard his GED and told his probation officer he wanted to be a rocket scientist. He was a good boy. A very good boy.

Huey » 08 Jan 2023, 10:24 am » wrote: ↑

08 Jan 2023, 10:24 am

For each shot you have to show you still feared for your life and the person is still a threat.

Not in Texas: the word fear is not even mentioned.

""We have this section (shown below) that says deadly force is justified if a person “reasonably believes” that the deadly force is immediately necessary to protect against unlawful deadly force (someone trying to kill or seriously injury you (a)(2). I will toss this in, deadly force doesn’t only mean death but also “serious bodily injury”. So it doesn’t matter if you felt that you may be about to die as long as you reasonably believed that you might be seriously injured. You don’t have to allow someone to break your bones if it doesn’t kill you.

As to the second reason, to stop any of the listed crimes (a)(2)(B).

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 (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

Lastly…. what if someone tried to make the point that the man using deadly force wasn’t actually in danger if it appears that nothing was actually directed at him? Under Texas law, can a person use force or deadly force to protect another person that he doesn’t even know and/or who has not asked for protection?

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.

Again, if a person “reasonably believes” the circumstances would justify the use of force or deadly force to protect himself (1), then the same action would be justified to protect a “third person” if that action was immediately necessary.

To cut all of that into a simple statement…

In Texas the use of force or deadly force to protect yourself is justified if you have a reasonable belief that it was necessary to stop an unlawful attack against you or to stop any of the listed crimes in progress. The same justification exists for a third person that you may not know.""

 
posted by a law dog in another forum