Jump to content

4th and 5

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3435
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by 4th and 5

  1. That’s a QUARTER POUND of lead in the cripple’s back.
  2. the law on provocation..... The Texas Penal Code plainly provides that a person is not justified, as a matter of self-defense, in using force against another if the actor provoked the person against whom the force was used. See TEX. PENAL CODE §§ 9.31(b)(4), 9.32(a)(1). "[A] charge on provocation is required when there is sufficient evidence: Elizondo v. State, 487 S.W.3d 185, 197 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (quoting Smith v. State, 965 S.W.2d 509, 513 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998)). In deciding whether to include a provocation instruction, the trial court must "decide whether evidence has been presented that could support a jury's finding on all three elements of provocation beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. (emphasis omitted). In reviewing the trial court's decision to include a provocation instruction, the appellate court views "the evidence in the light most favorable to giving the instruction," resolving conflicts in the evidence and drawing reasonable inferences in favor of the instruction. See Smith, 965 S.W.2d at 514.
  3. did the rifle accidentally go off while he was playing with it? free money, someone take the bet
  4. What you speak of is element one (with three alternatives), there are two other elements to the castle doctrine: actor did not provoke the person against whom force was used and actor not violating the law other than class C. Also the three alternatives in element one include an attempt to commit those acts, and thus a person within the curtilage but not (yet) in a habitation could be the subject of a legal use of force or deadly force under the castle doctrine. Example: a burglar or rapist or robber on your porch trying to get in. The shooter may have a problem with provocation. Not only with 9.32(a)(2), the general rule of deadly force + 9.32(b) castle doctrine, but with 9.32(a)(1) which also requires justification for force under 9.31 (use for force), and where 9.31(b) says: (b) The use of force against another is not justified: (1) in response to verbal provocation alone. And in addition, possibly losing the "stand your ground" jury instruction in 9.32(c) and (d) due to provocation. I think the shooter made a bad call when he went and got the rifle (force), and then discharged it in the ground by his feet (deadly force). It sure makes the deceased look more like a victim who had a right of self defense. A jury might find that provocation. Or they might not. Per sec. 9.41 the jury would have to find the shooter was justified in using force (the production of a weapon, see 9.04) against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land. A jury may say that's too much. Is terminating a trespass upon land by the production of a firearm is a reasonable belief? Maybe. Is it immediately necessary? The in your face, chest bump, what looks like an attempted grab of the rifle and a verbal threat takes this from a defense of property situation to a force (or deadly force) to defend self situation. I have a lot less of a problem with the deadly force at that point. Still, the question goes back to provocation. Did he lose his right of self defense? or the castle doctrine presumption? or stand your ground instruction? Regardless, both of these guys are idiots beyond a reasonable doubt. Of that I am sure.
  5. Bentcarrot.com commercial was nice
  6. Entering or attempting to enter would arguably include a porch outside a habitation but I see no intent to do so. Which is why I said upthread that all 3 elements of the castle doctrine are problematic
  7. Well if the D is engaged in criminal activity at the time it matters for defensive use of force Here he might have been, but it doesn’t look like it was kidnapping
  8. That is not the law. It is a reasonable belief (and not necessarily a correct one) that force or deadly force was immediately necessary. It is not a kidnapping because there is no abduction, as defined by the penal code. The kid was at his grandma’s.
  9. Yep. We did Isla and Turks back to back and had a much better time at Grace Bay. But it cost a shitload more money, like 350 vs 120 for lodging and 250 vs 50 for dinner.
  10. I don’t think the property owner would be a party to the crime of Interference With Child Custody or subject to being held in contempt of the court’s order regarding custody. The dad is still trespassing. And she is guilty of the above. They are not mutually exclusive.
  11. Playa Arena is my go to Yes. Ain’t what it used to be. Early and late ain’t bad but mid day on PN can get packed. Still, it’s a great weekend getaway.
  12. 8 rounds of 30-06 typically
  13. I just crushed a Yuengling Flight ....... in 40 seconds
  14. That could’ve been the agreed-upon spot, and his entry upon the property was legal, but once the owner or person in control of the property gives notice to depart and he fails to do so he is a criminal trespasser.
  15. SHANK IT
  16. That blonde they just showed......I’d last 40 seconds
  17. 🤘RIP
  18. Mmm....this game seems about.....40 seconds longer than it should be
  19. The shooter committed a murder. Not manslaughter or something else. When you intentionally cause the death of an individual, it is murder under TPC Ch 19. The question is whether the murder is justified under chapter 9 TPC. A person may be able to use force or deadly force to protect themselves, another person, or property. You really need to analyze the facts chronologically. Some facts we don’t know, like whether the deceased was a trespasser. Did he have notice that his entry was forbidden, or receive notice and fail to depart? It is important to note that The shooter producing a weapon is force, not deadly force, per TPC Ch 9. He can probably use force to terminate a trespass. So the production of a weapon is probably legal. But the shooter just didn’t produce the weapon. Discharging the firearm in the ground is deadly force, an aggravated assault, and also the crime of disorderly conduct - discharge firearm. I don’t see any justification for that at the moment it occurred. This is significant for a couple reasons. One, if you are engaged in criminal activity, you lose the castle doctrine presumption and no duty to retreat instruction that you might have in a self defense case. Similarly, provocation, by firing into the ground by the deceased, causes the same legal consequences. Moreover, I don’t think this is a castle doctrine case anyway as element one of the defense is missing (attempt to enter or remove from occupied habitation, business or vehicle). So the shooter is going to have a jury decide his case without the benefit of the most favorable parts of the law regarding defensive use of force. And the jury can consider whether the failure to retreat was unreasonable. Basically straight up old school self defense law. Back to the chronology of the events. The production of a weapon is probably legal to terminate a trespass on land. The discharge of the firearm appears to be an unjustified aggravated assault. At that point the deceased, not the shooter, has a right of self defense. Grabbing or attempting to grab a firearm pointed at him seems like reasonable use of force in self defense, regardless of whether the deceased is guilty of provocation or not being in a place where he had a right to be or engaged in criminal trespass if that is found to be the case. It is still reasonable force if he is the victim of an unjustified aggravated assault. Keep in mind the STATE has to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that the use of force, or deadly force, to protect persons or property was NOT justified under Ch 9 TPC. It is not the defendants burden to prove his use of force was justified. I think the shooter has an uphill battle. The video makes him appear to be the first person who used force that was not justified.
  20. I got an M&P 45 for free, hadn't even bothered to shoot it for months, took it to the range and found it was damn fine handgun.
  21. If the D line has the most talented number of bodies, why not 4 down lineman?
  22. Morgantown is a great road trip whike I am in the area for Thanksgiving, I’m thankful I won’t be going to this game.
  23. god damn I love baseball NCs I'd take one in baseball and basketball if we were still Mack Brown Texas Football good but not 8-5 to 5-7 good for 10 years
×
×
  • Create New...