Jump to content

4th and 5

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3405
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by 4th and 5

  1. They’re good. They have done high profile cases. Like Waco bikers. maybe they are not the best at proofreading press releases though.... Totally agree
  2. I think I can still make it but you better hold on tight
  3. The weather's getting right fellas. It's time to burn up some vacation days on Monday and Tuesday and hit the surf.
  4. Nice. I love the Eotech with flip to side magnifier set up. I have the trifecta. My Garand is the CMP Special, completely restored, she's a beauty
  5. 1500 pound car? Yes. I deleted my Facebook because I was involved in a matter that became public and I didn't want weirdos bothering me. I think you need more to prove there was a smoking gun of civil liability on social media to get far with jury on a spoliation charge. Criminally, no, I don't. It has to be evidence in the case. A record, document or thing. Not an opinion posted on social media. Like I said, a video of the crime is one thing. An espoused hatred for BLM, or a profound affection for the Orange Man is another matter. Yes, if it has nothing to do with the crime, or it was done before there was an investigation of which D was aware. So deleting videos of you with your 12 year old girlfriend, knowing the law is hot on your trail, is tampering with evidence.
  6. That’s a stretch. It has to be evidence of the crime. Deleting your social media to prevent everyone from knowing to what extent you have used the First Amendment to reveal how much of an asshole you are won’t count. Deleting your Facebook live video of committing a murder might be a different story.
  7. There are multiple instances of “that’s not the law” in this post. Try quoting the Penal Code if you want to talk about the law, or better yet, leave the law to the lawdawgs Yeah, me too. All of that BT see the disorderly conduct statute as it related to firearms, it’ll help you wrap your mind around the legal issues Tha’s utter bullshit number one and number two you couldn’t cite relevant precedent if your life depended on it Counselor, the time you argue with burnteyes about the law is time you will never get back Stay in your lane, you’re a legal lightweight compared to Dahobbs Once again see DOC-firearm for clarity. There is no inherent conflict with carrying long gun legally and someone else’s reasonable belief that force or deadly force is immediately necessary. Once you enter into “a manner calculated to alarm” which I would consider “low ready” to be among those circumstances, you enter the realm of circumstances where another might feel self defense or defense of another is justified, and you may get your ticket punched like Garrett did The carrying of handguns is government by another chapter of the Penal Code and you must have it holstered unless the use of force is justified, or you are on your own premises, and there are other exceptions like range, hunting, etc. But you cannot walk around in public with an unholstered handgun, with or without an LTC.
  8. well post it, or DM me
  9. Kelly Parks?
  10. It is the STATE'S burden to DISPROVE, beyond a reasonable doubt, the justification of self defense or defense of another. Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) 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: (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used: (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or (C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery; (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used. 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. (b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor: (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used: (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or (C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B); (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used. (c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section. (d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat. ======= FYI for the provocation issue, see TPC 9.31(b) Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (b) The use of force against another is not justified: (1) in response to verbal provocation alone; (2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c); (3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other; (4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless: (A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and (B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or (5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was: (A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or (B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05. Provoking the difficulty means….. “(1)....defendant did some act or used some words which provoked the attack on him, (2) that such act or words were reasonably calculated to provoke the attack, and (3) that the act was done or the words were used for the purpose and with the intent that the defendant would have a pretext for inflicting harm upon the other .” Smith v State, 965 S.W.2d 509, 513 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998)
  11. He was driving a Prius. That's all you needed to know. Also, only the elite law enforcement officers from the Texas Department of Public Safety are allowed to shoot out tires.
  12. In all seriousness I doubt this is justified under defense of self, defense of another or force authorized to make an arrest. See TPC 9.51
  13. Horrible takes. This is clearly not the law in Texas.
  14. Exactly. Open carry in anything other than a rural area or on ones own premises is stupid. It invites confrontation and gives away tactical advantage. Also so many of these mall cop types fail to realize that even in the case of justified deadly force as against an attacker, it is no justification at all to innocent bystanders.
  15. Agreed. You’re crawfishing now. but I agree with your statement In this case
  16. My statement of the law remains true, yours may not be under limited circumstances It’s comsidered an aggravated assault for which deadly force may be used in defense of self or another Did he? Maybe. Maybe not. The question is probably better phrased as did he assault Garrett? While Garrett may be able to use force, or deadly force, to protect himself, that does not appear to be the case as he was to the side of the vehicle. Did he have a reasonable belief that his use of force (the production of a firearm) was immediately necessary to protect another? Or is he just rolling up on a driver surrounded by protesters banging on the car with an AK at low ready, at best? Exactly. You see what burnt eyes cannot see. Imagine the church shooter fleeing the church. Ch 9 of the Penal Code could justify deadly force without the “Good Samaritan” being personally threatened. Which is exactly what happened. And 9.51 clearly does do for the police. Exactly. Provocation is the word you are looking for and it’s has a specific meaning under the law that’s is submitted in the jury charge. It’s calculated and intentitional for the purpose of claiming self defense. Not just a guy said fuck you first. It means more than that.
  17. Actually, in limited circumstances you could. So can law enforcement
  18. Looks like Garrett found the trouble he was looking for.
  19. Jesus. That’s not a low speed collision. Doesn’t look like speed that would be appropriate for making a turn into the Sanctuary, either. I’m thinking the tox report of the driver might be probative.
  20. It sure is easy to lose your bearings. I run early and late in the dark but only on a previously run recent track, with a light, and at the slowest speed my boat can plane out. I highly recommend the Motion X app as it has many choices of aerial photo “layovers” that aid navigation at night greatly.
  21. Do you have pics or can you describe the boat? I saw an SCB operating in a questionable manner in POC on 7/17
  22. SCB running the ICW at midnight ran into the wall at Sanctuary, one dead multiple hurt.
  23. Patricia rep’d the McCarty boys on charges heavier than a theft by check and the like.
×
×
  • Create New...