Jump to content

4th and 5

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3102
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by 4th and 5

  1. 8 hours ago, Angry Gorilla said:

    My wife owns a small women's clothing boutique.  She is constantly bringing home clothes from the store that she either has to mail out, get altered or dry cleaned, or return to the designer.  Every time she takes all the hangers in the closet to hang them on her little hanging rack she uses.  Now, every time I take my laundry into the closet to fold, I have maybe 2 hangers left.  

    I've asked her calmly and politely many times and offered to buy her as many hangers as she needs from Amazon.  Yet every week I have no hangers.  Now when I confront her about it, instead of asking nicely I tell her (without raising my voice) to stop taking my hangers and to buy some if she needs them.  She then starts acting like I'm OJ with some uncontrollable temper and am about to snap at any second.  That makes me 10X more ragey than the hangers.  I would rather her look me in the eye and say "fuck you, I'll use  your hangers whenever I damn well please" than start trying to reverse the situation and act like the victim.

    how many hangers - no matter how many I throw out -  do we have in our closet?

     

    tenor.gif?itemid=10135114

     

    PM me your address and I'll send you a box full 

     

     

  2. 39 minutes ago, BearCountry11 said:

    Wife and I decided yesterday that we would go to a sports bar to watch Horns play VCU today.  I’m excited because this woman rarely wants to watch sports.  

    I get home from work and she immediately tells me she wants to go to this wine bar because she is in the mood for wine and not beer.  I’m pissed because I want to watch the game and this wine bar doesn’t have a tv (wine selection at sports bar is lacking).  After a brief argument we go to the wine bar.  We get our table and my wife orders a fucking Stella Artois.  I stare in disbelief.  

    Wife:  “well you were talking about drinking beer so much it made me want a beer!”

     

    Would you do me a favor? 

    Drag your taint across her face while she is sleeping, and then confirm the same here.

    it would make me feel better about your post.

    • Like 4
  3. 21 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

    Good call.  I do believe I want to get him an auto.  

    A Rem 1187 can be had for 500+, but you can't beat an 1100 in a 20, and your kid will love you for it forever. Or if money grows on trees why not an A5 or an M2 maybe even an SBE3. They are all lifetime firearms.

  4. On 12/4/2018 at 2:49 PM, pepper brooks said:

    Anyone got a good recommendation on a shot gun (probably 20 gauge) for a soon to be 11 year old?  Need something he can shoot now, but also something he won't outgrow in a year.  

    if you are in the Austin area:

    I've got a used youth Rem 870 wood stock in 20 gauge. $225 and proven time and time again to scare the piss out of the dove. And we can work out a favorable deal on a shitload of 20ga ammo in #6 and #7.5

    Or a brand new in box never fired Rem 870 black synthetic 12 gauge 28" barrel, he'll grow into it faster than you think. $275

    • Like 1
  5. 4 hours ago, Gene Parmesan said:

    I would guess that if he killed her under the same set of facts it would be pretty easy self defense claim on his behalf.  Killing an armed stranger that walked into your apartment/house that is.  The only thing that would make me hesitant is her being a cop, but it's not like she knocked and announced herself as police she just walked right in.

    Maybe not. Would his belief had been reasonable if she was in uniform? This would assume he had the ability to see and perceive her uniform. Or that he used force prior. Depends on how she enters. If she just walks in or is beating on the door because she can't get it to open. It is all a matter of his perspective at the time of the incident. I don't think he would get the presumption that the force used was reasonable in the castle doctrine if he had an opportunity to see her in uniform, plus he was in possession of marijuana. And I think there is doubt whether he would get the stand your ground / no duty to retreat instruction in 9.31(e) and (f) because he was in possession of marijuana....Still, he could claim self defense but would not get the benefit of the presumption and instruction.

    
     

    (a)........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.

     

     

    
     

    (e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

    (f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

     

     

    3 hours ago, El Diablo said:

    Would be interesting. I'd think there would be some questions. I mean, she's a cop. She executes warrants all day. She's trained to not just enter folks' homes without following proper police procedures. If the black guy was the only witness to the shooting of a cop I'm afraid it might go badly regardless of the circumstances or truth.

     

    3 hours ago, Gene Parmesan said:

    Yeah it muddies the waters, but the same set of facts would be under the pretense that she believes she was walking into her apartment.  So there would be no police procedures to follow or warrants to execute because she (in her mind) is walking into her apartment. 

    Agree with the above, but while the procedures would not, in fact, have been followed, it might look like they had been, or could have been argued by the state that they might have been, because with her not there to testify, their theory would have been she smelled weed, knocked on the guy's door, there was a struggle, he shot her, etc. It could be argued (logically, but wrongly) to have taken place in her capacity as a peace officer

    2 hours ago, El Diablo said:

    Wouldn't surprise me a bit if the guy was indicted under those circumstances. I doubt he'd be convicted but he'd be the ham sandwich.

    Agreed.

    2 hours ago, conVINCEd said:

    If he killed her, we wouldn’t know that she thought it was her apartment.  The facts would simply be dead white cop, black shooter, drugs found at the scene.  End of story, welcome to Huntsville.

    With her not available to testify, it's scary how this could really happen.

    2 hours ago, Gene Parmesan said:

    We wouldn't know that she lived directly above/below, was off duty, and had no police reason to be at that apartment?

    God point, but see above. The state's working theory is probably she happens to smell some green, makes contact and gets killed. Could sounds a lot more plausible than she's a dumbass and entered the wrong apartment. There may be no dispatch logs, calls for service or radio transmissions to document her police activity. I don't think the absence of this paper trail would necessarily negate action in her capacity as a peace officer, but it could certainly be offered as relevant evidence that tended to prove she was not there as a cop, but rather just going home. Along with same apartment, different floor, walking in with a bunch of personal effects, etc.

    Either scenario makes for an interesting trial.

     

     

     

  6. On 12/1/2018 at 6:10 AM, texasjacket said:

    And you would be able to sleep at night knowing full well, you let some one get away with murder? What happens when it is your apartment next time?

    You prejudge much? You think someone charged with a crime doesn't deserve one zealous advocate to counter the infinite resources of the state to prosecute? In my experience, people like you have this attitude, but when it's you or your loved one whose ass is in a sling, you whine and complain about rights you don't even have, or failed to exercise, and want a break from the system. When I spot people like you, you know what I do? I charge you an extra couple thousand. 

    Who said it was a murder? You, not knowing the facts of the case?

    Based on the evidence presented at trial, if the jury verdict is an acquittal, there is no murder. And if got a NG, I'd sleep good. Real good.

    To be clear, I said I thought the appropriate charge was murder, because her act was intentional, not reckless. And she has defenses to her conduct.....which I doubt were presented to the grand jury. The defense has no right to present evidence to a grand jury.

    We'll see if the jury finds from the evidence presented at trial whether the defenses available to her were proved by the state beyond a reasonable doubt not to apply to her conduct.

    • Like 3
  7. 3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

    I agree.  I suspect you could.  I don't even practice in the field, and I think I'd have a fair shot of it.

    I'm curious about your take if we flipped the script.  Imagine Botham comes home tired, legally carrying a weapon (this is Texas, after all), and does exactly what she did - except the shooter is a black civilian male killing a white civilian female.  

    You'd have a LOT harder time getting him off, wouldn't you?

    He would be a lot harder

  8. I’ve commented on this way back when but It takes 10 of 12 grand jurors to find probable cause.

    She will be indicted, of that I am sure, for what, I am not. If she Is not I believe the new DA will present the case to another grand jury next year  

    But it should be murder as she intentionally caused the death of another. He conscious objective or desire in pointing a firearm at him and pulling the trigger twice is a textbook murder case.

    She has the defenses of self defense and mistake of fact. Her belief does not have to be correct, it just has to be reasonable, even if it is wrong. You have the right to defend yourself from apparent danger as if it were real.

    The state, not the defense, has the burden of DISPROVING, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, the applicability of both of the defenses.

    I'm looking forward to watching this trial. I would love to try this case.

  9. 9 hours ago, Incredulity said:

     Next thing will be some asshole showing up complaining that his wife INSISTS on blowing him every damn night.

    Not my wife.........your wife.

     

    And not really a complaint, more of an observation

     

    also, user name checks out.

×
×
  • Create New...