tvc184

I am trying to get some details but no luck so far.

The way you’re asking, deadly force is usually not off of the table. I guess technically it might never be completely off the table under certain circumstances. In one scenario it seems like it would not be allowed but I guess technically even then it could. For example a man goes into a store with a gun and he’s committing an armed robbery. By Texas law anyone can use deadly force to stop that robbery in progress if it was reasonably necessary. The robber in that situation does not have the right to use self-defense and if he kills someone during that robbery, it is capital murder and death penalty eligible. In other words, he cannot pull a gun on you and when you pull a gun in self defense, he has no right to self-defense. But… What if the robber surrenders, throws down his gun and lays on the floor so you can make a citizen arrest? In anger you run up and start kicking him in the head and risk killing or seriously injuring him. Would he have a right to self-defense at that time since he has surrendered? I believe so. Texas law on self-defense says that you cannot resist arrest from a police officer even for an unlawful arrest however, you can resist arrest if the officer is using more force than is necessary and the suspect did not offer resistance. The law in Texas generally says that you cannot resist arrest no matter what, even it the arrest is unlawful (made without probable cause), unless… for example the officer says you’re under arrest and you say sure, turn around and put your hands behind your back and he walks up and starts beating you in the head with a baton. He is now using deadly force against you when you offered no resistance and you have the right to defend yourself. I have seen cases where people used force and sometimes even killed an officer and it was ruled justified. So, never say never. In the situation that you ask about, removing a trespasser, like all cases in depends. in my opinion, playing the What If game…. What if you order a man off of your lawn and be voluntarily leaves? Can you run up and start beating on him? My opinion no. He has offered no resistance and he’s leaving like you ordered. By the same reasoning, the man is voluntarily leaving and you run up behind him and try the stab him with a knife. Can he use deadly force to protect himself? I believe so. For trespassing in Chapter 9 of the Penal Code it says you’re allowed to use force to remove a trespasser. That means that your use of force is legal if necessary to remove the trespass. He is breaking the law by trespassing and has no self-defense claim to assault you. So the guy is trespassing and you grab him by the arm, pin it behind his back and start to shove him off of your property. He then pulls a gun and in my opinion he’s not justified because he is the one committing the crime of trespassing and you are using legal force to remove him. Can you then defend yourself with deadly force? I think almost assuredly, yes. At that point the scenario changes. You’re not using deadly force to remove a trespasser, you are using deadly force to protect yourself which is a different section of the chapter. The use of force against trespassing has ended and now you’re under that different section which is a threat upon your life. I guess in the purest technical sense, you could never use deadly force to stop a trespasser however the trespasser might unlawfully escalate it and you are no longer under the section of the force for trespassing but under the different section of defense of a person. Clear as mud? I could make it a lot shorter by saying that if under the law you’re legally using force in self-defense and the other person tries to kill you, you are allowed to use deadly force to protect yourself. Whether you’re using that legal force to protect your property from trespassing, yourself from assault or even another person from assault (all justified in Chapter 9), the guilty person committing the crime generally has no such right.

I would meet at Buc-ee’s just for an excuse for a beaver nuggets. Let’s see, I live in Nederland and the other person lives in Beaumont and we need to make a deal. Let’s drive to Buc ee’s in Baytown….. 😂😂😂 I noticed when people have stuff for sale online and I always think, why would I waste my time with that? Some of the stuff that is for sale I would either donate, find a friend that wants it or throw it in the trash. 🗑 Maybe they are just hurting that much for money and need something for Ramen noodles to eat for a week. If I was not in dire straits however, I would never bother selling something at that kind of price, period.

It was one or the other because I see the time of the 911 call was about 5:15 PM. It is getting very dark in the woods about that time. The likely scenarios are that she was hunting nearby and he stupidly fired or because it was getting dark, they were getting out of the blind to head for the car or camp and something went wrong. I am usually adamant about unloading my firearm when moving around like getting in and out of a blind. I might walk with it loaded, particularly in the dark. I almost always at least open the bolt before I move.

That is akin to a sexy woman walking down a lonely street at night, is asking to be sexually assaulted. To some extent that true. I get the idea that some people do things that are not smart. That does not make them on the wrong side of the law however. I am making no prediction how this will come out except I think there are politics involved but… Once a person makes an illegal threat and the object of the threat is not violating a law, it is that other person who has the right to self-defense and to stand his ground.

Going only by the video, it looks like murder to me. This was in Texas. If the husband was trespassing, the homeowner/boyfriend has the right to tell him to get off of the property and can use force to remove him. Deadly force however is not allowed to remove a trespasser in Texas. Pointing a gun at someone or threatening them with a gun when there is no lawful authority to do so is a crime. It looks to me like the boyfriend coming out with a gun is a crime. If it is a crime, that negates the ability to claim self-defense in Texas. And this is part of the wording copied from section 9.31 of the Texas Penal Code under self-defense. “(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. (b) The use of force against another is not justified: (1) in response to verbal provocation alone;” You can see that you can’t claim self defense is you: (1) Provoke the incident (2) Be violating any law except a traffic citation and (3) It can’t be in response to verbal provocation. Texas law lists two kinds of force. It can be force or it can be deadly force. If “force” only is allowed it will simply say that. The law will say something like, a person may “use force if”….. In other situation it will use the phrase that a person may use “ force or deadly force“. This is the section of Texas law on using force against a trespasser. ”Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force 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 or unlawful interference with the property.” You can remove the person by force by using the amount of force you believe is necessary. It does not use the term deadly force. I don’t know how many times I have seen people claim that you can shoot somebody for trespassing in your yard. I have never seen any such provision in Texas or any other state law. I’ve been to many calls over the years where a person was trespassing on a store property. This was after management told the person to leave and the person either refused or returned later. Apparently under some peoples’ opinion, the manager could pull out a pistol and killed a person for trespassing. Uhhhhhhh…….. no. There may be more evidence like maybe their husband called the boyfriend and said I’m on the way over to the house and I’ll have a pistol on me and I will kill you. So maybe he made a terroristic threat or a threat to kill the boyfriend. That can certainly change the outcome. Just going by the video, I don’t understand under Texas law what allows you to threaten a person with a firearm because you’re mad or because they are trespassing. What will the district attorney or grand jury do? Who can tell? I did not read the article listed in the OP but read two or three other articles how about this incident. I think it said that the boyfriend was a relative of a judge or something like that. I am thinking, uh oh, here we go with another Ahmaud Arbery like a situation where the district attorney was indicted by the state police for covering up evidence that tended to show guilt by a former (I believe retired) police officer in that same county. Going just by the video, it appears in my opinion to be murder. I would not hold my breath waiting for that outcome in Lubbock Texas however.

I am sorry to report that Ben passed away not long ago.

I would be. That’s why I said never say never. 😀 I am pretty sure that you know but I don’t go anywhere where I might come in contact with another human without being armed. About 30 years ago I was playing tennis at the YMCA in Port Arthur with another officer. We were running around quite a bit, I was lunging for balls and play pretty aggressively. At about the time we finished the other officer told me, I think it’s the first time I’ve ever seen you without a gun. I then lifted up my T-shirt and showed him the .380 that I had strapped inside my shorts. His reaction was like… WHAT!? You played all that tennis with a gun on you? Yep…

Next they will change “convicted felon” to “pillar of the community” or “politician”.

And now with the newly discovered South Africa variant……

I cannot agree with this! It’s “threw” in, not “through” in. Back to semi-seriousness……. There are two ways a robbery goes down in a case like this. One is the seller claims to be selling something like a gun or maybe even something illegal like drugs. The buyer shows up with $1000 and is met with a gun to the face and he is robbed. Unlike robbing a random guy on the street who may or may not have money, in this case you know he’s agreed to have the money in hand. The other way is the buyer is the robbery suspect. You are selling something he wants such as a gun or maybe even something illegal like drugs. The only thing is that he is not bringing money but instead bringing a gun to make the deal. So when you produce the merchandise and ask for the cash, you get a gun to the face and off he goes with your merchandise. Never say never but I am guessing that someone is not going to show up at your house with intent to grab the washer and dryer and flee. If I was ever going to make a deal at home, that would probably be it.

Here is the SA response…. [Hidden Content] Be wary of people trying to tear down a Christian church, especially during the Christmas season.

Fake news

And both probably had pressure to do the opposite.

It might be beating a dead horse but it appears that the self-defense and stand your ground situation is on the side of Arbery. I believe your statement is correct, you feel like these guys were “out of line”, is pretty much the case. When they were out of line, they unlawfully caused the confrontation by introducing the firearm when not justified. That negates their self defense but justifies Arbery’s self-defense. It really seems as simple as that.

I did not see this version until now, I saw a photo and a few seconds of video, as I said previously. He didn’t go down with the first shot (which is off camera). Nothing in that video changes my opinion. The McMichaels used unlawful force to make an unlawful arrest. EVEN if the arrest was lawful, I have yet to hear an argument that justifies using a shotgun to arrest an apparently unarmed person who is trying to escape. If the McMichaels use of force was unlawful (I think so and so does the jury), Arbery’s attempt to use force by grabbing the gun was lawful. It is he who did not provoke the incident and has a right to stand his ground. Both self-defense and a stand your ground laws say that you could not be breaking the law or provoking the incident to use those defenses. The claims of self-defense by the McMichaels or their using force to stop Arbery’s attack, would be meaningless unless the McMichaels had the legal authority to use the shotgun to stop the unarmed man. I simply cannot understand the legal justification for using force as they did and again, the state not only indicted them almost within hours of seeing the evidence, they indicted the prosecutor for a cover-up. Thank goodness one of the convicted murderers that helped cause this, videoed his own evidence against himself. I am curious to see the evidence against the district attorney. I don’t think legally it can be for just her opinion. I have the suspicion that somebody in her office turn state’s evidence that the district attorney compelled or ask them to overlook the evidence or the alter it. The district attorney was indicted for violating her oath of office and for obstructing a police office. That sounds like the police were trying to file a case or gather further evidence and she did something to interfere or shut it down.

For anyone that thinks three guys were not guilty…. Why was Arbery shot 3 times when the first shot either killed or incapacitated him? When the local DA looked at the incident for several weeks and decided that there was nothing to investigate and would not even submit it to a grand jury, why did the state police look at it for about 24 hours and come back with warrants? Why did the state then indict the DA for a cover-up?

Yes.

And I see while I was typing, the jury came to the same conclusion I did before the McMichaels were even indicted. From the photos and partial video that I saw, the first shot hit Arbery in the head and almost certainly killed or incapacitated him. I did not watch the evidence at trial but from what I understand, McMichael then pump two more rounds into him. Even assuming that everything else was legal up until that point, what justification is there for firing two rounds into somebody who has been shot the head? It seems from the evidence and their own actions, these guys had a problem and it wasn’t really because a black guy was jogging down the street who may have committed a nonviolent crime. I believe Georgia law is automatic life in prison with a possibility of parole at 30 years at the discretion of the judge only. Bye bye…… I am sure they will appeal.

I never said no why was broken. I believe the McMichaels committed the crimes of aggravated assault for trying to run over Arbery and also for pointing a shotgun at him without justification. They also committed false imprisonment by ordering him to stop without legal justification. Your question about asking a person to stop is disingenuous at best. That sounds like a question as if Arbery was walking down the street minding his own business and a couple of guy said hey, do you mind talking with us. Pointing a shotgun at someone and order the person to stop is hardly legal unless you can justify a deadly force in an arrest of an unarmed person. The then Georgia law said you had to have an immediate knowledge of a possible felony. First it was no felony but even assuming it was possible to think there was a felony they had to have immediate knowledge. They had none. They were not in the area. Immediate knowledge without witnessing it is like if you hear a shot inside of a store and a few seconds later see a man running out with a bag and a gun. It makes it look like he just committed a robbery and that would probably be a reasonable conclusion. Even if it was not, it could be a reasonable belief. The Michaels had none of that.

The only questions I saw you ask they were not directed at me, are answered. What do you want to know?

Murder

She is an attorney. Her claim to fame for the Democrats? She was on Barack Obama‘s transition team. No wonder she laughed out loud when asked on camera what Biden could do to lower the gasoline prices.

From my opinion and the officers that I have worked with over the years (over 300) have no issue with citizens arrest. In fact we respond to those calls several times a week. The thought that, you don’t do the cop’s job, doesn’t come from the police. It comes from people who don’t like people taking action. Even looking at the Rittenhouse case as a comparison, I have probably read 1, 000 statements that it was not Rittenhouse‘s business. It for the most part is not the police saying that. When deadly force is used in self-defense, I have seen several such situation where I worked, it isn’t the police that have issues. There is no indication that I have seen that indicated Arbery committed a felony. Arbery did not attack for three men. He tried to run away and had a gun shoved in his face. That was basically the prosecution‘s claim in the Rittenhouse case. Oh look, Rittenhouse attacked them. No, he was attacked. I would be stunned if the police did what the suspects did in this case. We don’t shove shotguns in peoples’ faces who are running away and have not displayed a weapon or made a threat to kill. If this had been uniformed police officers and acted the same way, they would be a huge outcry across this land.

I saw that and it is a poorly worded law. I understand the judge’s rationale from the way I generally read law. The second statement immediately follows the first making it appear as though they should be used together. Regardless of the judge’s ruling, I don’t understand how you can justify pulling a shotgun on somebody who’s running down the street, has not made a threat and has not displayed a weapon. When the gun is shove toward his face, Arbery appears to try to push the barrel away and was killed. The father and son are claiming self-defense however in this case, unlike Rittenhouse in Wisconsin, it appears that they provoked the attack. Arbery, like Rittenhouse, was running away. The only difference was that Rittenhouse was armed and Arbery was not. In states that allow such action, you can’t provoke the incident and then claim self-defense or stand your ground. If you could then a man could go into a store to commit an armed robbery and when the store owner tried to defend himself, the robber could kill him and claim stand your ground. It doesn’t work that way.