tvc184

That is pretty much what I think. It was more likely murder but I doubt you would ever get an indictment. Texas law errs on the side of the defender and a reasonable belief. Under our law you do not have to prove self-defense. If the woman truly shot because she saw a peeping Tom only, that is murder. If the guy was breaking in or she had a reasonable belief that he was breaking in (what is reasonable is determined by a grand jury and if indicted, later by a judge or jury) it is lawful self-defense. I think it takes more than being in a yard or looking through a window to justify oppression is breaking in. But again, the burden is on the state to prove otherwise. And let’s face it, at the end a peeping Tom and possibly a sexual pervert is no longer with us. Other than his family there are probably not going to be a lot of tears shed. Had the circumstance been different and it was not a person peeping, the sentiment would probably be in the opposite direction and she would almost surely be indicted, in my opinion.

That was one of the first news report I came up on. Obviously unvaccinated have a greater chance of being more sick but in this one single news report from one limited area (and I have seen some that are a lot worse but this was the very first story in google) it shows what other reports have said, there is an increase in vaccinated people now showing up and with each variant it becomes greater. That at least somewhat matches the information from a year ago that as we progress, the mRNA might more likely do harm than benefit. And again, it may be true and it may not be true but I have read many different forums and the information is definitely out there and is definitely looked at by many people as the reason that they will never get the mRNA vaccine. When you ask for a rationale why people might get one and not the other, that is a big part of it. Is it valid? I don’t think we know yet but many people simply don’t want to take the chance.

I have read quite a bit on the second part and watch plenty of videos from people claiming to be immunologist. I was seeing almost a year ago where it said (reportedly from medical professionals) that people who got the vaccine would have a spike in the percentages of people going to the hospital who had been vaccinated. I googled this and this is the very first report I came upon. It was from a new station in Maryland it says exactly that. There is now an uptick in the percentage of vaccinated people going to the hospital. Sure the unvaccinated are still becoming sick but now they’re vaccinated starting to pile in with the rest of them. This is not new information but like almost everything with this disease, it is an all or nothing one way or the other. Many people have drawn a line in the sand and will not back off of either position. [Hidden Content]#

For one and probably foremost is, I am sick right now, I might end up in the hospital or dead and this treatment can turn me around very quickly. No matter the long term effects, without it you won’t have to worry, you might not be here. Secondly, right or wrong, you can find a lot of information from medical professionals that say the mRNA vaccine works but it makes your body more susceptible to a more serious version of the disease later. Basically it will save your life this go round but it might kill you later. I don’t know the answer to either but I think that is behind the rationale of the thought process.

It is crazy some of the stuff I was reading. And it was put out as “fact”!! Stuff like, I have a friend who has a buddy who’s a cop and he says you can shoot anybody in your yard after dark and blah blah blah…. Uhhhhhh, no.

I was reading this story on Facebook a little while ago on the KFDM Facebook website. I hope no one gets their legal advice from Facebook. It is unbelievable the amount of people that are putting out complete nonsense as “the law” says….. Not only is most of it completely wrong, some of it combined like three different laws or circumstances. Like, you can shoot someone if they’re trespassing, if it’s after midnight, and you’re in fear of your life and… Where do they get this stuff?

You do not have the right to defend your property with deadly force. That is repeated by so many people, so many times and has to be one of the biggest myths in the law. Do you have the right to use deadly force if someone is trying to kill you, someone is trying to rob you (not theft), someone is trying to break into your home, so I want to try to burn down to your home or sexually assault you. You also have the right to defend another person, even if you do not know that person, under the same circumstances.

Here is the Texas Penal Code quoted… ……to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property;and (3) he reasonably believes that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means;mor (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. You can see in the first part where it gives the crimes where you can use deadly force to stop. Almost everyone knows that you can use deadly force. A robbery, burglary, sexual assault, etc. After that however notice where it says theft at night time and escaping with property. As a follow-up to that notice there is (A) and (B). One of them has to exist to justify the use of deadly force as I mentioned. One is at the property would not reasonably be recovered by other means and the other is that you would reasonably stand a chance of suffering serious injury or death.

Trespassing? No. You can use any force necessary to remove the person from your property except deadly force. Theft? There is a provision in the law in Texas to use deadly force to stop a theft. It is very narrow however. The first requirement is it has to be at night time. The second requirement is one of two things. One is that to recover your property he would expose yourself to serious injury or death. The other is that you reasonably could not get your property back unless you use deadly force. I will give what if examples on what I think it means. First if it’s daylight then deadly force is out, period. If the theft is in progress and you see an 18-year-old kid running down the street with your property at 2 AM (nightime) it would be reasonable in my opinion to believe that you were not likely to get your property back. Of course a jury is going to sit in judgment of that. The judgment should not be what they would have done but did you come to a valid conclusion that you reasonably would not get the property back otherwise. If a reasonable person would say that’s a valid conclusion, then deadly force is an option in that situation under Texas law in my opinion. The other is the same circumstance where the person might be much bigger than you or much younger than you as an older person, etc. and you try to tackle the person to get your property back you would stand a reasonable chance of serious bodily injury or death. Again in my opinion only, that is a valid use of deadly force under Texas law. If you saw your next-door neighbor’s kid steal your stuff at 2 AM and run away, it would be hard to justify deadly force because you know who took the property. I think that goes a long way to where it is not justified in the daylight. I would be very hesitant or almost just say no on using deadly force to stop a theft in the night time but legally it is available under Texas law.

Many times it all depends on the county. by the same reasoning however, there are times when I think people should be cleared and they have to face trial because of the county. I think it is section 2.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure that says the duty of the district attorney it to seek justice and not seek convictions.

I have used this case in the past but this could be like the case, I believe in McMullen County Texas, a ranch hand beat a guy to death and was no billed. A guy working on a ranch went to his home or a guest cottage on the premises install a male Hispanic and what appeared to be in attempt to sexually assault the ran hand’s daughter. I don’t believe any assault had occurred but I suspect fled. The ranch hand chased him down and hit him a couple of times with his fist, killing him. The law allows the use of deadly force to stop a sexual assault but not to retaliate later for an attempt. There is simply no ambiguity in this part of the law. That is exactly what the father did however. I made comments and probably this and other forums that while it is almost certainly murder, he would never be indicted. And Harris County? Maybe. In South Texas Ranch country? No way. There is the saying that the old Texas law is, some folks just need kiilin’. This ranch hand was no billed within like a few days.

I will say this after my long winded explanation, she might have easily been justified. The police might’ve already came to that conclusion I will submit that to the DA. The problem is that we are just stuck with the peeping Tom as reported by the news.

Well the meme you posted said 70-80 so apparently that was the author’s cut off. You can go as low as you want to but I would venture to guess in about 80% of the people younger than 30 voted for Biden and other Dems. You can spin it anyway you want it but the 70 to 80 year olds we’re not elected by 70 to 80 year olds.

No conflict. The 80 year old people are about 5% of the voting population. 95% of the younger people who are complaining or the ones that elected them.

And I’m sure you know this answer but I have seen people at 2 AM walking up and down the street looking at open garage doors. They are obviously looking to commit a burglary. Can deadly force be justified because you believe something? They are all looking for the opportunity. Can you legally use deadly force because you suspect something?

Got to love the media. She fired several shots and it appears that at least one hit him as he died a few feet away. Ya’ think!? Clearly the law doesn’t allow the use of deadly force for a class C misdemeanor (actually it does in limited circumstances) it is a homicide. It is not legally even Manslaughter which is to recklessly kill someone. She simply shot him out of fear which is not legal. If the guy had a crowbar, had pull the window screen off or was trying to, etc., she could reasonably have been preventing a burglary and deadly force is lawful at that point. But…. will a grand jury indict her? That’s a whole different issue. She does have (I don’t believe valid but plausible enough for a grand jury) justification. The word “fear” does not appear in the Texas Penal Code but everyone says, it is legal to shoot if you were in fear. Nope. You could shoot anyone and simply say they scared me. What the law does say is that you have a reasonable belief (which will be determined by someone else) that you were stopping the crime of robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, etc. It is my opinion that legally it takes more than a person looking through a window. I mean you could say that you saw someone walking through your yard at 2 AM and thought they were going to break in and shoot if that was legal. Maybe just a neighborhood kid taking a shortcut. There has to be a reasonable belief that the crime was about to be committed. There are too many what if‘s without knowing what really happened. Was he shining a flashlight through the window and it sounded like he was prying on it? Then likely justified stopping a burglary. The problem is all we have a news media report which in many cases is almost meaningless. About the only thing we can be sure of is that the guys is dead. I have a hard time believing the DA is going to push hard for a homicide charge in this case. Maybe, but I doubt it. So this woman gets scared and killed somebody. Again going strictly by the law, if all this guy was doing was peeping, it is not lawful to use deadly force. A part of the law that is on her side is that she does not have to prove that she was allowed to use deadly force. The way the Texas Penal Code reads in self-defense is that the state (DA) has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was not reasonable. If I was a betting man I would say no indictment and she walks.

A shot at you how? If you think is in anyway had anything to do with you, you’re using way too much thought process. I quoted no one and was thinking of no one when I made my statement. I was only pondering the thought of, would smashing something prevent a suicide? You finished your statement by saying almost exactly the same thing.

Maybe we have a psychiatrist or psychologist on board. Would smashing stuff prevent suicide? I have known several people that have committed suicide but no close family members. I have seen probably more than 100 as a police officer. For many of them, i think I know the underlying issues. A few lived alone and could have screamed, smashed or destroyed anything out of anger. I don’t think smashing their cell phone would have stopped their final actions. I have no issue with this woman’s actions. If nothing else it is helping her with her own issues. Good for her. Maybe it just seems as the article and/or other woman have made this a suicide prevention. I have my doubts of that attempt.

Well, some people’s feelings get hurt….. (from the video) You’ve got to be kidding me!!!!

To some extent I understand. Tearing paper, popping balloons, etc. I am more wondering about smashing computer monitors with a baseball bat. What happens when they don’t have the smash room to go to?

Since I don’t have a smidgeon off a clue, is destroying property with a baseball bat good therapy for people who are experiencing anger?

What is the old saying about a prevent defense? It prevents you from winning.

I think it was 34-13. Scored 21 to tie, 7 in OT.

I believe 28

Lots of lessons learned tonight on both teams.