tvc184

That is very true. It is also very true that Obama is very selective on his praise and outrage and most of it appears based on race or party affiliation.

Change we can believe in. I can't wait until an all boys volleyball team wins district and 22-5A. They can't even tell them to go play on a boys team because there is no boys team. In the name of equality and how we feel on any given day, an all boys team could win girl districts. And so the insanity continues........ And yes, it is hilarious.

Can? Yes. Will? Not likely if no interest by family. If I could tell you what I know from being inside of the system and seeing moral (not criminal) corruption, you might be very surprised, stunned or disgusted.

It has been about 25 years ago but I made a call one night of a family disturbance. What I found was a 25-year-old guy and his 13-year-old girlfriend (with child) living in her parents home with their consent. He had gotten her pregant when she was 12.

Here is that law on the duties of the DA in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Art. 2.01. DUTIES OF DISTRICT ATTORNEYS. Each district attorney shall represent the State in all criminal cases in the district courts of his district and in appeals therefrom, except in cases where he has been, before his election, employed adversely. When any criminal proceeding is had before an examining court in his district or before a judge upon habeas corpus, and he is notified of the same, and is at the time within his district, he shall represent the State therein, unless prevented by other official duties. It shall be the primary duty of all prosecuting attorneys, including any special prosecutors, not to convict, but to see that justice is done. They shall not suppress facts or secrete witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused.

Of course in all cases, it is the opinion of the DA that counts and what he might or might not push. The law is the same everywhere in the state however a DA has discretion on when he applies it. The TX law says that the DA's job is "not" to seek convictions but see that justice is done. "Justice" can be in the eye of the beholder. I have seen cases where the DA refused to file charges in a rural county when in a place like Dallas or Harris County would almost certainly get an indictment. In the rural county the DA might think, "The ol' boy needed killin'". One such case was the guy a couple of years ago that killed the guy he caught sexually assaulting his small child. The guy had stopped and was running away but the father beat him to death with his fist. The DA basically said, "Oh well". By the letter of the law, just like the case that we were discussing, it was probably manslaughter. In NY the DA was likely correct that the law does not allow retaliation. In south Texas............. I wouldn't want to risk my freedom on a sympathetic DA in a small county when the law says otherwise however.

In my opinion, no you can't "point" a firearm. The problem is that pointing a firearm in itself is a crime and there is no justification for deadly force for trespassing. The law does very specifically say that you can produce a weapon to try to scare a person and the production of it with that intent only, does not in itself constitute deadly force. That law says "the threat of force" is okay as long as the "force" is "justified" by Chapter 9. It goes on to say that the "production" of the weapon is okay.... but it is right after it says that the threat of force is okay if the force itself is justified. To me the production of a weapon means showing it, not pointing it. That doesn't mean that you cannot point a weapon as long as the use of it in that situation would be justified. For example if a guy is standing there with a club and threatening you, you would likely be justified in using deadly force. In that case pointing a gun would be justified as a threat because using the gun would also be justified. Since trespass never gives authority to use deadly force, I would be hesitant to point a firearm at someone. Now that doesn't mean that you cannot point the weapon for another reason. Let's play what if and say that he is trespassing but when you tell him to leave, he balls up his fists and comes at you and he is about 6" taller and 50 pounds heavier. A DA or grand jury might side with you saying that the trespass doesn't justify the use of deadly force but a guy big enough to stomp you and is coming at you does. It all depends on what the circumstances are at that moment. Also remember that in Texas, you can have a firearm openly carried on your own property anyway. Just tell a guy to leave and don't wave the gun around... but let him see you holding it. No crime in being armed on your property or property under your control. In any case, this is that law. Make your judgment accordingly. Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

The problem is that you can be politically incorrect without disparaging everyone. Illegal alien is seen as politically incorrect by some. Those kinds of people want to call illegal aliens something mellow and cuddly sounding like undocumented person. Trump isn't seen as bad for saying illegal aliens and that attracts many voters for not toeing some kind of line where no one is offended. Trumps problem would be calling them something like stupid Mexicans. While I haven't heard him use that term .... yet ..... that is the kinds of things he says that negates the attraction of incorrectness.

This has been going on. If a guy with a knife charges a cop, some are advocating that we talk softly to the attacker and show him the folly of his ways...... instead of shouting, "DROP THE KNIFE!!". As an old police saying goes about many issues police officers face, "I cannot solve in five minutes what it took you years to create".

I would like to ask this about gun free zones, background checks, carrying concealed with a license, etc., from the true believers. If a person is going to do a Capital Murder where he can get the death sentence in some states, life in prison in the rest and in the case or terror attacks or nut jobs, expects to either be killed at the scene or commit suicide, what law will stop that? Let's see..... if I carry this gun on the way to my attack, I can get 5 years in prison... maybe. More than likely it will be probation for a first offense. On the other hand, if the police do not stop me in the next five minutes as I drive to my victim's place of business, I will kill as many people as I can before the police kill me or I kill myself. Where is the rationale? I will not commit my planned mass slaughter because I am worried about probation or a little jail time? That is ludicrous. No law that says you can't carry a gun will stop an attacker that is about to violate a much worse law and not care about his consequences. That only thing that such laws stop is innocent people the right to defend themselves.

Trump might be able to win easily if he would just shut his mouth. That is as likely as me being drafted into the NBA this summer.

True that.

I think that would only matter if the Obama administration found out the gorilla was trying to use the girl's restroom on a day when he felt feminine.

As to your question of trying to break in and do you need to wait for the person to actually enter, the Penal Code states you can use "self defense" if.... (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; As you can see it says you had reason to believe the person had "entered" OR unlawfully "attempting to enter" a habitation, vehicle or business. If a guy is trying to kick in your door to get to you or your family, TX law is pretty open minded about using force to defend yourself. The idea of a person trying to gain entry is not just my opinion but spelled out in the TX PC. You will note that says entered or is trying to enter. It doesn't say fleeing after such as attempt. NOTE: This does not say deadly force and only says that "force" is justified. Deadly force is covered later but it still goes by "immediately necessary". I will bring up the case in the news a few months ago of the guy that shot and killed two teenagers (a boy and girl) that broke into his home and he was convicted of murder. He was probably justified in using deadly force but when it did not kill them outright, he put "kill shots" in them (head shots if I remember correctly) and told the police so. He was almost bragging about finally getting them. At that point it was not "necessary". He was going by his own rules of, once fair game, always fair game. Just as part of the "what if" game, what if you look outside and see it is your next door neighbor's 14 year old kid that is 5'4" and weighs 125 pounds trying to get in your home. He snuck out in the night with some friends and drank a couple of beers. Now being out of his head he is trying to get back inside of his house .... but he had the wrong one. He is too drunk to realize it. While you might get away with it by shooting through the door, the prosecutor had better not find out that you peaked outside and saw what was happening. In such a case you can stop the little kook from coming in but it would be hard to justify killing him. That is one of many examples that we might be able to come up with on "what if" situations where force might be great but deadly force will not. TX law also specifically does not give the authority of deadly force for trespassing. It says that you can use "force" for trespass and never mentions the use of "deadly force".

Here is part of what the Texas Penal Code says about "necessity" and "reasonableness" in Chapter 9. Sec. 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if: (1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm; and (2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct As you can see it says "immediately" necessary, meaning that it kind of had to be now or never. It doesn't say that a guy might be a threat five minutes from now or next week. That isn't the authority to use force which if covered later in the chapter for specific crimes and/or circumstances. That is only the beginning near the first of the chapter saying that to justify force, you must need to do so only if it is "immediately necessary" and "reasonable". Again, this section gives no right to use force, only that it must be needed to stop a threat "right now" (my words).

There is no requirement for "entry". It is the threat or the crime that you are trying stop, not when a person is standing. Of course we all hear the stories like, "A cop told my father to drag a guy inside of the house after I shoot him". Ooooookay.......... In truth moving a person at all other than trying to save his life or get him away from you would tend to make you guilty of a felony even if the shooting was justified. It is called tampering with evidence and generally carries up to 10 years in prison. I can almost assure you that you cannot drag a body without it being obvious. Those stories still persist however.

Any. Lawful force is to stop a threat or action. If that action has stopped, the force is no longer justified. It can be a punch in the nose or killing someone. The laws typically state something like "necessary" force. Then it usually adds "reasonable", meaning under the circumstances. It isn't necessary if someone if fleeing or is no longer a threat. If a guy is 50 yards away from you with a baseball bat and says that he is going to beat your brains in, I would venture to say that when he gets a good bit closer (since he can't typically hurt you from 50 yards with a club), you can probably justify shooting him. But let's say he makes that statement, but drops the bat and keeps coming. At that point all he has is his hands and while you would be justified in defending yourself, I doubt that any court would say that it is lawful to shoot him when is no really only a danger to give you a bloody nose. If you could use deadly force in such an encounter, every time two kids fight at school, the one that didn't start it could justify killing the other one. It all goes by "necessary" and "reasonable" and someone else other than you are the police is going to sit in judgment if that force fit both requirements.

We can play "what if". What if it was inside if the apartment? What if the dead guy was reaching for a knife? What if it was inside of the apartment, the suspect was actually on top of the woman, he had a gun in his hand and he threatened to kill everyone? We can toss 1000 different scenarios into it. All we have to go by however if simply the article. From the way the article states it, I see no justification to use deadly force. Now, back to what if............

Using deadly force to stop a break-in in progress? Yes. The news story said nothing about the man stopping a burglary. You are adding something that simply is not in the article. According to the story it was inside a building with apartments which is typically what you would see in New York. The article says the husband confronted the man in a hallway. Going just by that, it means to me the attack was over in the guy was leaving. There is nothing in the law that allows a civilian or police officer to kill someone in retaliation out of anger. The laws in most states generally give you the right to use force to stop a crime in progress. That use of force does not extend after-the-fact. That appears to be what happened in this case.

From the way I read it, not in Texas either. Protecting means stopping. Protecting doesn't mean retaliation. Accirding to the report, the suspect was not in the act of a sexual assault but was in a hallway. The husband got a pipe and beat him to death. That is not self defense or stopping a crime in progress. He technically committed murder but they are factoring in sudden emotion, making it manslaughter.

Hmmmm...... maybe because he broke the law?

Coons are too smart for that. They would send in the squirrels to recon.

Just supporting the rights of these poor waifs and their pursuit of equality.

I support the women in their endeavor.

Yes. I think the wings are better on Bluebonnet but I love the Twin City Salt and Pepper fried okra.