tvc184

Defense is necessary force. If you are going to include a person's morality into self defense, get ready for a lot of dead people.    That is what many Muslims are now using to justify murder. 

  Apples and oranges.   Driving a car doesn't take a two party consent to constitute the crime. A claim of sexual assault does as it takes at least two parties. 

  We always bring that up when called to some houses about their 15 year old daughter and her 15 year old boyfriend.   Really, do you want us to arrest your daughter for the felony? Nope, just the guy.  :rolleyes:

  That is correct.     Complain to your congressman. They pass the laws.  :)

  Really?   Did you read the comment that I responded to? The statement was that if I find a guy uninvited (but this guy was invited) then the answer is "guilty".    Well just like a guy standing on a porch, this kid was guilty of nothing. Apples and apples.    There was no claim that "if I was in fear of my life". The only statement was that is a person is with the daughter, guilty.  I hate to tell you but any person that is legally in a home can invite someone inside. If a guy's wife invites her friends over for a party at 3:00AM and it is keeping him awake at night, he has no legal recourse to do anything except seeking an attorney to see what kind of divorce settlement he can get. 

  As long as the other party is not "more than" 3 years older, the age of consent in TX is 14 years old.    The law does not use the term of "age of consent" but merely states the law. If a 14 year old girl has consensual sex with her "adult" 17 year old boyfriend, there is not crime. We have these cases come up fairly frequently and the parents demand the boy's arrest and we usually say, sorry but it is legal.    In layman's terms, if you a person is not more than 3 years to the day (not 3 years and 1 day) older than the other person, sex with consent is legal in TX at 14. At 13 and under it is not legal, period. If there is more than a 3 year difference in age, 17 is the age of consent.    In this case there can be no statutory rape or assault by age because the boy was only one year older than the girl. The only way a sexual assault happened is if it was by force or threat just like any other sexual assault and there is no such accusation that I have seen. 

  No, it has not gone in front of the grand jury. If you read back in the forum I have said that it is what can be proven and not what happened.   The guy's only out at this time (and it will likely be enough legally) is his daughter saying that she said she didn't know him. This guy did not confront some guy in the hallway that he didn't know in the night and shoot in self defense. He went into his daughter's bedroom, had words with the guy, went and got a gun and then came back and shot him.    According to any statements made to the police that night, he might be charged for Murder (spending 50 years in prison is not protecting your family) or he might "get away with it".    For all I care you can kill someone for kissing your daughter on the porch but be prepared for the consequences. 

  Could be?   Not even in the same ballpark. 

    Maybe you missed the point. This could not have been statutory rape or any rape/sexual assault by age. Simply put, this 16 year old girl could have consented to sex with this kid and it is no more of a crime than the married parents having consent sex.  I was only pointing out that the term of statutory rape no longer appears in TX law but even if it did, this was not it. This kid that was killed committed no crime. 

  No, it isn't. If you believe that is the law then you need to brush up on it. 

  14  is the minimum age of consent.    There could be no statutory rape (called Sexual Assault in TX). 

  ..and I replied before I saw your post. 

  And it is a good thing that statutory rape did not happen in this case nor could have happened. 

  And anyone shooting his daughter's boyfriend should expect to go to jail for murder.    Not liking someone is not justified grounds for homicide. 

  So you are saying that most Americans would agree that killing a 17 year old that did nothing illegal?    If not it sure appears that is what you are saying.

  Guilty of what, having a girlfriend?

  And in my statement you didn't notice that I didn't say that you said what you would do. In my statement I said "someone". I also did not quote anyone whether it be you or anyone else and simply made a blanket statement after reading many (hundreds) of comments on different forums.    I also mentioned "not this forum" on reading hundreds of comments.    :D   NEXT............... 

  I took it to mean that you were wondering what one country involving another meant to use on the other side of the world.    WWI in particular started in this same general area of the world when countries started arguing over territorial disputes, foes and allies, etc. 

I am assuming that this guy will not get indicted simply because it does not matter what happened, it matters what you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt.    From the many news reports that I have read, there appears to have been some kind of discussion between the two and not simply the father coming upon a strange in his home and firing. Was part of it the father confronting him and the kid saying that it was his girlfriend and that she finally admitted it, then the father killed him?    If someone says that they will kill their daughter's boyfriend because he was in their home (and not underage for sexual assault) and will let a jury punish them, I think either that will not happen and it is bravado or it the person will see huge mistake once he is no longer protecting his family as he is doing many years in prison. It is hard to protect your family when you are sitting the next 25 years in prison. In fact you will likely barely be a memory if you ever get out. So much for protection.    I agree with the statements like, "I will do what I need to protect my family". To that I want to drop down to a more teenage response and go... DUHHHHH!!!!    But was the father actually protecting his family or was he an angry father?    The evil Fox News reported that the father did not go into the bedroom with the gun. He came in to find out what happened, then he went to get a gun, then came back and got into some kind of argument. Hmmm.... does that change anything like this guy merely happened upon a suspected intruder? This case is whether the father knew who he was, if the guy was actually any threat, what a reasonable person would believe in the same place and was not retaliation because he was mad.  I am amazed looking at hundreds of comments (not on this forum) of the people that could care less about the law, what actually happened or that a likely innocent teenager is now dead but wanting to make this somehow a de facto gun rights, stand your ground or some other kind of issue.     And again, I am assuming that he will get no billed and it will end simply because most of the evidence will be testimony of he and his daughter. For all the people that think this guy did a great job remember that the dead kid looks to be absolutely innocent of everything and unarmed. I asked on another website that has way more responders than this political forum, how many people commenting have either gone to their girlfriend's/boyfriend's home and were allowed to or allowed the other person to come inside? There were plenty of comments of things like, "I plea the 5th", "yes I've done that", etc. When you see comments like, "Great job", it makes you wonder. It makes me wonder if it was my 17 year old son if it would be okay to kill him simply because the father didn't like him.  I wonder if they deserved the death sentence for having a boyfriend/girlfriend.    Everybody says let's wait for the facts and that is true but I suspect that somehow all of the facts will not come out because any of them that are incriminating will not be told.    So yes, let's protect our family. Does anyone in this forum know that is what happened? 

  I don't know, maybe WWI and WWII come to mind. 

I would like to bring up another point to ponder. This man shot an unarmed kid. To justify deadly force he either had to be stopping a crime in progress or be in "reasonable" fear of his life with a jury deciding if that fear was "reasonable". The law does not allow for retaliation of a crime that has already occurred. For example if a guy breaks into your home and you know that he is leaving, you can't shoot him just because you are mad and he has broken the magical threshold of your home.    But in this case we know now for a fact that the dead teen was unarmed.    Can you shoot an unarmed man legally by mistake?    Hmmm........   I have seen times in this forum and on others where a police officer shoots the dreaded "unarmed man". and some people are up in arms and no matter what argument is given for justification, it always comes back to, "but he was unarmed". Even fairly recently in this area the captain from Orange PD shot an "unarmed man". Many local discussion took place including on here and some people would always justify a murder charge because no matter what else, the dead guy was unarmed.    So do those feeling apply across the board? Does fear count only for people that are not police officers?    Sometimes I think public feelings are based less on facts and the law and more on emotion or political stance. 

    With "may" being a huge word. It "may" have been murder.    Also, the law does not allow deadly force to retaliate for a crime. It allows deadly force if that is the only reasonable way to stop it. It the girl is talking to daddy about a guy under the bed, it kind of negates "stopping" a sexual assault.    Therein lies the problem with speculating and not knowing or applying the correct law. One minor fact can change it from murder to a justified use of force or vice versa. 

  With the limited information about this incident, it could be anything from justified force to murder. 

I know that I hate having more options. Why trust my physician when I have Doctors Reid, Pelosi and Obama to take care of me.

.... or Obama during the campaign telling Putin on an open mic that he can work with him a lot more when he wins reelection.    I wonder how that is working out for their relationship?