tvc184

A few years back there was a rash of violent crimes including murder, in PA. The community had enough! We are gathering to do something. So they held a rally at a football stadium. A few hundred people gathered, spoke of the evils of violence and how it was destroying communities. Then they prayed. And in the next weeks there was continued violent crimes. Unfortunately the violent criminals in the community weren’t at the rally. I don’t blame people for coming together and praying. Unfortunately that is where it ends probably 98% of the time. A week later a person who was at the rally might have witnessed a violent crime but now has kept quiet. If the victim lived, the police are told by the victim to not investigate it. It’s in the news all the time… KFDM was told by the police that the victim doesn’t want to press charges. Case closed! Then the community gets together and wonders why it hasn’t stopped. A simple look in the mirror might tell the answer.

The officer told me that the DA accepted manslaughter charges against both DWI drivers. I have no idea about the outcomes. Nothing in the law (obviously) goes by, it just seems reasonable or emotionally we feel that more people should be responsible. Anybody that looks at Facebook could look at any new stories and you could almost count the seconds sticking by before somebody will say, well a parent should be charged also or neighbor who knew about it should be charged or blah, blah blah. To do so there has to be a specific law allowing it. The state cannot do it, just because. I gave my cheat sheet law on Causation a couple of comments back. That is the law in the situation that allows such prosecutions. Sec. 6.04. CAUSATION: CONDUCT AND RESULTS. (a) A person is criminally responsible if the result would not have occurred but for his conduct, operating either alone or concurrently with another cause, unless the concurrent cause was clearly sufficient to produce the result and the conduct of the actor clearly insufficient. (b) A person is nevertheless criminally responsible for causing a result if the only difference between what actually occurred and what he desired, contemplated, or risked is that: (1) a different offense was committed; or (2) a different person or property was injured, harmed, or otherwise affected. We can see in (a) that a person can be charged, even with a concurrent cause that he didn’t create. It would not have occurred without his conduct. so in the case of the second car that ran over the guy, would the victim have died had that second driver not run the red light while intoxicated? Seemingly the obvious answer is no. Had the second guy not run the red light, the victim, most likely would not be dead. Then let’s take the first driver. He almost certainly did not kill the victim but had it not been for his drunk driving actions but n knocking the victim into the road, would the victim have died? Again, the answer is almost certainly no. Of course a lawyer can try to argue the point and that’s what lawyers do. The point is though that there is a law in place that says if your conduct causes a result, even if it’s with another cause, you might be criminally liable.

CHEAT CODE This Penal Code section might help decipher my last comment/questions. Sec. 6.04. CAUSATION: CONDUCT AND RESULTS. (a) A person is criminally responsible if the result would not have occurred but for his conduct, operating either alone or concurrently with another cause, unless the concurrent cause was clearly sufficient to produce the result and the conduct of the actor clearly insufficient. (b) A person is nevertheless criminally responsible for causing a result if the only difference between what actually occurred and what he desired, contemplated, or risked is that: (1) a different offense was committed; or (2) a different person or property was injured, harmed, or otherwise affected.

I have told a story some time in the past but it seems kind of appropriate for this. After I got off work on the evening shift, my best friend was working the night shift. He was on a traffic stop at a 3 way flashing red light. It was a T intersection and usually at midnight it changes from cycling red and green to all flashing red. While my friend was conducting the traffic at that intersection, he witnessed a fatal accident. The innocent victim was stopped at the light and a drunk driver hit him from behind. It did not kill him but not wearing his seatbelt, he came out of the vehicle. As he was trying to get to his feet to walk out of the roadway, a second drunk driver coming from another direction, ran the red light and killed him. A couple of points. Neither driver alone killed him. The second drunk driver would have never killed him had the first one knock knock him out of the car. Basically the victim flew in front of his vehicle. The first drunk driver knocked the guy out of the car but that did not kill him. Also, the victim was not wearing his seatbelt. So now what? Is either driver responsible because neither one actually alone caused the death. Then, had the guy been in his seatbelt as required by law, none of this would’ve likely happened other than one DWI from the first impact. The second truck driver probably would have driven past the same and nothing would’ve happened to him. For anyone? Does anyone get charged with the death when neither person’s actions killed the victim? What about the fact that had the victim been wearing a seatbelt, this likely would not have occurred? Charges? No charges? If so, on who and why (sticking with this thread)?

She came to a stop. Once the following trucks hits his brakes to avoid her, does her other actions matter? No. Her initial intentional act created the situation. The fact that she got out of her car later has no bearing.

I suppose you could write a driver a $200 maximum citation for fail to control speed if so inclined. This woman faced 20 years in prison and cut a plea deal for 5 years. So one person is convicted of a homicide and one gets a ticket. More to your point, yes anyone who commits a crime “could” be charged. In this particular case no because I believe the driver was killed.

He was likely on a fishing expedition…. AKA; looking for a DWI, drugs, etc. I never liked to get that close. It seems ridiculous to me and I am searching for a good reason and can’t come up with one at the moment. On the slamming on brakes, I was working one day when a woman in Port Arthur brake checked a guy in an Entergy truck and he stopped in time. The pickup behind the Entergy truck didn’t. It cost her a five year prison sentence. If a person intentionally commits an act like brake checking, that person will likely be held criminally responsible for an results including in this case, a homicide. [Hidden Content]

Yeah, he may have been 100% legally correct but foolish. I have seen some foolish actions (and maybe done a couple 🤔) by officers in my time. Most were technically legal but stupid. That’s when you tell the officer, you got lucky. And yes, certainly traffic laws do not apply to police officers and it is stated specifically in the law. Driving in the left lane where prohibited, on the shoulder which is generally prohibited and speeding while on patrol have laws that say it is permissible. Also parking in a fire lane for example. Emergency response requirements by the police are different than other emergency vehicles.

You can do whatever you want. 🤔 A folly is believing that because a person knows a law on a particular topic, it somehow equals all laws on that topic. An example I have used in the past, I have seen people in a couple of different forums say that the police can do nothing to you for driving in the left lane if there is no sign forbidding it. They are absolutely correct!! Well, assuming a person is only asking about that particular law that in chapter 544 on signs. However…. there was another traffic law in a different chapter that says: Sec. 545.051. DRIVING ON RIGHT SIDE OF ROADWAY. (b) An operator of a vehicle on a roadway moving more slowly than the normal speed of other vehicles at the time and place under the existing conditions shall drive in the right-hand lane available for vehicles, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, unless the operator is: (1) passing another vehicle; or (2) preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway. Oh there is a different law about lanes? Like one that could get me arrested and my vehicle towed? That is not what I saw on Facebook! This law doesn’t mention speed limits. I have often heard the comment and as long as I’m going the speed limit I can drive anywhere I wish. Ooookay… This law says if you’re going slower than the other vehicles at that time and place, get out of the way. Basically, if people are passing you on the right, you are probably violating a lane law. But that was just for an example. So roll the dice and try your gambit. Caveat: The above is intended for humor however the laws cited are actual laws.

That would work…. Up until he arrested you for obstructing a passageway.

Who knows? Maybe going to an emergency call and didn’t want to use his emergency equipment. Police are exempt from using siren and/or lights when responding to an emergency and speed limits at any time while on patrol whereas other vehicles are not. There wasn’t much you could do if you were stuck in traffic. Or maybe he had a bad day…..

Reading on another forum… Apparently, the police did not recommend charges. The former district attorney did not prosecute. At that point you would think he was cleared and normally that is true. In comes a new DA who makes it a point to push the case where the defendant has already been cleared. Certainly that is legal but has it really done that way? Once the case has been investigated and the accused person should cleared, unless new evidence comes up, it is considered closed. If those things are true, that the police did not recommend charges and the former DA did not seek charges, it appears this is nothing but a political indictment. It is the same as with the George Zimmerman and the Kyle Rittenhouse prosecutions. The evidence simply did not back up convictions on those charges yet in the big media cases, the prosecution went forward against the evidence. The US DOJ did the same in the Michael Brown, “hands up don’t shoot” false accusations but fortunately even they could not come up with enough evidence to go forward.

In thought that I was going to have to explain anatomy…..

I knew of the case but haven’t followed any news. Here is a lesson, don’t go to Austin and expect justice.

Prognosticating? Foreshadowing? They could not find a 45 star flag?

That’s why I cryptically said that if LFR’s answer (no mother) was not correct then the final Jeopardy answer wouldn’t be true. 🤔🙃

You’re all around it…… 🤔

1. Did he break any rules? 2. Have other justices done or were allowed to the same consideration?

Because if this was not true, the other answer can’t be either.

I am assuming that is part of the answer however.

In a timely fashion, the Beaumont Enterprise in my email headlines to says: Teens arrested for breaking and entering Hotel Beaumont Ooookay…. Arrested for Breaking and Entering. Well, they do say that in the movies. I guess reporters aren’t actually supposed to report. Then you go on to read the article, and it does not even mention burglary (B&E). The police, according to the article, said that going inside the old Hotel Beaumont is Trespassing. Not a question but a legal point, entering a location unlawfully can Trespassing or Burglary. It comes down to intent. For example: A burglary is entering a location not open to the public with intent to: 1. Commit a theft 2. Commit a felony or; 3. Commit an assault. Burglary is an “intent” (my description) crime. If you enter a location, it does not matter if you actually completed the theft or committed a felony or assault. If you intended to do it, the crime has been completed. Trespass has no required intent except to enter. Let’s say a homeless guy entered the old Hotel Beaumont in order to find a place to sleep to get out of the weather. He might’ve actually broken in by smashing a door. It is still not Burglary because there was no intent to do anything other than sleep. In another scenario, a guy goes to see his ex-girlfriend. He is arguing with her through an open front door of the house with her inside and him outside. She finally tells him to leave and start to shut the door. The guy puts his hand up to stop the door and reaches through with the other hand and slap her in the face and then leaves. In the two scenarios, the guy that caused damage to the hotel by smashing open door, then going completely inside to sleep, is guilty of class B misdemeanor Trespassing and has a maximum sentence of six months in jail. The guy that only stuck his arm through an open door and caused no damage to the home, is guilty of Burglary of a Habitation and has a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. That is because he “entered” with intent to commit an assault. Entry does not require a person to be completely inside but any part of the body or something attached to the body. To go a step further and play “what if”…. In the exact same scenario between the boyfriend and girlfriend, as she is closing the door, he reaches his hand through but this time has a knife in his hand and says “I’ll kill you”. He then leaves without injuring her. In that case, the guy entered with an intent to commit a felony, Aggravated Assault (displays a deadly weapon). So the guy caused no damage (the girlfriend opened the door), entered only with his hand and did not actually injure her. Oops, he could be looking at 99 years in prison. Here is the article from the Beaumont Enterprise but it might require a subscription to read. [Hidden Content]

Sometimes there is a lack of knowledge between the way people use words or phrases and the legal definitions of the words or phrases. It is like someone saying, my house got robbed. Legally that is impossible. In fact rob is used often by people to describe any theft or burglary, which it isn’t. I see on social media forums all the time people say something like, I was robbed. They then go on to say that when they woke up to go to work the next morning, somebody had taken their child’s bicycle. I understand the vernacular but it is Theft, not Robbery Here are the crimes listed. Burglary is a felony. It is what many (most?) states call Breaking and Entering (or the movie cops, B&E). Entering a closed business or a residence, usually by force (not against a person but prying open doors, shattering windows, etc.) is a serious and dangerous crime. Robbery is a criminal of violence. It is a theft with an assault. Think of a person pointing a gun and demanding money. Theft is just stealing. It is often called things like shoplifting. Like slide something into your pocket at a store and walk out. Legally there is a huge difference in what constitutes those crimes. So if people are escaping with property from a burglary or robbery (serious felonies) AND you have the “reasonable belief” that the force used was “immediately necessary” to recover your property, deadly force may be lawful. Theft does not include unlawful entry such as breaking into a closed business and it does not cover the use of force as in a robbery. In fact, there is no such crime as theft in the nighttime. There is just Theft. Obviously there is no justification for shooting a shoplifter from a store (Theft). Like, a guy stole a bag of Fritos so I shot him. Uhhhh, no. The law views stealing at nighttime differently. Basically Texas law allows the use of deadly force to protect property if you are stopping someone from getting away with your property if there’s a reasonable believe that you can’t recover the property later OR if trying to recover it would reasonably expose the victim to a substantial risk of serious injury. I can only speculate on the force for Theft but only committed at night. I believe that it probably has something to do with it being the nighttime/dark. A person is probably less likely to be able to identify the person/suspect at night and to run into the dark to chase someone might expose them to additional risks. The Texas legislature many decades ago decided that they Theft does not authorize deadly force but theft at nighttime and a person escaping with the property, may. Like the law… Hate the law… Agree or disagree… For now, I posted the current law.

This is the law: …to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, {or} theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; It shows that any of the following are justification. Robbery or Aggravated Robbery or Burglary or Theft during the nighttime. The key word is “or”. Each of those crimes stands alone as justification for the use of deadly force IF escaping with property and IF the other requires are met.

Nope, that is not correct.

That is correct. For those that may not know, acting in “loco parentis” is Latin for in place of the parents. The law in use of force on a child actually says by the parent or a person acting in loco parentis.