Indictment.....

[tvc184]

I have been waiting for this case to go to the grand jury so I could see what someone thinks of it. 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[PhatMack19]

I agree that he was charged.  He shouldn't have been playing hero cop and trying to save the day.   I'm not sure about the charges or what else he could have been charged with, but 2 years seems light to me.  

They should not have stole beer, but he should not have shot a car driving away from him.  If he was in danger then he had every right, but from what I've read he was just trying to be a hero when one wasn't needed.  

[5GallonBucket]

Yeah 2 years seems light to me as well.

I just love how NAACP has to always get involved.

[tvc184]

8 hours ago, PhatMack19 said:

I agree that he was charged.  He shouldn't have been playing hero cop and trying to save the day.   I'm not sure about the charges or what else he could have been charged with, but 2 years seems light to me.  

They should not have stole beer, but he should not have shot a car driving away from him.  If he was in danger then he had every right, but from what I've read he was just trying to be a hero when one wasn't needed.  

TX law does not require him to be in danger. TX law does allow the use of deadly force if he reasonably believes that there is a robbery and the person(s) is getting away with the property even if it is not his own  

What he did was probably legal except that TX law specifically states that there is no protection from prosecution if an innocent person was hit. In this case an innocent person was hit. 

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, 5GallonBucket said:

Yeah 2 years seems light to me as well.

I just love how NAACP has to always get involved.

I thought the grand jury could have come indicted him for Manslaughter. The only difference is that Criminal Negligent Homicide requires proving that he acted negligently and Manslaughter requires proving that he acted recklessly. 

 

[thetragichippy]

6 hours ago, tvc184 said:

TX law does not require him to be in danger. TX law does allow the use of deadly force if he reasonably believes that there is a robbery and the person(s) is getting away with the property even if it is not his own  

What he did was probably legal except that TX law specifically states that there is no protection from prosecution if an innocent person was hit. In this case an innocent person was hit. 

I find it very interesting how people THINK they known the law, myself included. TVC corrected me yesterday on another site. I'm going to start and try to research Texas law in what little spare time I have.

[tvc184]

6 hours ago, thetragichippy said:

I find it very interesting how people THINK they known the law, myself included. TVC corrected me yesterday on another site. I'm going to start and try to research Texas law in what little spare time I have.

What I see is they take bits and pieces of it and place it where it doesn't belong. It is like maybe the truth under a different circumstance. A person will take a sentence out of one law and place it with a section from another and come up with his own law.

[PhatMack19]

On ‎9‎/‎1‎/‎2016 at 8:27 AM, tvc184 said:

TX law does not require him to be in danger. TX law does allow the use of deadly force if he reasonably believes that there is a robbery and the person(s) is getting away with the property even if it is not his own  

What he did was probably legal except that TX law specifically states that there is no protection from prosecution if an innocent person was hit. In this case an innocent person was hit. 

Was she innocent?  Wouldn't she be guilty of robbery also by just being with them if she knew?

 

I guess his lawyers will have to prove that she knew they were going to steal the beer.  The report I read say she may have been asleep in the back seat.

[tvc184]

15 minutes ago, PhatMack19 said:

Was she innocent?  Wouldn't she be guilty of robbery also by just being with them if she knew?

 

I guess his lawyers will have to prove that she knew they were going to steal the beer.  The report I read say she may have been asleep in the back seat.

 For one thing there was no robbery. That was only a theft and a misdemeanor equal to a traffic citation. 

 He would likely be cleared for shooting the men however because Texas law says defense can be based on a reasonable belief, even if that believe later turned out not to be true. It has to be reasonable at the time you did it.  It is like a person pulling a fake gun on an officer being shot and killed. The officer doesn't have to call timeout and inspect the weapon before he can open fire. That goes to the reasonable belief.  In fact the officer in Port Arthur that was clear the same day, the man that was shot and killed had a gun that had malfunctioned and  could not fire. 

 There is no evidence whatsoever that I have seen it says she was involved in anything. She was in the passenger seat and not the driver. If you drive me to central mall tomorrow and while in there I get arrested for shoplifting, do you get arrested because you drove me there?  The obvious answer should be no.  Merely being with or near someone committing a crime does not mean you commit the crime.  You have to take some active part. 

 What active part did she take in the misdemeanor beer theft that resulted in her death? 

[thetragichippy]

On 9/3/2016 at 10:34 PM, tvc184 said:

 For one thing there was no robbery. That was only a theft and a misdemeanor equal to a traffic citation. 

 He would likely be cleared for shooting the men however because Texas law says defense can be based on a reasonable belief, even if that believe later turned out not to be true. It has to be reasonable at the time you did it.  It is like a person pulling a fake gun on an officer being shot and killed. The officer doesn't have to call timeout and inspect the weapon before he can open fire. That goes to the reasonable belief.  In fact the officer in Port Arthur that was clear the same day, the man that was shot and killed had a gun that had malfunctioned and  could not fire. 

 There is no evidence whatsoever that I have seen it says she was involved in anything. She was in the passenger seat and not the driver. If you drive me to central mall tomorrow and while in there I get arrested for shoplifting, do you get arrested because you drove me there?  The obvious answer should be no.  Merely being with or near someone committing a crime does not mean you commit the crime.  You have to take some active part. 

 What active part did she take in the misdemeanor beer theft that resulted in her death? 

PhatMack, that is what he got me on. I thought guilt by association. 

Another question, Can the guys in the car be charged with murder or anything associated to her death? My feelings would be if they had not decided to commit theft, she would be alive. Heck, had they drove her to the Emergency room or called an ambulance she mat have had a chance.

 

[tvc184]

2 hours ago, thetragichippy said:

PhatMack, that is what he got me on. I thought guilt by association. 

Another question, Can the guys in the car be charged with murder or anything associated to her death? My feelings would be if they had not decided to commit theft, she would be alive. Heck, had they drove her to the Emergency room or called an ambulance she mat have had a chance.

 

The Texas law says that you can be charged with Murder if you are fleeing from a felony and cause another person's death by an act clearly dangerous during the commission or flight from the felony. The problem is that they were not committing a felony.

There is Manslaughter and Criminal Negligent Homicide to recklessly or negligently cause a person's death but I have never seen that used unless the person actually caused the death, not merely created the situation. Those two guys didn't do anything personally that killed her death. Of course a DA can do what he wants within the law and if he gets a conviction we might get a new case law. Anytime a prosecutor pushes the envelope on meaning of a law, we have a chance of an appeals court setting a precedent on what the law means or how it is to be applied. I call it stretching the legal rubber band. 

A case law might have already been set in situation like this but if so, I am unaware of it. From my past experience in Jefferson County the former DAs have not been big on pushing laws to the limit.