Local Murders

[5GallonBucket]

3 hours ago, tvc184 said:

I asked that in the other thread… is Beaumont a small town? 

Village mills.  Labelle. Stowell doucette 

[tvc184]

39 minutes ago, 5GallonBucket said:

Village mills.  Labelle. Stowell doucette 

I don’t think those are even towns or cities as Texas calls them..  

[BEARCPA]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

local attorney backs up what @tvc184 explained earlier in the thread

[thetragichippy]

Even if justified, shooting someone will be the worst experience of your life...the waiting to be cleared, the expense if you have to defend yourself.....the fact you ended a life.......

Hell of a responsibility carrying a weapon. 

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, thetragichippy said:

Even if justified, shooting someone will be the worst experience of your life...the waiting to be cleared, the expense if you have to defend yourself.....the fact you ended a life.......

Hell of a responsibility carrying a weapon. 

Yep. 

Assuming it was justified, making no judgment since I have no clue what actually happened…..

Hopefully it won’t cost anything or won’t cost much. The police department might turn the completed investigation over to the DA and a No Bill will follow from the grand jury. Case closed.

To show how this might play out and how important the facts or what can be proven are….

 There are several ways this could have taken place. I am going to give couple of situations and my conclusion about this case… which might have nothing to do with what actually happened. This is also why speculation might be fun and interesting in a forum but the outcome might be completely different from what people believe it should be on either side.

Remembering that deadly force to prevent the theft of property can only be used if the property was taken in a Robber/Aggravated Robbery, Burglary or a theft during the nighttime. Then toss in the other requirements of a reasonable belief by the shooter that the property would not likely be recovered, etc.

These will all assume that deadly force was used. It also might be looked upon as a warning on how close situations are where one might be justified and the other might send you to prison for life. 

1. A guy sees someone stealing his car and as the person drives away. It is just a theft (called Unauthorized Use of Vehicle).  Unjustified.

2. A guy I see someone stealing his car and runs to stop him. The car thief then tells the owner, if you try to stop me, I’m gonna beat you like a red-headed step child. He then tries to drive away. The threat of injury made the Theft into Robbery. Justified. 

3. I guy enters a car trying to steal it. He sees the owner coming out and runs to get away and leaves the car but grabs a cell phone off the seat. It is only two misdemeanors, Burglary of Vehicle and Theft. Unjustified. 

4. The exact same scenario as number 3 but as the thief turns to run away with a cell phone, he runs into a 70 year old woman, knocking her down and causing a small scratch on her elbow. Recklessly running into the woman while getting away with property and causing injury to a person or 65 years of age or older, it became Aggravated Robbery (up to 99 years in prison). Probably Justified. 

 5. The same scenario as number 4 however after taking a couple of steps, the thief throws down the cell phone where the owner can clearly see it. He then runs into the 70 year old woman and causes the minor injury. Once the thief, abandon the property, it is no longer a Robbery or Aggravated Robbery (by age) since he is no longer trying to maintain control over the property when he made the threat or caused the injury. He has committed the two misdemeanors as previously mentioned and the additional crime of Injury to an Elderly Individual (a felony) but those are not among the only four crimes justifying deadly force for property. Unjustified.

Anyone see how close one situation is to the other? In one he dropped the cell phone and the other he kept it. In one he did not run into anyone recklessly and then the other he did. In one he drove away with the car but in another, he made a threat to kick a guy’s butt before driving away.

On the one hand, it is fairly easy to say, I have no sympathy for a thief. I have sympathy for his family because they did not cause it.

On the other hand, in an emotional situation of you being the victim of a crime, shooting might be justified yet a small change in the situation/facts might cause you years in prison and your family left wondering what to do.

[5GallonBucket]

2 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Yep. 

Assuming it was justified, making no judgment since I have no clue what actually happened…..

Hopefully it won’t cost anything or won’t cost much. The police department might turn the completed investigation over to the DA and a No Bill will follow from the grand jury. Case closed.

To show how this might play out and how important the facts or what can be proven are….

 There are several ways this could have taken place. I am going to give couple of situations and my conclusion about this case… which might have nothing to do with what actually happened. This is also why speculation might be fun and interesting in a forum but the outcome might be completely different from what people believe it should be on either side.

Remembering that deadly force to prevent the theft of property can only be used if the property was taken in a Robber/Aggravated Robbery, Burglary or a theft during the nighttime. Then toss in the other requirements of a reasonable belief by the shooter that the property would not likely be recovered, etc.

These will all assume that deadly force was used. It also might be looked upon as a warning on how close situations are where one might be justified and the other might send you to prison for life. 

1. A guy sees someone stealing his car and as the person drives away. It is just a theft (called Unauthorized Use of Vehicle).  Unjustified.

2. A guy I see someone stealing his car and runs to stop him. The car thief then tells the owner, if you try to stop me, I’m gonna beat you like a red-headed step child. He then tries to drive away. The threat of injury made the Theft into Robbery. Justified. 

3. I guy enters a car trying to steal it. He sees the owner coming out and runs to get away and leaves the car but grabs a cell phone off the seat. It is only two misdemeanors, Burglary of Vehicle and Theft. Unjustified. 

4. The exact same scenario as number 3 but as the thief turns to run away with a cell phone, he runs into a 70 year old woman, knocking her down and causing a small scratch on her elbow. Recklessly running into the woman while getting away with property and causing injury to a person or 65 years of age or older, it became Aggravated Robbery (up to 99 years in prison). Probably Justified. 

 5. The same scenario as number 4 however after taking a couple of steps, the thief throws down the cell phone where the owner can clearly see it. He then runs into the 70 year old woman and causes the minor injury. Once the thief, abandon the property, it is no longer a Robbery or Aggravated Robbery (by age) since he is no longer trying to maintain control over the property when he made the threat or caused the injury. He has committed the two misdemeanors as previously mentioned and the additional crime of Injury to an Elderly Individual (a felony) but those are not among the only four crimes justifying deadly force for property. Unjustified.

Anyone see how close one situation is to the other? In one he dropped the cell phone and the other he kept it. In one he did not run into anyone recklessly and then the other he did. In one he drove away with the car but in another, he made a threat to kick a guy’s butt before driving away.

On the one hand, it is fairly easy to say, I have no sympathy for a thief. I have sympathy for his family because they did not cause it.

On the other hand, in an emotional situation of you being the victim of a crime, shooting might be justified yet a small change in the situation/facts might cause you years in prison and your family left wondering what to do.

Geees

Who created all this red tape for victim.

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, 5GallonBucket said:

Geees

Who created all this red tape for victim.

It’s not red tape.

The issue is not self defense laws but how other laws change the outcome and people’s understanding of those laws. 

For example, theft plus assault equals robbery. If you slap a person, it’s misdemeanor assault. If you steal a loaf of bread, it’s a misdemeanor theft. If you slap a person while trying to steal bread, it’s a robbery.

Robbery can possibly justify deadly force. Stealing bread or slapping someone can’t.

So the law on self defense is that you can use deadly force to stop a person escaping with property from a robbery. That’s simple enough and that isn’t red tape.

BUT… WAS THE PERSON ACTUALLY COMMITTING A ROBBERY??

 The problem is the ignorance (not stupidity) of the public on what are the elements of a particular crime is. It comes from things like people commonly call a theft, a robbery. I have seen people complain like, I was robbed last night. While we were sleeping somebody came in my yard and took one of my wife’s pot plants. The problem is that is isn’t a robbery. It is a theft or the equivalent of a traffic citation. 

So if a person doesn’t get someone’s long winded explanations and heard, you can use deadly force to stop a robbery, what does that person think? He might think that if he sees a person taking something from his yard, he can come out shooting.

Nope. The law is not complicated. A substantial percentage of the people are ignorant of criminal law though. 

 

 

[CardinalBacker]

I blame the owner for buying a Charger in the first place… we all knew what was going to happen. 

[5GallonBucket]

6 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Yep. 

Assuming it was justified, making no judgment since I have no clue what actually happened…..

Hopefully it won’t cost anything or won’t cost much. The police department might turn the completed investigation over to the DA and a No Bill will follow from the grand jury. Case closed.

To show how this might play out and how important the facts or what can be proven are….

 There are several ways this could have taken place. I am going to give couple of situations and my conclusion about this case… which might have nothing to do with what actually happened. This is also why speculation might be fun and interesting in a forum but the outcome might be completely different from what people believe it should be on either side.

Remembering that deadly force to prevent the theft of property can only be used if the property was taken in a Robber/Aggravated Robbery, Burglary or a theft during the nighttime. Then toss in the other requirements of a reasonable belief by the shooter that the property would not likely be recovered, etc.

These will all assume that deadly force was used. It also might be looked upon as a warning on how close situations are where one might be justified and the other might send you to prison for life. 

1. A guy sees someone stealing his car and as the person drives away. It is just a theft (called Unauthorized Use of Vehicle).  Unjustified.

2. A guy I see someone stealing his car and runs to stop him. The car thief then tells the owner, if you try to stop me, I’m gonna beat you like a red-headed step child. He then tries to drive away. The threat of injury made the Theft into Robbery. Justified. 

3. I guy enters a car trying to steal it. He sees the owner coming out and runs to get away and leaves the car but grabs a cell phone off the seat. It is only two misdemeanors, Burglary of Vehicle and Theft. Unjustified. 

4. The exact same scenario as number 3 but as the thief turns to run away with a cell phone, he runs into a 70 year old woman, knocking her down and causing a small scratch on her elbow. Recklessly running into the woman while getting away with property and causing injury to a person or 65 years of age or older, it became Aggravated Robbery (up to 99 years in prison). Probably Justified. 

 5. The same scenario as number 4 however after taking a couple of steps, the thief throws down the cell phone where the owner can clearly see it. He then runs into the 70 year old woman and causes the minor injury. Once the thief, abandon the property, it is no longer a Robbery or Aggravated Robbery (by age) since he is no longer trying to maintain control over the property when he made the threat or caused the injury. He has committed the two misdemeanors as previously mentioned and the additional crime of Injury to an Elderly Individual (a felony) but those are not among the only four crimes justifying deadly force for property. Unjustified.

Anyone see how close one situation is to the other? In one he dropped the cell phone and the other he kept it. In one he did not run into anyone recklessly and then the other he did. In one he drove away with the car but in another, he made a threat to kick a guy’s butt before driving away.

On the one hand, it is fairly easy to say, I have no sympathy for a thief. I have sympathy for his family because they did not cause it.

On the other hand, in an emotional situation of you being the victim of a crime, shooting might be justified yet a small change in the situation/facts might cause you years in prison and your family left wondering what to do.

See bold….underline

[5GallonBucket]

Should make a class on penal code mandatory in high school.

as well as home ec and money/math(budgeting)

[5GallonBucket]

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

It’s not red tape.

The issue is not self defense laws but how other laws change the outcome and people’s understanding of those laws. 

For example, theft plus assault equals robbery. If you slap a person, it’s misdemeanor assault. If you steal a loaf of bread, it’s a misdemeanor theft. If you slap a person while trying to steal bread, it’s a robbery.

Robbery can possibly justify deadly force. Stealing bread or slapping someone can’t.

So the law on self defense is that you can use deadly force to stop a person escaping with property from a robbery. That’s simple enough and that isn’t red tape.

BUT… WAS THE PERSON ACTUALLY COMMITTING A ROBBERY??

 The problem is the ignorance (not stupidity) of the public on what are the elements of a particular crime is. It comes from things like people commonly call a theft, a robbery. I have seen people complain like, I was robbed last night. While we were sleeping somebody came in my yard and took one of my wife’s pot plants. The problem is that is isn’t a robbery. It is a theft or the equivalent of a traffic citation. 

So if a person doesn’t get someone’s long winded explanations and heard, you can use deadly force to stop a robbery, what does that person think? He might think that if he sees a person taking something from his yard, he can come out shooting.

Nope. The law is not complicated. A substantial percentage of the people are ignorant of criminal law though. 

 

 

I agree with that

myself included🤷‍♂️
 And I have the texas penal code book. (2014..I think)

I started reading it back then , but gave up and it sat in the back window of my work car for years. Now that I’m thinking about it I don’t know what happen to it.

[LumRaiderFan]

47 minutes ago, 5GallonBucket said:

Should make a class on penal code mandatory in high school.

as well as home ec and money/math(budgeting)

Took home economics in 8th grade, it was mandatory.

Dating myself, lol.

[tvc184]

3 hours ago, 5GallonBucket said:

I agree with that

myself included🤷‍♂️
 And I have the texas penal code book. (2014..I think)

I started reading it back then , but gave up and it sat in the back window of my work car for years. Now that I’m thinking about it I don’t know what happen to it.

You probably already have it but if not and you want to look up laws, read the entire Penal Code or search, this is most laws in Texas including the Constitution.

 The search feature is great but like all searches, knowing key words to search helps. If you search “stop” in the Transportation Code, you might get hits in 50 different chapters.

Searching a word like “interference” in the Penal Code might give 10 chapters with hits but I can quickly spot Chapter 38 Obstructing Governmental Operations which is what I am usually looking for in the crime Interference With Public Duties (which is a little known but interesting law).

On another note, since the legislature ended in May but add on a couple of special sessions, many new laws will go into effect on September 1 and they will not be in the codes  

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[tvc184]

3 hours ago, 5GallonBucket said:

Should make a class on penal code mandatory in high school.

as well as home ec and money/math(budgeting)

I wouldn’t disagree. I might rather a basic law class on constitutional law/case laws, why the Constitution was actually created and the intent of the final result, why and how it sets up the country, especially the policies powers of the Tenth Amendment, etc.

Dual sovereignty alone might be (probably) unknown to most people yet we have had a big news story recently in this area that involves dual sovereignty. I would bet money that even for people who are familiar with the case, they might know the outcome but will have no clue as to why.

Laws change but how it works doesn’t. 

[tvc184]

4 hours ago, 5GallonBucket said:

See bold….underline

It goes into ignorance of the law is no defense to prosecution.

A law says, you can use self defense if crime A is happening but not crime B. You use self defense and when the police ask you why, you say that I was defending myself from crime A. Then the police say, crime A never happened, crime B did. 

Oops! My bad!, isn’t going to help. 

[bullets13]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[CardinalBacker]

15 hours ago, bullets13 said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

I wonder if he’ll get that bond reduced to 100k, too? 

[CardinalBacker]

On 8/2/2023 at 12:24 AM, tvc184 said:

I wouldn’t disagree. I might rather a basic law class on constitutional law/case laws, why the Constitution was actually created and the intent of the final result, why and how it sets up the country, especially the policies powers of the Tenth Amendment, etc.

Dual sovereignty alone might be (probably) unknown to most people yet we have had a big news story recently in this area that involves dual sovereignty. I would bet money that even for people who are familiar with the case, they might know the outcome but will have no clue as to why.

Laws change but how it works doesn’t. 

The sad thing is that the people who need that education the most are ones least capable of grasping the concepts. 
 

I used to always say that a human life wasn’t worth as much in the Middle East or Africa… but now there are a lot of communities in the USA where a human life is worth no more than a parking spot, quarter ounce of weed, or some other perceived slight or insult. 

[SmashMouth]

4 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

The sad thing is that the people who need that education the most are ones least capable of grasping the concepts. 
 

I used to always say that a human life wasn’t worth as much in the Middle East or Africa… but now there are a lot of communities in the USA where a human life is worth no more than a parking spot, quarter ounce of weed, or some other perceived slight or insult. 

Isn't that the damned truth...

[bullets13]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[5GallonBucket]

29 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

😳😳😳

🤢

how in the world did no one smell the odor coming from that oven on wheels in this heat wave

[bullets13]

2 hours ago, 5GallonBucket said:

 

😳😳😳

🤢

how in the world did no one smell the odor coming from that oven on wheels in this heat wave

can't answer that, or how he was able to tolerate driving around with her like that.  I can barely stand to clean a fresh gutshot deer.  

[SmashMouth]

3 hours ago, bullets13 said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Good Lord...

[bullets13]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

Luke’s on Calder reopened as a new club and made it less than a week before they had a murder there.  

[thetragichippy]

On 9/10/2023 at 12:09 AM, bullets13 said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

Luke’s on Calder reopened as a new club and made it less than a week before they had a murder there.  

As a musician it sucks you have to worry about crap like this….we typically load in/out in Alleys…..