... with Stan (or any other Texmonster:lol: ) ... or anyone else on the board ('specially them that like their guns) ... but, I'm not sure this WAS legal.

Let's leave the liberal bashing out from the start. I have no problem with guns for self-defense or the right of self-defense in general. But, I have a passion for strict understanding and application of both the letter and spirit of the laws that govern citizens of the union and the states individually. And I just did a pretty thorough study of the Texas self-defense laws.

Obviously I (and probably none of us) know all the facts surrounding the incident. I wish the article had been more clear on some things:

1) Did the son just return to the property and stand there, or was he "charging?" The article said he was shot in the head as he "stood on [the man's] front yard."

This is not an offense covered under the Castle Doctrine, nor the S/D laws of Texas.

2) What did "the man" do to the in-laws' dog? I believe a dog is considered property in most states.

IF he "stole" or destroyed the "property" of the two men, THEY actually had a defense under the law to "pursue" him (if timely) and use deadly force to retrieve the property. What a stupid law.

3) Did "the man" PROVOKE the other two by his actions against the dog?

If so... he might have no defense under said law to use deadly force against the son (citation available if requested) and he certainly has no defense against killing the father since killing the son certainly DID "provoke" the threat of action and/or murder by the father. [Provocation excludes the deadly force defense.]

4) The article "says" that the two "assaulted" the man... but, gives no real proof of that.

In fact, it says that the two started to leave. Does this sound like a man fearing for/defending his life? That is a prerequisite in ANY state for the use of deadly force.

Although Gov. Perry's "revision" of the law rescinds the requirement for the "victim" to RETREAT if possible... it does not relieve him of the common sense that would have led "the man" to go inside his "castle" while the two were walking away. I'm sure he had other guns inside his "locked" house... and a phone with which he could have called the POLICE.

5) The article makes no mention of the "toxicology" results of "the man" simply because no such tests appear to have been taken. :eek2:

Interestingly... the state S/D law makes absolutely NO mention of any exlusion of the right to use deadly force if the judgement of the "defendant/victim" is impaired by a BAC above the legal limit for "public intoxication" OR... being under the influence of any illegal substance. (Did I mention that it's a stupid law?) [Actually, I think it DOES... but, I'm sticking with this glaring point for now.]


In short, according to the law...

a) If "the man" provoked the son by killing/stealing his dog, the use of deadly force even in defending himself is not justified under the law.

b) The "needless" (if not illegal) killing of the son cannot be seen as anything BUT provoking the father, and therefore negates the legal defense for using deadly force against the father.

c) The law actually gives defense to the father for any use (or threat) of deadly force (not proven) against "the man" in defense of a "third person" (the son who might not have died instantly and was at threat of further deadly violence.)

d) And furthermore the father had a "public duty" exemption for the use of deadly force against "the man" under state law.

e) Although I have not found the section (30.2?) that defines "habitation," the repeated mention of "occupied house, vehicle or place of work" does not seem to encompass one's yard. "The man" was obviously not trapped in his yard, and the two men did not illegally break into his house, business or vehicle. I believe there is a reasonable belief here that "the man" had an option to remove himself from the offenders without fear of being "trapped" within a structure or vehicle.

f) If "the man" were coincidentally committing an offense (say... under the influence of illegal drugs, or killing people's dogs,) he is excluded from the defense for using deadly force.


Just to get this in... as an opinion... the article said:

So... the grand jury did not have any "testimony" regarding the toxicology of "the man" and therefore the "reasonableness" of his "beliefs, fears, or judgement."

The difficulty of a prosecution is not supposed to be the concern of a grand jury, and certainly not a factor that should determine whether or not a peace officer "detains" a suspect.

I don't disagree with that either! But, even Texas has specific statutes that define the justification of deadly force in such encounters. And neither Sheriff Busby nor a jury has the right to "nullify" state or federal legislation. If the two men were "denied their civil rights" under the U.S. Constitution (or that of Texas,) a prosecution could and should ensue.

BTW... the pertaining law in this case does not immunize "the man" from civil suit for wrongful death. I just wonder if there are any family members left alive who have the standing to bring such a suit?

IMHO... (and I'm guessing like the rest of you,) I think the "woman" was the deceased "father's" sister and the aunt of the deceased "son." I believe the "the man" was an outsider to the family. [But, he also could have been the brother of the "father's" wife.]

I doubt seriously if the woman would bring suit against her husband for the death of "the two" family members as I suspect she lives in fear for her life. Of course... the article does not make it clear whether or not she is even alive.

I certainly agree with all the comments that say this MAY have been a feud brewing for years. But that, too, would have no bearing on the legalities of the case. Wait a minute... WHAT case? :roll:

The mentality of Sheriff Busby, the citizens of Texas who made up the grand jury, the Governor of the state, and the "gun lobby" have prevailed... and there IS NO case. At least not one that will ever see the light of a court of law and a jury of peers. :hellno:

And two men are just as dead from a well aimed "head shot" as Wild Bill Hickock! And the majority of comments here and elsewhere are in favor of "the man."

Just out of curiosity... what if "the man" was a Muslim? :eek2::hellno:


Any takers? :lol:

 

I have a chain link fence around my property. One gate in front and one in back.

On each gate is one of these...

http://www.stationbay.com/images/D/NeverMindTheDog.jpg

Come thru the gate uninvited and you've been warned. Come thru the door and you'll learn I wasn't kidding...period!

 

That's "cute" but... not "legal." Since you didn't REGISTER with the courthouse a "NO TRESPASSING" sign, you don't have a legal right to shoot someone on your property if you can't PROVE they were invading with the intent to steal or do you bodily harm.

For instance.... an IRS agent, or a deputy sheriff serving you a warrant. There ARE people who DO have a right to come on your property without notice (unless you have registered for the PERMIT.) If you shoot one of them without "reasonable" cause, they may die... but YOU will spend life in prison if not executed for murder.

Just sayin'

Property rights, just like self-defense rights, come with "legislative controls." It's IN the constitution and bylaws of your state. YOU elected those who passed the laws. Did you "create" the ground you bought? NO. You bought it from someone with rights. You have ownership rights SUBJECT to state laws "regulating" property ownership. Get used to it.

Don't believe me? READ your deed! Or ask your neighbor who had his "ownership" revoked for not paying his taxes.

You can post all the "testosterone laden" signs you want... but, if you didn't PAY A TAX for the registration of a no trespassing "right," you are not protected by S&W! :lol:

Sorry, welcome to America! :roll:

Just making a point and keeping it real.

Hobo

 

Hobo you missed one glaring point. The shooter had to go to his car and retrieve his weapon and THEN RETURN to where the two soon to be dead guys were standing! That little tidbit ( if true) changes things alot like from self defense to say murder?
I do take offense at you including the "gun lobby" in you rant. This was not a clear cut case of self defense and the "gun lobby" dosn't support vigilanism(sp) so therefor why bring them into it? You don't complain about Ford when a drunk kills some one do you?

 

repete said:

I didn't "miss" that point, repete. I mentioned that he had time, while they were walking away, to go into his house (castle) and lock the doors... with other guns at hand, I'm sure, and call the police. I just didn't want to "go there" with the accusation that he "chose" to get a gun from the car and shoot them dead while they were still "in the vicinity." Who knows? Maybe, he even called the son a name or something that caused him to turn around and come back towards him AFTER he had his gun in his hand? But, I agree that it changes things quite a bit. Using a gun that you might have in your possession to protect yourself from IMMINENT danger is one thing... but, going to get one after the danger is "leaving" and then "double tapping" head shots instead of wildly firing into the mass of an onrushing assailant... is CLEARLY another... to ME. Obviously, the grand jury didn't see it that way.

I meant no offense to you personally, or any other law abiding and "responsible" gun owner who might support or be a member of the NRA. But, I will tell you why I included them in my list of "responsible" parties. I said:

1) Sheriff Busby clearly showed his belief (and pride) that Texans believe in using a gun to protect themselves. There are states where a "chief of police" would play this down in favor of citizens calling on the police to handle armed conflicts.

2) The citizens of Texas (who made up the grand jury) constitute the highest concentration of gun owners and CCW permits (per capita) in the country, AND the largest constituency of supporters of the NRA. In turn... the NRA spends a similar percentage of their advertising and promotional budget keeping it that way. [How many reps/votes in Congress do they have?]

3) Gov Rick Perry received LARGE sums of money in campaign donations from the NRA prior to, and in return for, his "initiative" to amend the state "Castle Doctrine" laws (in 2007) to remove the requirement that a citizen must "retreat" (even if the intruder is IN HIS HOUSE, car, or place of business) BEFORE he is justified in using a firearm, and deadly force, to protect himself, his property... OR the property of a third person.

As Sarah Palin promoted (with NRA contributions,) Texans (like all Americans, in her view) should not RETREAT... but, RELOAD. Texans are (justifiably) known for not "retreating" and it bolstered their self-image to change the law (that most states adhere to) to say that they could actually use deadly force in an "aggressive" manner to not only "protect" themselves and their (or others') property... but in the "pursuit" of immediate justice against perpetrators... EVEN if they are fleeing in surrender. [They can actually use the defense that they "reasonably believed" that they would never recover "grandma's rings!"]

Of course the NRA cannot publicly condone "vigilantism," but... they have financially supported those who could change the laws giving gun owners more protection against prosecution, and indeed more justification and "freedom" to take the law into their own (armed) hands. And they have supported judges in Texas (and other states) who have ruled in favor of Castle Doctrine defenses for citizens who have shot and killed people simply for B&E and theft of "property." Again... even in cases when the perps were "fleeing" and not presenting an imminent danger of life or limb to the "property owner." i.e: NOT in self-defense of their own lives!

In this manner alone, as I said, the NRA lobbyists have convinced the citizens, and perhaps "coerced" judges, to make it LESS LIKELY that "legally armed" citizens will ever stand trial for "killings" under circumstances that otherwise don't pass the "deadly force" defense requirements of their OWN laws governing such conflicts. I think I raised several valid questions about the legality of the shooting in this case. There were at least two other cases in Texas since Gov. Perry signed the law into effect that have either exonerated the shooter, or failed to indict him. At the very LEAST, imho... a man should stand the test of the law and have all the facts examined. This alone might "curb the enthusiasm" that I fear (and believe) has been fueled by the changes in both law AND sentiment in states (like Texas) where the NRA has spent lots of money "lobbying."

I do not believe that the NRA is some kind of "vigilante" organization. I do not mean to "demonize" them (the way many of their supporters demonize Obama.) I know they do alot of good work in areas of gun safety and training. And I believe that, at their root, they are mostly about preserving the second amendment rights of American citizens (and someone SHOULD be keeping that secure.) You KNOW that I am not a "gun grabbing" Liberal (not that any of them are.)

But, it is often said that sometimes "the perfect is sacrificed on the altar of the expedient." For some reason, to ensure the rights of law abiding citizens to bear arms, the NRA has found it "expedient" to enlist the voting public and the legislative and judicial powers that be in blocking any and all "reasonable" controls on the availability, capacity and USE of deadly weapons.

I'm sure that Sheriff Busby, the citizens of Texas, and even Gov. Perry are basically good people and true patriots. I am equally convinced that good people can be emotionally and intellectually "convinced" to support BAD laws that ultimately serve "mostly" the financial goals of corporate interests. And the NRA is the lobbying front for the weapons/ammunitions manufacturers in America. To preserve their right to market their goods, they will sacrifice innocent victims of the goods they need to sell. "The perfect on the altar of the expedient."

[Red herring alert!] :lol: ... [I bet you got that "line" from an NRA pamphlet didn't you?]

No... but, I would complain about the Automobile Safety Association IF they lobbied legislators, governors and grand jury members to "decriminalize" the use of a Ford to kill an unarmed citizen, just so they could sell more Fords! Fords don't kill people, drunks driving Fords DO! :lol:

The "handgun" didn't shoot the two unarmed men in the head. But, neither the gun NOR the idiot/drunk/legally protected vigilante/RAMBO/moron who thought it was "acceptable" to protect himself against two unarmed "in-laws" over a domestic issue by intentionally shooting them in the head (with a reasonable belief that it would KILL them) ... will EVER be tried in a court in TEXAS... thanks to the gun lobby's successful efforts to "reform" gun laws in that state. :hellno:

"Coming to a Republican controlled state near you!" Merry Christmas.

 

I'm not gonna say whether those killings were right or wrong.

But something the two of you (G. Hobo & Repete) failed to talk about were these parts of the sheriff's statement;

(Well.....Okay....You did talk about the second sentence....but you failed to include the full context of the first sentence as part of your discussion)

And after talking with one of the local LEO's here yesterday morning (I'm about 5 miles from where the shootings took place right now) and asking him about this shooting, the LEO said to me that it was the two warning shots into the ground, then repeated pleadings for them to leave the premises before further shots were fired, that swayed the Grand Jury to not indict the shooter.

There was a lot more to the incident than was printed in the paper. The investigating LEO's and the Grand Jury know a lot more about the full details than anybody else in regards to what all took place. The officer I chatted with did not tell me all that happened, but he did say that there multiple requests for the father and son to leave the area before shots were fired.


Lake Corpus Christi is bordered by three county's. Live Oak, where the shooting took place, San Patricio (Where I am right now) and Jim Wells. There are some nasty housing areas on the lake front. There are some modest housing areas on the lake front. And there are some high end housing areas on the lake front. This neighborhood is one of those "in-betweens". Not "Modest" but not quite "High-end". Definitely not nasty.

The residents on the lake run the gamut from housekeepers at motels, to school teachers, law enforcement officers, refinery workers, doctors and lawyers, as well as retired folks.

 

And... your point is?

I think I DID discuss most of that. Any parts I did NOT mention was mainly because they were mentioned in the law, and actually helped to "exclude" the deadly force defense. I had enough ammo to defend my position. I'm really trying to not have to list all the links, or even to display (and dissect) the law. It's very convoluted and actually applies to the defense of all THREE involved!

I said that NONE of us have all the facts. Maybe the grand jury had MORE than just the warning shots to go on. I sure HOPE so, cuz.... that's not ENOUGH under the law that I spent 4 hours reading and analyzing this morning.

And... about that neighbor with the shotgun.... what was HE gonna do? Maybe just POINT it at them and tell them to leave? You think HE would have "head shotted" them in defense of his neighbor? That would make HIM subject to the same law 9.33 I believe. Naw.... I think he was just going to "convince" them to leave.... ALIVE.

 

No, I don't think so. That feud has been going on for more than 3,000 years..... And, a dog had little or nothing to do with that...:smokin:

The article says that the father and son assaulted the man. So, someone that was not part of the exchange thought it might be serious enough to require deadly force. Assault does have a range, but did the article leave out "battery"? Or were the father and son threatening deadly force in the future?

But, since you brought up "Muslim".... Suppose the father and son were white (except for their very red necks), and the sister married a black man, There could have been a long history of confrontations, assaults, and such.

 

I was sure of that , and under Tx law I guess what he did was legal. Weather it is or not or was a case of justice being blind I don't know.


HOBO, I wasn't personally offended, I could've chose my words a little more carefull.
The "red herring"? I just pulled that out of air, no NRA propaganda there.
Even being a NRA member and supporter I still believe in ACCOUNTABILTY of actions! At the very least things like this do need to be looked by a Grand Jury and not just dismissed by a DA .

Case's like this hit real close to home with me and I admit I have some mixed feelings about this and don't expect anyone else to understand them as I don't myself! jus my .02

 

Well......according to the article..........he had their attention at a minimum. I think a shotgun would have my "full and complete" attention.


Maybe the neighbor had the shotgun loaded with rock-salt..........for the garden raiding kids??




danged if that didn't get my attention when it happened..........when I was a kid.