- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Houston shooter Grand Jury formed
Posted on 1/20/23 at 7:48 am to jclem11
Posted on 1/20/23 at 7:48 am to jclem11
quote:Congratulations!quote:socially awkward dweeb
You are NPC too. You just cannot see it.
You are now the recipient of the new “favorite phrase“ from one of the dumbest posters on this forum.
Enjoy.
Posted on 1/20/23 at 7:50 am to oogabooga68
quote:
You made an affirmative statement that in essence proclaims the POS was still alive and the final shot was the coup de grace.
He chooses the words that reflect his true beliefs.
Hopefully the shooter is celebrated. Our legal system is beyond broke, no one has faith in it anymore.
It only protects paychecks, not citizens.
Posted on 1/20/23 at 7:51 am to oogabooga68
Ooga, by definition, when a person has been killed, he has also been “incapacitated.” The two terms are not mutually exclusive.
Posted on 1/20/23 at 7:51 am to AggieHank86
quote:
You are now the recipient of the new “favorite phrase“ from one of the dumbest posters on this forum.
I agree with you. JClem is in your territory. Yall are so precious.
I'll bet you two have matching skirts today.
Posted on 1/20/23 at 7:53 am to Bard
quote:
The criminal was in the process of committing aggravated robbery and that is covered by 9.31.
I'm not a TX criminal defense attorney so I'm not an expert but TYPICALLY the "process of committing" ends when the perp is subdued/thwarted.
That last shot is going to be a major issue for this guy. Key word: Immediate
This post was edited on 1/20/23 at 7:54 am
Posted on 1/20/23 at 7:54 am to udtiger
quote:
even with a shithead Soros DA with a finger on the scale.
Its Houston. They're desperately trying to be Californians.
Posted on 1/20/23 at 7:55 am to Timeoday
quote:
I had no idea we had rules of engagement when being robbed at gun point.
Self defense has limits and there are "rules of engagement" if you're trying to use it a a legal defense for actions that would be criminal otherwise.
Posted on 1/20/23 at 7:56 am to SlowFlowPro
The criminal was in the process of committing aggravated robbery and that is covered by 9.31. you can't charge someone with an aggravated case if he has a toy pistol incapable of causing serious bodily harm. the shooter did not shoot to kill, he shot to stop. big difference. he was in fear of his life.
This post was edited on 1/20/23 at 8:00 am
Posted on 1/20/23 at 7:56 am to Powerman
quote:
When you look at his criminal history I'd argue killing him is stopping a threat
I don't know if TX law will permit the defense attorney from discussing the "victim"'s criminal history. That will probably be a major pretrial fight (if this goes to trial)
Posted on 1/20/23 at 7:56 am to AggieHank86
quote:
The two terms are not mutually exclusive.
Yes, I know.
I also know that your statement was intended to make people believe that he was still alive and the final "unnecessary" shot "finished" him.
How did you arrive at the conclusion that the perp was still alive?
This post was edited on 1/20/23 at 7:58 am
Posted on 1/20/23 at 7:58 am to SlowFlowPro
You are correct, but you are wasting your breath. You are young and still believe that one can educate the WILLFULLY ignorant.
There will always be people who will not WANT to learn, if that education would in any way interfere with their biases and preconceptions.
There will always be people who will not WANT to learn, if that education would in any way interfere with their biases and preconceptions.
Posted on 1/20/23 at 7:58 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
TYPICALLY the "process of committing" ends when the perp is subdued/thwarted. That last shot is going to be a major issue for this guy. Key word: Immediate
It’s just absurd to me we force citizens to make this call while in the act, especially when they are the ones being victimized in the moment.
You had a gun shoved in your face by this guy, people were cowering under their tables in fear, the guy in the corner with his hands up probably having his entire life flash before his eyes. A hard working tax paying business with employees trying to earn a living having their life flash before their eyes.
All of these people will never emotionally be the same. Every restaurant they go to or every time they go out in public they will have flashbacks of this.
Yet our legal system ignores all of this and refuses to prosecute or lock up criminals who commit these crimes that terrorize communities.
But then decides it’s time to “take seriously” when citizens finally stand up for themselves and have had enough.
It’s all fricked
Posted on 1/20/23 at 7:59 am to texas tortilla
quote:
The criminal was in the process of committing aggravated robbery
When the initial shots occurred? Certainly. I can't imagine those will be an issue.
When the final shot occurred? Debatable, and I'm sure that's the DA's argument/theory of the case.
quote:
and that is covered by 9.31.
Immediate
Posted on 1/20/23 at 8:00 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Debatable,
Or in legal terms "reasonable doubt".....
Posted on 1/20/23 at 8:00 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:It will not be much of an argument.
I don't know if TX law will permit the defense attorney from discussing the "victim"'s criminal history. That will probably be a major pretrial fight (if this goes to trial)
The prosecutor will make a pro forma effort, the defense attorney will object immediately, and the judge will shut the prosecutor down before the defense lawyer finishes voicing his objection.
It will all be handled in pre-trial proceedings, and the jury will not even know that the fight took place.
This post was edited on 1/20/23 at 8:03 am
Posted on 1/20/23 at 8:01 am to Eighteen
quote:
It’s just absurd to me we force citizens to make this call while in the act, especially when they are the ones being victimized in the moment.
The law is not built to support direct, physical response to physical threats. Self defense is a very small exception carved out from this general theme to permit a direct response in limited circumstances. That's how criminal law has been organized (in the West, at least) since Rome.
quote:
You had a gun shoved in your face by this guy,
And shooting him at that moment was fine. I don't think anyone is arguing about the initial shots.
AFTER those shots, the shooter MAY not have been an immediate threat anymore. You don't get to keep shooting if that's true.
Posted on 1/20/23 at 8:03 am to AggieHank86
quote:
The prosecutor will make a pro forma effort, the defense attorney will object immediately, and the judge will shut the prosecutor down before the defense lawyer finishes voicing his objection.
Wrong victim. The deceased's criminal history. The defense would want to enter this into evidence and the prosecutor would object.
I'm sure TX hsa a statute similar to our 404 that permits the shooter's criminal history to be used.
Posted on 1/20/23 at 8:05 am to AggieHank86
quote:
It will not be much of an argument.
quote:
If the felony conviction is one in which the penalty range was death or more than one year in prison.
If the crime required proof that the person was dishonest as an element the conviction is admissible in trial, regardless of if the crime is a felony.
The crime must be less than 10 years old to be admissible, unless it can be shown that the evidence is more important in the trial than the prejudice that it would cause to the convicted person.
Posted on 1/20/23 at 8:06 am to AggieHank86
quote:\
but you are wasting your breath.
Gemius, most understand the issue but are pulling for no true bill.
Popular
Back to top



1




