re: This is Murder

quote:

---

when in that moment there was no legal justification

---

Explain this legal justification? Are you saying that him bringing the weapon outside was illegal?

quote:

---

I don't need a legal justification to yield a weapon on my private property

---

You must be awesome when the ups driver tries to drop off a package but has to dodge all the gunfire.

quote:

---

It really is as simple as he was asked to leave and instead made threats then tried to act on those threats.

---

This is the document ive been reading, im an Engineer and not a Lawyer so im not going to have some hardened stance on remotely anything when it comes to this right now. This is purely for educational purposes;

Document on TX Stand Your Ground:

LINK

The thing that gives me pause is sections 9.31, 9.32, and 9.33.

In 9.31

quote:

---

SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection.

---

(A) Is not true
(B) Did not at first, retreated, and then gave command to leave before using force
(C) Not valid / Doesnt Apply
C(2) Provoke (ive already gave my opinion on this)
C(3) not informed enough to give opionion here
C(b)(1) Now umm this is tricky as the whole event was verbal until actor retreated, obtained gun, then came back. I genuinelly believe this will be argued.
C(b)(2) Not Applicable


I also want to reiterate if no charges are filed than I trust that the people who have done this infinitely more than I believe it was a good shoot and my argument is invalid.

And do note that I've specified negligent homicide, as opposed to intentional or felony homicide. Two very distinct scenarios.

quote:

---

You must be awesome when the ups driver tries to drop off a package but has to dodge all the gunfire.

---

What a stupid statement

quote:

---

No one gets a victory lap on this one.

---

Nope...there are quite a few in this thread bowed up taking a lap because property.

quote:

---

Whatever the legal outcome, the kid is the true victim here.

No one gets a victory lap on this one.

---

Just looking at what little info is out it seems that the whole group was full of people that were making bad decisions. Custody issues, exes, affairs, anger, aggressiveness, and weapons dont mix.

quote:

---

If your wielding of that weapon provokes a shooting death that otherwise showed no imminent evidence of occurring, then your lawful wielding of your weapon has netted you a homicide charge.

---

Remember when they tried to charge the McCloskeys in MO for using their guns as a deterrent? The weapons charges were dropped and it was pleaded all the way down to misdemeanors. Had the McCloskeys fought it more I am certain they could have gotten all charges dropped but it was cheaper and easier to accept the BS charges they wound up with.

quote:

---

ST. LOUIS — Mark and Patricia McCloskey, the St. Louis couple who were seen pointing guns at protesters in front of their home, pleaded guilty to lesser charges Thursday afternoon.

A judge approved a plea deal from the couple while they were in court for a scheduled hearing.

Mark McCloskey pleaded guilty to a count of fourth-degree assault, which was filed in court Thursday and is a Class C misdemeanor. He was originally charged with unlawful use of a weapon and tampering with physical evidence — both felony charges.

Patricia McCloskey pleaded guilty to second-degree harassment, which is a Class A misdemeanor charge that was filed last month when a count of tampering with physical evidence was removed. She also was originally charged with unlawful use of a weapon and tampering with physical evidence.

The couple had previously pleaded not guilty and were set to go to trial on Nov. 1.

The plea deal calls for Mark McCloskey to pay a $750 fine. Patricia McCloskey was fined $2,000 to the courts and ordered to pay $10 to the crime victims fund.

---

quote:

---

New boyfriend life was NEVER in trouble,and neither was his count of a ex-wife.

You rednecks are going to learn the hard way, about when you can use deadly force.

---

Your punk arse is from St Louie? I bet you voted Cori Bush.

So he was shot for trespassing?

Hrm... j/k looks like self defense.