Slap around customers in Dallas can get you killed [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Slap around customers in Dallas can get you killed


Deaf Smith
07-06-2012, 16:53
Seems a nutjob went around hitting and chasing customers out of a store.

Guy with CHL I guess didn't agree with all that.

http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2012/07/man-dead-in-far-northeast-dallas-shooting.html/

Only in Texas!

Deaf

twag4
07-06-2012, 19:24
I just love the witness who said it wasn't worth someone losing his life. When the slapper followed the person outside he made his decision of life or death. He chose poorly.

Bruce M
07-06-2012, 19:27
The news item seems somewhat sparse as to what happened, but as it is written I would guess the shooter ought to come up with a substantial retainer for a much better than average attorney. I also admit I know little about Texas laws although I am guessing they are probably a bit more generous in use of force than they are here, so he may be in better shape than I am thinking.

Keoking
07-06-2012, 20:15
The location is in the hood. I definitely wouldn't get out of a car there without being armed. A couple of women were raped at the bus stop outside this convenience store the other week.

That aside, it is tough to justify shooting a dude for pimp slapping people. Tough, but not impossible. Hopefully we are only getting 10% of the story.

Hopefully the dead slapper was buck naked and high on bath salts.

Dexters
07-06-2012, 20:18
Pepper spray ...

racerford
07-06-2012, 20:52
Blows to the head are deadly force. The first shooting by a CHL holder in Texas was a CHL holder shooting an unarmed (without weapons, he did have actual arms) man that was striking him in the head through an open vehicle window. The CHL was "No Bill"ed by the Grand Jury.

Also the condition of the victim needs to be taken into consideration. My why has multiple fusions and ruptured disks. Blows to the head or being knock to the ground could easily cause serious bodily harm. She or I would would have ample cause under Texas law to use deadly force to protect her from this type of attack.

Criminals; just because you don't think hitting someone with an open hand (or closed fist) is not deadly force does not mean it is not deadly force to the specific person you are hitting. Strike people in Texas at your own peril.

I am not a lawyer, and I do not play one on TV. Nor did I stay at the Holiday Inn Express last night. PLease consult your lawyer on proper application of Texas law.... additionally you should review the law yourself, and it is a mandatory part of your CHL training.

cowboywannabe
07-06-2012, 21:07
the more times legal ccw'ers shoot criminals for physically attacking them, the less this will happen. who has a problem with that?

Bruce M
07-07-2012, 07:10
Blows to the head are deadly force. ...
.
Yes sometimes. But certainly not always.

the more times legal ccw'ers shoot criminals for physically attacking them, the less this will happen. who has a problem with that?

Depending on the disparate level of force prosecutors, juries, and judges may have a problem with that. That in turn has the potential to cause all gun carriers to look bad to some who have a very different agenda than ours.

Stevekozak
07-07-2012, 07:26
Yes sometimes. But certainly not always.



.

I think the point is that a person does not know when a blow to the head could be deadly. If I had an anueysm in my head, and you gave me a good smack on the noggin with your hand, it could cause it to blow and kill me. In that case your friendly pimp slap was deadly force. Hitting ppl in the head is generally a bad idea unless you are really wanting to hurt them. I think it is justifiable.

Bren
07-07-2012, 08:10
I just love the witness who said it wasn't worth someone losing his life. When the slapper followed the person outside he made his decision of life or death. He chose poorly.

I, honestly, cannot understand that whole "sanctity of life" thing, like it's "good" anytime anybody lives and "bad" any time anybody dies. That just not true. Sometimes people dying is a good thing and most of the time, at best, no harm is done in the big picture. My own feeling has always been that a life is worth what a person does with it and most people have either no significant worth or are a burden to the rest. When they die, that is a benefit and there is no reason to say otherwise.

Bren
07-07-2012, 08:15
Blows to the head are deadly force. The first shooting by a CHL holder in Texas was a CHL holder shooting an unarmed (without weapons, he did have actual arms) man that was striking him in the head through an open vehicle window. The CHL was "No Bill"ed by the Grand Jury.

I wouldn't count on "blows to the head" being considered per se deadly force. The issue is usually whether the force is "substantially likely to cause death or serious injury" or something similar to that, varying from state to state. I'd bet there isn't a single state that just has a flat "blows to the head are deadly force" rule.

concretefuzzynuts
07-07-2012, 08:26
So considering people have ended up in comas, brain damaged and dead due to "blows to the head" I am of the mindset of not taking a chance.

"oh, this guy is hitting me in the head. I will wait and see how bad it gets before defending myself." BULL#@*#!

What if I'm an older person than the assaulter? What if I'm 5'6" 160 pounds and he's 6'8" 338 pounds?

Bruce M
07-07-2012, 08:58
Reasonable fear. Totality of circumstances. http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1419651

The person not being armed does not always turn it into a criminal shooting. But certainly not all of the unarmed shootings end up being justified either.

cowboywannabe
07-07-2012, 12:40
i guess you need to know where you live and socialize.

if you see somebody acting up, hitting other people in the head ect... and you take a defensive stance and tell them to leave you alone, youre in pretty good shape if you drill the crap bag for hitting you.

ignantmike
07-07-2012, 12:57
i don't see a problem with what happened to him.....although a good @$$ kick'in would have been awesome to see:tongueout:

Patchman
07-07-2012, 13:12
Whatever happened to "the customer is always right" defense? :whistling:

cowboy1964
07-07-2012, 15:21
Slapping can turn in to all-out assault in an instant, especially with an unstable or high person. I wasn't there so I can't judge the "totality of the circumstances". I'm sure (well, hope) there is video of this incident.

"Play stupid games, win stupid prizes."

ftw13
07-07-2012, 16:45
don't **** with Texas :)

Deaf Smith
07-07-2012, 17:24
I, honestly, cannot understand that whole "sanctity of life" thing, like it's "good" anytime anybody lives and "bad" any time anybody dies. That just not true. Sometimes people dying is a good thing and most of the time, at best, no harm is done in the big picture. My own feeling has always been that a life is worth what a person does with it and most people have either no significant worth or are a burden to the rest. When they die, that is a benefit and there is no reason to say otherwise.

Or as F. Lee Bailey said, "By and by and from time to time you can prove someone needed killing." AKA as the 'good riddance factor'.

The nutjob at the store was going nuts. The customer feared for his life and thus shot him to stop him. Wither he can articulate a reasonable fear will depend on the grand jury BUT the cops did let him go.

Deaf

TDC20
07-07-2012, 17:40
There seems to be a recurring theme in these stories, which, the way I read them is this...

Those doing the assaulting may be right about a person not being legally allowed to shoot them if they decide to slap a person around, but once they get shot through the heart for playing stupid games, it really doesn't matter to them whether it was legal or not, does it? Same thing goes for having the right-of-way driving. You can be 100% in the right and still get killed by another driver. Being right and dead is, IMHO, a bad combination.

the more times legal ccw'ers shoot criminals for physically attacking them, the less this will happen. who has a problem with that?

I don't disagree with you, but I would add, that the SA and grand juries will have to adopt that outlook before it has a significant impact as a deterrent. Personally, I would like to see more of that. I would like to see the laws relaxed so that any violent crime, including an unprovoked assault, would justify shooting the assailant, taking the interpretation of "threat of death or serious/grave bodily injury" out of the the prosecutor's and/or a juror's opinion. It's too easy for a Monday morning QB to make that judgement in their safe little world. People who wish to commit violent crimes against innocents should not have the protection of the law to do so.

lawson12
07-07-2012, 18:28
No way here in Arkansas could I shoot someone in self-defense for slapping me across the grill. If that's the case, there will be a lot of women at bars getting shot; "But officer, she could have possibly given me an aneurysm." If someone is slapping me, then a punch in the snoot or me attempting to leave would be my only option, good or bad.

Stevekozak
07-07-2012, 18:33
No way here in Arkansas could I shoot someone in self-defense for slapping me across the grill. If that's the case, there will be a lot of women at bars getting shot; "But officer, she could have possibly given me an aneurysm." If someone is slapping me, then a punch in the snoot or me attempting to leave would be my only option, good or bad.
So how many women have you punched in the snoot? :tongueout:

lawson12
07-07-2012, 18:53
So how many women have you punched in the snoot? :tongueout:

Sometimes I think not enough. :supergrin:

Cavalry Doc
07-07-2012, 19:53
Witnesses stayed at the scene for hours after the shooting. One man called the shooting, “people being crazy.”

“It wasn’t worth the loss of life,” said William Powell, who witnessed the fight.


This, is NOT a good prognostic indicator. Somebody is going to spend a lot of money defending himself at the grand jury now.

twag4
07-07-2012, 19:53
The guy was getting slapped around. He then tried to get away by going outside to leave the store. The thug followed him outside to continue the assault. I'd say he made a good faith attempt to get out of a bad situation. The thug got what he deserved. If he was bigger than the victim, and the only thing the victim had besides his hands was a gun, then he escalated force to the next available and only other option. Besides, if he doesn't shoot he goes to jail for pulling out a gun. We've seen that enough lately to know better.

Panzer
07-07-2012, 20:27
Wow, I live at skillman and adelia rd. just a block or two away. Thats crazy.

racerford
07-07-2012, 21:50
This, is NOT a good prognostic indicator. Somebody is going to spend a lot of money defending himself at the grand jury now.

The defendant is not represented at the Grand Jury. It is an all prosecution show.

The defendant does not testify and is not represented.

racerford
07-07-2012, 22:41
I wouldn't count on "blows to the head" being considered per se deadly force. The issue is usually whether the force is "substantially likely to cause death or serious injury" or something similar to that, varying from state to state. I'd bet there isn't a single state that just has a flat "blows to the head are deadly force" rule.

In Texas we have case law that blows to the head were considered deadly force. As I stated in my post the first CHL shooting was of an unarmed man in a traffic conforntation. The victm shot the man that was striking him in the head. There was a disparity in size. The shooter could not retreat as his vehicle was blocked in traffic.

Not every blow to the head is deadly force, but it could be.

There appears to be some conflict definition in Texas code. Serious bodily harm is defined in terms of the "actors" knowledge of that the action capable of causing asubstantial risk of death. permanent disfurement or loss of use of a limb or organ for an extended period of time.

Justification of use of deadly force is dependent on the perception of the victim. That they reasonable believe that they might be killed or suffer serious bodily harm. It is confusing.

I would recommend trying to avoid using deadly force if practicle

Travclem
07-07-2012, 23:44
I, honestly, cannot understand that whole "sanctity of life" thing, like it's "good" anytime anybody lives and "bad" any time anybody dies. That just not true. Sometimes people dying is a good thing and most of the time, at best, no harm is done in the big picture. My own feeling has always been that a life is worth what a person does with it and most people have either no significant worth or are a burden to the rest. When they die, that is a benefit and there is no reason to say otherwise.
Outstanding!

pspez
07-08-2012, 09:09
If you dont want to get shot,don't slap people in a store. Screw him. It is a simple premise. The same goes for Travon. It is a shame that he lost his life. But had he not attacked Zimmerman, he too would still be alive.

Smoker
07-08-2012, 09:37
What if it was your sister that slapped you for making a pass at her in the bar in Arkansas???

lawson12
07-08-2012, 09:59
What if it was your sister that slapped you for making a pass at her in the bar in Arkansas???

I've never heard that one before. Depends on how hot she is.

pspez
07-08-2012, 10:18
What if it was your sister that slapped you for making a pass at her in the bar in Arkansas???
Lol:wow:

TDC20
07-08-2012, 10:24
Pepper spray ...
^^^^ This! The appropriate force response.

Where a $10 investment pays off at least 1000:1. Like Sam Spade says, there's a lot of room between the time to talk and the time to shoot. You need something to fill that. If the pepper spray doesn't work in this situation, then almost no one would have a problem with you shooting.

1. Man is physically assaulted in store.
2. Man leaves store, assailant follows and continues assualt.
3. Man uses pepper spray in attempt to stop assailant.
4. Assailant becomes more aggressive after being pepper sprayed, continues trying to assault man.
5. Man shoots assailant.

Legally, that should be game, set, match for justifiable shooting.

With any luck, at #3 assailant is temporarily incapacitated, giving the victim time to escape and call it in to the po-po. The downside is the assailant remains alive to do this or worse to the next victim. The upside is, he could receive the necessary drug intervention treatment or medication for his mental condition.

If the crazy assailant was my brother or son, on drugs (poor life decision, granted) or mentally unstable, I would see it differently than he needed to be shot, but I would certainly understand someone shooting him in such circumstances. It would be tragic, nonetheless.

Travclem
07-08-2012, 10:32
^^^^ This! The appropriate force response.

Where a $10 investment pays off at least 1000:1. Like Sam Spade says, there's a lot of room between the time to talk and the time to shoot. You need something to fill that. If the pepper spray doesn't work in this situation, then almost no one would have a problem with you shooting.

1. Man is physically assaulted in store.
2. Man leaves store, assailant follows and continues assualt.
3. Man uses pepper spray in attempt to stop assailant.
4. Assailant becomes more aggressive after being pepper sprayed, continues trying to assault man.
5. Man shoots assailant.

Legally, that should be game, set, match for justifiable shooting.

With any luck, at #3 assailant is temporarily incapacitated, giving the victim time to escape and call it in to the po-po. The downside is the assailant remains alive to do this or worse to the next victim. The upside is, he could receive the necessary drug intervention treatment or medication for his mental condition.

If the crazy assailant was my brother or son, on drugs (poor life decision, granted) or mentally unstable, I would see it differently than he needed to be shot, but I would certainly understand someone shooting him in such circumstances. It would be tragic, nonetheless.

Or,
1. Man is physically assaulted in store.
2. Man leaves store, assailant follows and continues assualt.
3. Man uses pepper spray in attempt to stop assailant.
4. Pepper spray blows/splashes back and dissables man, but the crack crazed assailant is unphased.
5. Assailant stabs, now blinded, man in the chest and kills him.

Lots of ways it could play out, and IMO pepper spray is rarely the answer.




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Cavalry Doc
07-08-2012, 10:49
The defendant is not represented at the Grand Jury. It is an all prosecution show.

The defendant does not testify and is not represented.

I obviously worded that incorrectly.....

From a grand jury FAQ:

What Can I Do If Im Under Grand Jury Investigation of if I Get a Grand Jury Letter?

Call an attorney. The prosecutors have discretion to allow your attorney to submit a packet of information to a grand jury to attempt to dissuade them from indictment. Also the prosecutor can agree to allow you to testify before the grand jury but not in the presence of your attorney. On many cases, prosecutors have incentive to negotiate with you prior to your case going to grand jury. As a policy, Collin County DAs office will not negotiate with people at the grand jury phase that are unrepresented by counsel. This may seem like a frustrating policy but frankly its for your own protection. Grand jury situations are very complicated and the ramifications are very serious if mismanaged.

TDC20
07-08-2012, 10:50
Or,
1. Man is physically assaulted in store.
2. Man leaves store, assailant follows and continues assualt.
3. Man uses pepper spray in attempt to stop assailant.
4. Pepper spray blows/splashes back and dissables man, but the crack crazed assailant is unphased.
5. Assailant stabs, now blinded, man in the chest and kills him.

Lots of ways it could play out, and IMO pepper spray is rarely the answer.
Very true, indeed. No way you could ever plan out every response/reaction to every scenario. Just like having a CCW gives you an opportunity of response if you are ever faced with a violent felony against you, pepper spray gives you a opportunity of response where deadly force may or may not put you in prison for 25 years. However, having pepper spray on your person and NOT using it before shooting someone could also work against you, depending on the situation.

Using pepper spray in some type of violent encounter could go terribly wrong, but so could hesitating to draw your weapon because you read too many stories like Trayvon on the interwebs. Unless the grand jury no-bills this, this guy is facing a lot of legal problems and a huge financial burden. My response would have been pepper spray first.

I carry pepper spray and will continue to carry it. I would recommend the gel or foam type since it is less likely to blow back in your face or corrupt an entire room indoors.

txinvestigator
07-08-2012, 10:56
Blows to the head are deadly force. Can be. The code does not define "blows to the head" as being deadly force. However, blows to the head CAN be. The first shooting by a CHL holder in Texas was a CHL holder shooting an unarmed (without weapons, he did have actual arms) man that was striking him in the head through an open vehicle window. The CHL was "No Bill"ed by the Grand Jury.

Also the condition of the victim needs to be taken into consideration. My why has multiple fusions and ruptured disks. Blows to the head or being knock to the ground could easily cause serious bodily harm. She or I would would have ample cause under Texas law to use deadly force to protect her from this type of attack.

Criminals; just because you don't think hitting someone with an open hand (or closed fist) is not deadly force does not mean it is not deadly force to the specific person you are hitting. Strike people in Texas at your own peril.

I am not a lawyer, and I do not play one on TV. Nor did I stay at the Holiday Inn Express last night. PLease consult your lawyer on proper application of Texas law.... additionally you should review the law yourself, and it is a mandatory part of your CHL training.

Agree with this!

Berto
07-08-2012, 10:59
There's a reason why it's against the law to go around hitting people in the head.
Whether it's "happy slapping" or closed fist punching, bad things always come from it and the fault should fall on the instigator.

txinvestigator
07-08-2012, 11:08
In Texas we have case law that blows to the head were considered deadly force. As I stated in my post the first CHL shooting was of an unarmed man in a traffic conforntation. The victm shot the man that was striking him in the head. There was a disparity in size. The shooter could not retreat as his vehicle was blocked in traffic. That is not case law. Case law is established when a, in criminal court, a conviction is appealed and an appellet court rules on that appeal. In the case to which you refer, which happened at Mockingbird and I35 (Gorden Hale and Kenny Tavai) , the GJ no billed him. All a no bill means is that the GJ did not believe there was probable cause to try the person at the time. No ruling is made on the justifications, nor on the specific facts such as blows to the head.

In future cases each jusy is free to determine if any blows delivered amounted to deadly force.

Travclem
07-08-2012, 11:31
If someone is mentally unstable enough to go around slapping random people unprovoked, they are most likely unstable enough to kill someone for no reason and should be dealt with accordingly.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

txinvestigator
07-08-2012, 11:47
If someone is mentally unstable enough to go around slapping random people unprovoked, they are most likely unstable enough to kill someone for no reason and should be dealt with accordingly.



Most likely? Is that your professional opinion as a Mental Health Professional? lol

Cavalry Doc
07-08-2012, 11:57
Most likely? Is that your professional opinion as a Mental Health Professional? lol

Here, I'll help. The fact that he is willing to physically assault another in public raises the possibility that he may either intentionally or unintentionally become lethal.


Still way to little information to pick sides with conviction (sorry about the pun).

We'll need to see if Jesse or Al are fueling up the jets to know for sure.

txinvestigator
07-08-2012, 12:09
Here, I'll help. The fact that he is willing to physically assault another in public raises the possibility that he may either intentionally or unintentionally become lethal. The justifications afforded in the penal code do not allow for possibilities for the future, even the immmediate future. Threats must be imminent. ;)


Still way to little information to pick sides with conviction (sorry about the pun). Great play with the words there!

We'll need to see if Jesse or Al are fueling up the jets to know for sure. My concern as well.

Cavalry Doc
07-08-2012, 12:18
The justifications afforded in the penal code do not allow for possibilities for the future, even the immediate future. Threats must be imminent. ;)


Well, sort of.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly 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 an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(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.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.



Whether something is imminent is an opinion most of the time. Best to avoid the situation, or hope you can convince a bunch of people in a jury that you were right.... or even one might do it.




Great play with the words there!

You'd be surprised how often that happens to me by accident.:supergrin:



My concern as well.


If it's going to happen, it will be within a couple of weeks.

Bruce M
07-08-2012, 12:33
I've never heard that one before. Depends on how hot she is.

:rofl::rofl:
:needspics:

cowboywannabe
07-08-2012, 12:36
show most any MMA fight where a guy gets knocked down and often OUT from a strike to the head. no special training needed for a knock out head strike, you tube is full of proof.

unless you shoot 85 year old granny for ***** slapping you.....anybody can be knocked out and left helpless to the whims of the attacker.

Cavalry Doc
07-08-2012, 13:03
show most any MMA fight where a guy gets knocked down and often OUT from a strike to the head. no special training needed for a knock out head strike, you tube is full of proof.

unless you shoot 85 year old granny for ***** slapping you.....anybody can be knocked out and left helpless to the whims of the attacker.

It just so happens......

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1431333

racerford
07-08-2012, 13:11
That is not case law. Case law is established when a, in criminal court, a conviction is appealed and an appellet court rules on that appeal. In the case to which you refer, which happened at Mockingbird and I35 (Gorden Hale and Kenny Tavai) , the GJ no billed him. All a no bill means is that the GJ did not believe there was probable cause to try the person at the time. No ruling is made on the justifications, nor on the specific facts such as blows to the head.

In future cases each jusy is free to determine if any blows delivered amounted to deadly force.

Fair enough. I guess the grand juries need to let more of these go to trial so they can be case law. There have been a number of high profile cases that the Grand jury has no billed. I am not sure that is a good thing.

Since I am not a lawyer I have not done the case research to know where legal precedence has been set. Howver, I bet I could find a medical doctor to say that blows to the head can have and regularly due cause "serious bodily harm". As I already know this, I reasonable believe that deadly is necessary to protect myself from the deadly being used against me.

Personally, I would try to avoid shooting a man that is not obviously armed. However, it looks the shooter did try to do that by retreating from the fight. I would be surprised if this gets past the Grand Jury. If it does, I predict he shooter will not be convicted, unless there is some bad unknown information, like the shooter invited the fight, or instigated it. That does not appeared to have happened here. Also if the dead man turns out to have been sleeping with the shooters wife, or something like that.... it could change things.

Cavalry Doc
07-08-2012, 13:12
Fair enough. I guess the grand juries need to let more of these go to trial so they can be case law. There have been a number of high profile cases that the Grand jury has no billed. I am not sure that is a good thing.

Since I am not a lawyer I have not done the case research to know where legal precedence has been set. Howver, I bet I could find a medical doctor to say that blows to the head can have and regularly due cause "serious bodily harm". As I already know this, I reasonable believe that deadly is necessary to protect myself from the deadly being used against me.

Personally, I would try to avoid shooting a man that is not obviously armed. However, it looks the shooter did try to do that by retreating from the fight. I would be surprised if this gets past the Grand Jury. If it does, I predict he shooter will not be convicted, unless there is some bad unknown information, like the shooter invited the fight, or instigated it. That does not appeared to have happened here. Also if the dead man turns out to have been sleeping with the shooters wife, or something like that.... it could change things.

Whoa.......

I'd rather be no billed than tried and found not guilty.

cowboywannabe
07-08-2012, 13:55
CavDoc, great example. if you saw they poor misguided victims of society do that and then come towards you, my question is which one would you shoot first, then which would you shoot the most?

NMGlocker
07-08-2012, 14:02
The justifications afforded in the penal code do not allow for possibilities for the future, even the immmediate future. Threats must be imminent.
Your attempt at symantics games is a failure.
"Immediate future" and "imminent" are the exact same thing.
So yes, justification is afforded to future possibilities.
It's how far in the future that is the issue.

txinvestigator
07-08-2012, 14:06
Your attempt at symantics games is a failure.
"Immediate future" and "imminent" are the exact same thing.
So yes, justification is afforded to future possibilities.
It's how far in the future that is the issue.

Your attempt and symantics games is a failure. Immediate future and imminent are NOT the exact same thing. :upeyes:

So no, justifications are not afforded to future possibilities.


**see how that works?**

txinvestigator
07-08-2012, 14:12
Fair enough. I guess the grand juries need to let more of these go to trial so they can be case law. A trial verdict does not make case law either. There have been a number of high profile cases that the Grand jury has no billed. I am not sure that is a good thing. I agree 100%. You just cannot base future decisions on those of past grand jury decisions.

Since I am not a lawyer I have not done the case research to know where legal precedence has been set. Howver, I bet I could find a medical doctor to say that blows to the head can have and regularly due cause "serious bodily harm". Serious bodily injury is the exact phrase, and of course, as I wrote, a blow to the head certainly can cause serious bodily injury and even death. "Can", cause..... As I already know this, I reasonable believe that deadly is necessary to protect myself from the deadly being used against me. Your "reasonable belief" will be determined by a triar of fact. You "hope" your belief will be determiend by that triar of fact to be reasonable.

And none of this is in specific relation to the current Dallas case, just general discussion. ;)

Personally, I would try to avoid shooting a man that is not obviously armed. However, it looks the shooter did try to do that by retreating from the fight. I would be surprised if this gets past the Grand Jury. If it does, I predict he shooter will not be convicted, unless there is some bad unknown information, like the shooter invited the fight, or instigated it. That does not appeared to have happened here. Also if the dead man turns out to have been sleeping with the shooters wife, or something like that.... it could change things.

I agree with that asessment.

bithabus
07-08-2012, 14:32
Serious bodily injury is the exact phrase, and of course, as I wrote, a blow to the head certainly can cause serious bodily injury and even death. "Can", cause.....

"Can cause" is sufficient to meet the definition. A punch to the head thrown by an adult male is deadly force.


Sec. 9.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
.
.
.
(3) "Deadly force" means force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.

Kamo
07-08-2012, 14:56
"Can cause" is sufficient to meet the definition. A punch to the head thrown by an adult male is deadly force.


Sec. 9.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
.
.
.
(3) "Deadly force" means force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.

As a 5'3" 110lb woman, I can almost guarantee you that a punch in the face from an adult male would cause me a lot of problems and could quite possibly kill me, especially if that punch was delivered to my temple area.

Since I'm not fortunate enough to have a CCW license here on Long Island I wouldn't have the opportunity to defend myself (assuming I survived the punch) and take this psycho out but if I lived in Texas you can be sure I would. And I wouldn't hesitate either if he started beating me up.

I know nothing about Texas law but imo, I think this guy did the community a favor and like the man out there who shot the guy who he caught molesting his daughter a couple of weeks ago, no charges should be filed.

cowboywannabe
07-08-2012, 15:02
Kamo, hello from the free states. you are correct, but also know that a full grown man can be knocked out or killed by the same punch you could get.

Cavalry Doc
07-08-2012, 15:03
CavDoc, great example. if you saw they poor misguided victims of society do that and then come towards you, my question is which one would you shoot first, then which would you shoot the most?

I'll only shoot someone if I feel I absolutely must shoot. I'm Caucasian, so would be presumed guilty. If I had to shoot them, the closest one that I had to to protect myself, then the next, and I would only shoot them just enough..... Everyone needing to be shot is shot once just before being shot twice, but only if immediately necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to myself.

Cavalry Doc
07-08-2012, 15:06
As a 5'3" 110lb woman, I can almost guarantee you that a punch in the face from an adult male would cause me a lot of problems and could quite possibly kill me, especially if that punch was delivered to my temple area.

Since I'm not fortunate enough to have a CCW license here on Long Island I wouldn't have the opportunity to defend myself (assuming I survived the punch) and take this psycho out but if I lived in Texas you can be sure I would. And I wouldn't hesitate either if he started beating me up.

I know nothing about Texas law but imo, I think this guy did the community a favor and like the man out there who shot the guy who he caught molesting his daughter a couple of weeks ago, no charges should be filed.

The guy a couple of weeks ago was in or near Shiner Texas, and he beat the guy to death with his fists. It was an accident. He was trying to stop him. Grand jury no billed him. No charges, no problem .

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/he-got-what-he-deserved-texas-dad-beats-his-daughters-molester-to-death/


I don't know enough yet about this incident to give you a good idea of whether the shooter was compliant with the law.

Kamo
07-08-2012, 15:17
Kamo, hello from the free states. you are correct, but also know that a full grown man can be knocked out or killed by the same punch you could get.

Hello back (from the bluest state in the union :crying:) Yes, I realize that as well but I was opining from a woman's point of view. This guy was obviously on some sort of rampage and who knows what kind of injuries he could, and did, cause? Maybe the shooter thought perhaps he was even carrying?

We've had our share of lunatics up here that have shot up drug stores and nightclubs but our laws here are such that only the elite members of the A Class are allowed to conceal carry or business owners who deal with certain amounts of cash on a daily basis. A regular person such as myself is not. That leaves me vulnerable to wackos like the "Medford Shooter" as he's known around here (he killed four people in a drug store) or guys like the one out there. One good punch and I'm done. I really need to think about selling my house and moving to a state like Texas.

bithabus
07-08-2012, 15:31
Hello back (from the bluest state in the union :crying:) Yes, I realize that as well but I was opining from a woman's point of view. This guy was obviously on some sort of rampage and who knows what kind of injuries he could, and did, cause? Maybe the shooter thought perhaps he was even carrying?

We've had our share of lunatics up here that have shot up drug stores and nightclubs but our laws here are such that only the elite members of the A Class are allowed to conceal carry or business owners who deal with certain amounts of cash on a daily basis. A regular person such as myself is not. That leaves me vulnerable to wackos like the "Medford Shooter" as he's known around here (he killed four people in a drug store) or guys like the one out there. One good punch and I'm done. I really need to think about selling my house and moving to a state like Texas.

I grew up in Nassau County, just down the street from the LIRR station where Ferguson shot up a car of defenseless people.

It's better in Texas. Hot though.

txinvestigator
07-08-2012, 17:05
"Can cause" is sufficient to meet the definition. A punch to the head thrown by an adult male is deadly force.


Sec. 9.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
.
.
.
(3) "Deadly force" means force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.

No. That is inaccurate. " In the manner of its use or intended use", is the key phrase. Not any punch is automatically deadly force.

Unless you have some case law you care to show........

If I walk up and as a joke, lightly punch you in the back of the head it is NOT deadly force. I think you know it, but you are allowing youe emotional dislike of me could your posting.

reading is fundamental........

From Restatement of Torts Second, 63(d).

""In determining whether a particular means is `intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm,' the amount of force applied, the means or weapons by which it is applied, the method of applying it, and the circumstances under which it is applied are factors to be considered. Whether a particular means threatens serious bodily harm or death does not depend entirely upon the nature of the weapon with which it is inflicted. A weapon which as ordinarily used threatens death or serious bodily harm, and which is therefore generally described as a `deadly' weapon, may be used so as to threaten only a lesser harm; on the other hand, a weapon which as ordinarily used threatens only a trifling harm may be so used as to threaten serious harm or death. Nor does the question depend solely upon the amount of force exerted. The other's physical condition may be known to the actor to be such that he should realize that a slight blow which would do only a trivial harm to a normal person may well be fatal to the other. So too, the surrounding circumstances may be such that the actor should realize that the use of a force which would normally do little harm is likely to result in serious harm or death. Thus, although knocking another down is usually unlikely to cause serious bodily harm, it is obviously likely to do so if the other is known to be suffering from advance heart disease or is standing on the running board of a rapidly moving automobile"

txinvestigator
07-08-2012, 17:09
As a 5'3" 110lb woman, I can almost guarantee you that a punch in the face from an adult male would cause me a lot of problems and could quite possibly kill me, especially if that punch was delivered to my temple area. You are correct. and under Texas law I believe you would be justiied.


I know nothing about Texas law but imo, I think this guy did the community a favor and like the man out there who shot the guy who he caught molesting his daughter a couple of weeks ago, no charges should be filed.

Perhaps. But the guy molesting the man's daughter was not shot. He was beaten to death. A grand jury has already no-billed the father. Completely different circumstance.

bithabus
07-08-2012, 20:10
No. That is inaccurate. " In the manner of its use or intended use", is the key phrase. Not any punch is automatically deadly force.


Obviously. A "full force punch to the head from an able bodied adult male" is deadly force. I thought it was clear that is what we were talking about.

I don't dislike you by the way. Not sure why you would think that.

Travclem
07-08-2012, 21:26
Most likely? Is that your professional opinion as a Mental Health Professional? lol

No that's my personal opinion and how I would deal with the said psychopath.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Mayhem like Me
07-09-2012, 09:07
The location is in the hood. I definitely wouldn't get out of a car there without being armed. A couple of women were raped at the bus stop outside this convenience store the other week.

That aside, it is tough to justify shooting a dude for pimp slapping people. Tough, but not impossible. Hopefully we are only getting 10% of the story.

Hopefully the dead slapper was buck naked and high on bath salts.

Google knocked out by a slap....


Any man can be knocked out by a slap, I use the technique myself and have put a few lights out with a slap to the side of the head.


When you are KTFO you cant fight back.

St3ve T
07-09-2012, 11:47
Somebody comes into the store and hits you in the head. You leave and evade the situation. Then, the attacker follows you and continues his assault? Isn't that an escalation of aggression?

Let's remember. The victim did try to leave as far as the news story says.

NMGlocker
07-09-2012, 12:41
Your attempt and symantics games is a failure. Immediate future and imminent are NOT the exact same thing. :upeyes:

So no, justifications are not afforded to future possibilities.


**see how that works?**
No matter how many :upeyes: you post, imminent is future tense.
By definition imminent means X hasn't happened yet, but the likelyhood of it happening in the immediate future is assured.
Please show me where imminent is defined as anything except future tense.
http://thesaurus.com/browse/imminent
Main Entry: imminent
Definition: at hand, on the way
Synonyms: about to happen, approaching, brewing, close, coming, expectant, fast-approaching, following, forthcoming, gathering, handwriting-on-the-wall, immediate, impending, in store, in the air, in the cards, in the offing, in the wind, in view, ineluctable, inescapable, inevasible, inevitable, likely, looming, menacing, near, nearing, next, nigh, on its way, on the horizon, on the verge, overhanging, possible, probable, see it coming, threatening, to come, unavoidable, unescapable
**see how that works?**

Stevekozak
07-09-2012, 13:57
No matter how many :upeyes: you post, imminent is future tense.
By definition imminent means X hasn't happened yet, but the likelyhood of it happening in the immediate future is assured.
Please show me where imminent is defined as anything except future tense.

**see how that works?**
YEP!! the TX investigator should investigate the bookstore and buy a dictionary. :)

Gunnut 45/454
07-09-2012, 15:13
The moral of this story- Don't be a stupid arse and going around slapping/punching other people! If you can't act civilized and must act like an animal you just might be put down like an animal should!:rofl:

HKLovingIT
07-09-2012, 15:50
Semantics:

semantics
   [si-man-tiks]
noun ( used with a singular verb )
1.
Linguistics .
a.
the study of meaning.
b.
the study of linguistic development by classifying and examining changes in meaning and form.
2.
Also called significs. the branch of semiotics dealing with the relations between signs and what they denote.
3.
the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.: Let's not argue about semantics.
4.
general semantics.

"Symantics" A made up word you guys are arguing about. :tongueout: Yeah I'm being a little sh%@-haid today. :crying:Sorry. I need more coffee. Grrrrrrrrr.

Nanner-nanner. :rofl:

Kamo you don't need to go all the way to Texas to be free. Hop the border fence to Vermont or PA and live free again. They accept all refugees from the People's Republics of New York and New Jersey. :wavey:

ICARRY2
07-21-2012, 11:09
the more times legal ccw'ers shoot criminals for physically attacking them, the less this will happen. who has a problem with that?

Not me! :)

SevenSixtyTwo
07-22-2012, 08:00
Me either. Someone large enough to cause a knock out, dain bramage, broken jaw or cornea tear starts slapping me around with ill intent, I'm going to consider that assault and a threat of death or great bodily harm. I'm going to shoot him.

JW1178
07-23-2012, 12:36
Not going to risk some nutcase eating my face. Seriously, someone that out of their minds is capable of anything.

I was in a gas station once and a drunk was trying to buy beer, and the cashier refused to sell it because he was so obviously drunk. He pitched a fit, threw the beer, started yelling at everyone in the store. Didn't go as far as to put his hands on anyone but he said if he didn't get his beer someone was going to get hurt. One guy who I guess knew him grabbed him and took him outside and told him to calm down. Lucky for him because one guy grabbed a 40oz glass bottle and was waiting for the oppertunity to clock him.

BamaTrooper
07-23-2012, 15:26
Yes sometimes. But certainly not always.

Depending on the disparate level of force prosecutors, juries, and judges may have a problem with that. That in turn has the potential to cause all gun carriers to look bad to some who have a very different agenda than ours.

It is when the police hit you in the head. In most agencies, the head is a no strike zone unless deadly force is justified. Hell even intentional striking the joints is considered a "no no" unless you are justified.

BamaTrooper
07-23-2012, 15:29
Slapping can turn in to all-out assault in an instant, especially with an unstable or high person. I wasn't there so I can't judge the "totality of the circumstances". I'm sure (well, hope) there is video of this incident.

"Play stupid games, win stupid prizes."

I suppose if he signed an agreement to only hit you with the palm of his hand...:whistling: