Jump to content

tvc184

SETXsports Staff
  • Posts

    28,167
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    58

tvc184 last won the day on July 22

tvc184 had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About tvc184

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Nederland

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Biden said it best to represent the Democrat opinion, you ain’t Black…..
  2. Here is what I believe are the applicable laws for self defense in this situation. What level has to be proven, if any, to justify self defense at any level? The Texas Penal Code says: Sec. 9.02. JUSTIFICATION AS A DEFENSE. It is a defense to prosecution that the conduct in question is justified under this chapter. But what is a “defense to prosecution“? Sec. 2.03. DEFENSE. (a) A defense to prosecution for an offense in this code is so labeled by the phrase: "It is a defense to prosecution . . . ." (b) The prosecuting attorney is not required to negate the existence of a defense in the accusation charging commission of the offense. (c) The issue of the existence of a defense is not submitted to the jury unless evidence is admitted supporting the defense. (d) If the issue of the existence of a defense is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge that a reasonable doubt on the issue requires that the defendant be acquitted. Key in that law is (c) where it says if submitted to a jury and (d) reasonable doubt shall require the defendant to be acquitted. You can see in (b) that the DA isn’t required to bring up self defense but IF that issue is brought up by the person accused, the DA then has to prove beyond a “reasonable doubt” that it was NOT self defense. Also in (c) it says there has to be evidence supporting self defense. That means you can’t simply kill someone and when the police ask you what happened you say, self-defense and the case is closed. If any evidence is brought up that shows it could possibly be self-defense, that is submitted to the jury. Basically a person doesn’t have to prove self defense. The state/DA has to prove it was not self defense if any evidence is brought up that can show possible self defense. That is huge. I don’t think a lot of people don’t understand that. Whether it involves a police officer, or a citizen, people will say things in forums like, he couldn’t prove he needed to shoot or can prove he had no other option. By law it doesn’t matter. You are not required to prove self defense under Section 2.03(d). Again, the state is required to prove it is not self defense if the person can show any evidence supporting a self defense claim When can you use deadly force? Sec. 9.31. 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…….. (a) goes on to list various situations like being on your property unlawfully/trespassing, kidnapping, assaults, etc. These are general rules of when self defense is lawful but more specific laws are detailed later in the chapter. It also mentions that under (b) self defense is not justified IF and it then lists reasons you CANNOT lawfully claim self defense such as responding to verbal provocation alone (sticks and stones), if committing a crime, if resisting arrest, etc. Deadly force may be used: 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. Under (a)(2) it says “to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary”. What that means in my opinion is a jury has to look at it through the eyes of the “actor” (same meaning as suspect, person accused, etc.). Is it reasonable for the person using self defense, reasonable in his belief that he may be trying to stop deadly force against him or someone else or to stop the listed crimes of kidnapping, sexual assault, etc.? So to this case specifically and going only by the news articles, we have a man who appears to have shot and killed a woman (murder) and shot another man (aggravated assault). When the police arrived the suspect ran into a residence but the came back out with a gun in hand. Would a person in the officer’s place, form a reasonable belief that the suspect may have been about to use deadly force again? Remember that the officer does not have to prove deadly force was necessary. The state has to prove that it was not necessary AND that the officer did not have a reasonable belief that he or anyone else might be about to be shot. If the person was surrendering, why not leave the gun in the residence? Who knows but does it ever matter faced with what the officer saw? Maybe the guy was going to surrender but I don’t think it matters. The officer is being investigated for the use of deadly force by what he reasonably witnessed. It comes down to two simple questions using the laws I listed to come up with an answer. With what the officer knew at that moment in time and what he witnessed, would a person in the officer’s position have a reasonable belief that his or anyone else’s life was in danger? Is there evidence that could be submitted to the jury to justify that belief? I would think that two people shot and a man running away but then returning toward the officer with a gun in hand is evidence supporting self defense whether the gun is pointed directly at the officer at that moment or not. Again remembering that the law requires no proof by the officer but proof beyond a reasonable doubt by the state.
  3. …. and from the article, it sounds like a justified case of self defense.
  4. When it rains, it pours. From no officer involved shootings (ever I think) to two in one summer. That stuff happens though. In PA I am just guessing that we averaged maybe 12 fatal vehicle accidents a year. The odds of two on the same day would be a rare and unlikely event. The odds of it being on the same roadway in a given year is a little more likely but even then they are usually scattered. I was the supervisor on duty one night and we were working two fatal accidents at the time on the same road that had nothing to do with each other. It doesn’t always run in 3s but it sometimes comes in spurts.
  5. So what farmers in Florida did she interviewed or saw interviews that have questioned sending people to Martha’s Vineyard because they need them to pick crops? Not only is it blatantly racist, it is completely made up and she probably thought about it about 10 seconds before she said it. Notwithstanding, the fact that I believe the illegal aliens flown to Martha’s Vineyard, came from Texas, not Florida. That was the entire premise of the sheriff of Bexar County saying that he was going to do a criminal investigation. I guess it is great, having the bully pulpit where you can stand up and unflinchingly lie and make a racist comments and not be challenged.
  6. What is ridiculous is that it took an almost 300 page ruling to say that if everyone is equal, there is no constitutional violation. If only minorities had to show proof of citizenship or an ID, it would go against the 14th Amendment. If only white male Christians (preferably with ties to white supremacy movements) were the only people sitting at the polls and making such decisions, it would go against the 14th Amendment. Without reading the actual law, I feel fairly confident that I could make a wager with 100% certainty of winning that those things do not exist. It is like the ridiculous racist claim by white liberals that Blacks do not possess IDs or they are too stupid to find the DMV in order to obtain one. Another claim is that they do not have the knowledge to go online on a cell phone to do most of it online.
  7. If the purpose and goal of a public school district is to put a good football team on the field, they should make one high school.
  8. Hmmm…. ”The school on N. Peoria Avenue has an enrollment of 666 students, according to the McLain High School website.”
  9. Comeback over. Dayton intercepted at 15 and returned to own 39
  10. COMEBACK!! Nederland recovers fumble at Dayton 43
  11. Kickoff is fumbled at Nederland 15 but miraculously recovered at Nederland 18
×
×
  • Create New...