Jump to content

Dad shoots daughter's boyfriend... Your thoughts?


bullets13

Recommended Posts

 in my statement if you didn't notice at the beginning i said "this is off topic" and then at the end i said "as far as this story goes"

no where did i say i would kill my daughter's boyfriend.

 

I ll take my chances firing my weapon to protect my "home" and surviving then possibly dying or a family member dying.  also take my chances in court and hope a jury will prove my innocence.

Someone entering my home without invite(by force) is the criminal whose needing punishment.

 

to answer your question.....he seemed like an angry father not a father protecting his home

 

And in my statement you didn't notice that I didn't say that you said what you would do. In my statement I said "someone". I also did not quote anyone whether it be you or anyone else and simply made a blanket statement after reading many (hundreds) of comments on different forums. 

 

I also mentioned "not this forum" on reading hundreds of comments. 

 

:D

 

NEXT............... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the thing about "reaching for something", is there's no way to prove whether he actually did, or if the father just said that to justify what he did.


Their is no one to refute his testimony other than his daughter. Or if he makes additional statements they may contradict his previous statement. I haven't seen anything on this story other that the link on this forum. But if there is no witnesses and no other circumstantial evidence, seems to me, as say, a potential juror, the guy walks. Can't read his mind. I'm strictly making my call from the one news story I've read. Bad situation to be in for the young man. Coincidentally, I was in a similar situation as and adolescent. I felt the compression of the gun fire close to my head. Fortunately for me I wasn't hit. I didn't report the incident, and have laughed about it ever since. However it could have went the same way as for this kid. I never was mad at the old man for shooting at me, I was guilty as charged.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their is no one to refute his testimony other than his daughter. Or if he makes additional statements they may contradict his previous statement. I haven't seen anything on this story other that the link on this forum. But if there is no witnesses and no other circumstantial evidence, seems to me, as say, a potential juror, the guy walks. Can't read his mind. I'm strictly making my call from the one news story I've read. Bad situation to be in for the young man. Coincidentally, I was in a similar situation as and adolescent. I felt the compression of the gun fire close to my head. Fortunately for me I wasn't hit. I didn't report the incident, and have laughed about it ever since. However it could have went the same way as for this kid. I never was mad at the old man for shooting at me, I was guilty as charged.

 

Guilty of what, having a girlfriend?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI if you sneak a girl out of her house and you get caught, or caught in her bed. It may cost you your life. That means you made a real bad decision. Average American or jury will agree with father. Most likely that's the case here. Don't know if you have a daughter or sister, but Im kinda really sensitive about other people touching them in that manner. Truthfully most fathers are, you may be and exception. And we couldn't care less about the law or the punishment. And like I said, most jurrors will be lenient on the father. IMO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI if you sneak a girl out of her house and you get caught, or caught in her bed. It may cost you your life. That means you made a real bad decision. Average American or jury will agree with father. Most likely that's the case here. Don't know if you have a daughter or sister, but Im kinda really sensitive about other people touching them in that manner. Truthfully most fathers are, you may be and exception. And we couldn't care less about the law or the punishment. And like I said, most jurrors will be lenient on the father. IMO

 

So you are saying that most Americans would agree that killing a 17 year old that did nothing illegal? 

 

If not it sure appears that is what you are saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok. Insert "sexual assault" in place of "statutory rape". Either one is a criminal act.

 

 

Maybe you missed the point. This could not have been statutory rape or any rape/sexual assault by age. Simply put, this 16 year old girl could have consented to sex with this kid and it is no more of a crime than the married parents having consent sex. 

I was only pointing out that the term of statutory rape no longer appears in TX law but even if it did, this was not it. This kid that was killed committed no crime. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe you missed the point. This could not have been statutory rape or any rape/sexual assault by age. Simply put, this 16 year old girl could have consented to sex with this kid and it is no more of a crime than the married parents having consent sex. 

I was only pointing out that the term of statutory rape no longer appears in TX law but even if it did, this was not it. This kid that was killed committed no crime. 

 

It is my understanding that the Romeo and Juliet Law only prevents the minor from being labled a "sex offender". It does not make the act "legal". I could be wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined



  • Posts

    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
    • See why I don't trust my Hogs?
    • Come on dude, don’t take anything away from the kids on the field. If you want to talk uncharacteristic, we made what 3 or 4 errors in game one. Y’all had 2 EARNED runs.  Defense is normally our strong suit. Your ace didn’t strike out a single one of our kids. Like I said also, you did not out hit us in game 1. Hell you barley out hit us in game 2. We had all the uncharacteristic walks. Josh pitched a hell of a game is what made that game what it was.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...