As it was with the first CHL shooting in Texas. DMN reports the big bad gunman (150# CHLer) shot the poor innocent (long history of violent assaults) unarmed Samoan (350# plus) that was arguing (reaching into the vehicle pummeling the driver and attempting to pull him from the car) with the driver after they bumped mirrors instead of just driving off (ignoring the fact that the vehicle was at a light and completely boxed in). As the facts started reaching the public's ear, and the justifiable nature of the shooting became apparant, the story was pushed further and further back until it was little more than a blurb. No retractions, no apologies for the character assasination, nada.stevie_d_64 wrote: It is becoming more acceptable for the general public, with enthusiastic help and encouragement by the media and our government, to demonize those of us who do actually take our lives and the lives of others very serious...Whether it was right to do so or not...
This is the case for Mr. Joe Horn down here in Pasadena...Sure, in my opinion he said some things he should not have that were recorded...And he might not have gone outside based upon what the dispatcher stated to him at that time...
And so it goes.
Added in Edit for Big_Dom: The "Castle Doctrine" as it is, IMO, misnamed removes the duty to retreat from any place you have the legal right to be before defending yourself. IOW, a BG starts to threaten you and you reasonably believe that you are in immediate danger of death or seriously bodily injury, you can immediately set about defending yourself without having to look for a way out or later proving that you did.
Added in yet another edit:
Thought the citation might be of some help.Texas Penal Code 9.32(c) wrote: (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.