Search found 2 matches
Return to “Attempted Carjacking ...”
- Wed Jul 02, 2008 3:05 pm
- Forum: Never Again!!
- Topic: Attempted Carjacking ...
- Replies: 45
- Views: 8604
Re: Attempted Carjacking ...
Well, bottom line is, in Texas, if he did shoot them, what DA will prosecute, or what grand jury will indict him, he had a much clearer cut case than Joe Horn did even, and once the police pull up the guys rap sheet, plus the fact that he had an illegal gun on him (both of which are very likely because people that brave aren't first time criminals) most people will have lost sympathy, and it's close enough to argue that he feared for his life and was forced to shoot. It's blurry enough that most people in Texas will agree with his side.
- Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:31 pm
- Forum: Never Again!!
- Topic: Attempted Carjacking ...
- Replies: 45
- Views: 8604
Re: Attempted Carjacking ...
If he felt afraid that his life was in danger he most likely will get the go-ahead from any jury in Texas, he could just easily argue that the criminal could have easily pulled the gun before he could react and would have lost his life.BigBlueDodge wrote:Okay, this is a real life situation, so let's talk hypotheticals here.
1. What was the attempted crime, theft or robbery? My guess is aggravated robbery, because it was attempted theft, with use of force with a deadly weapon.
2. Was the victim in his legal right to shoot the attacker when the attacker brandished his weapon? Hmm, I'm not sure on this. I want to say yes, but since the attacker never actually grabbed the weapon, that has me thinking that there would be a discussion of was the victim's life really at hand, since attacker did not point gun in a threatening manner at victim.
3. What threat does brandishing a weapon consititute? In this case, the attacker didn't physically have gun in hand, pointed at victim. Can your life be in danger if attacker has a weapon (gun inside waistband, knife in pocket) that he shows you, but does not actually have it in his hand?
These real life situations are great, because they allow us to analyze, after the facts, what the victim was legally allowed to do so that we may be better prepared for future occurrances.
Now the prosecutors could easily argue he wasn't in any threat of life from the criminal, but most juries won't listen to that especially when the defense says that the criminal had (most likely) past felonies, and an illegal handgun, and (possibly) was a member of a gang, and has been in and out of jail for decades.
That's the problem with criminals (usually, not always of course) is that they continue to commit crimes after they get out of jail, of course it doesn't help it's near impossible to get a job with a felony, but that's a different argument for a different time.