TexasCHLforum.com

Something smells rotten in the state of Denmark. Those guys driving a Bently?? Low bail for what they did? 248 miles from home? Anyone who is wealthy enough to own a Bentley, doesn't drive that distance for a family vacation. The get in their Lear Jet and tell their pilot where they want to go.

Jim, can you follow this story, and update us when/if there's more info on it?

joe817 wrote:Something smells rotten in the state of Denmark. Those guys driving a Bently?? Low bail for what they did? 248 miles from home? Anyone who is wealthy enough to own a Bentley, doesn't drive that distance for a family vacation. The get in their Lear Jet and tell their pilot where they want to go.

Jim, can you follow this story, and update us when/if there's more info on it?

They have a nice car, doesn't mean they have the wealth that one might associate with it.

If someone even raises a fist to my wife and I am around they would be dead. Whether legal or not it would be irrelevant.

Forget Farmer Brown's cow on the loose. It ain't been that long ago that guys like those Bentley thugs might be found swinging from the post oak trees, that being the dominant species in the area, and law abiding citizens the other dominant species.

joe817 wrote:Those guys driving a Bently?? Low bail for what they did? 248 miles from home? Anyone who is wealthy enough to own a Bentley, doesn't drive that distance for a family vacation.

I don't know cheap a Bentley can go for if it has been flooded or something. Cars like that are very expensive to have repaired, and lose a lot of value if any little thing is wrong with them. The guy may have won $100,000 in the lottery, which happens often, and wanted a Bentley.

As for the low bail, they're charged with misdemeanors. I think the bail amounts are set by formula in most cases. Maybe someone knows for sure.

Jim, can you follow this story ...

Sure.

- Jim

http://houston.craigslist.org/ctd/1328711152.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Let's not get too carried away with a 'Bentley' and assume it's worth a $100 grand. Originally, yes, but not today perhaps. The link above is for a used one for less than most of us might pay for a pickup truck.

It just occurred to me that someone in this case should have been charged with UCW. The driver or vehicle owner could legally carry under MPA until he committed an offense other than a traffic offense. MPA does not apply to the passengers.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:MPA does not apply to the passengers.

Maybe. Maybe not. If I drive a friend's car and they're a passenger, he or she should be covered by MPA in their car. If I drive a car owned (community property) by a married couple, and they're passengers, they should be covered by MPA in their car.

However, I agree that lovely family lost MPA protection when they assaulted the woman and threatened her husband.

I doubt the 15 or 20-year-old in this case has an ownership interest in the car.

I would like to know where the weapons were. There's a bunch of contradictory case law about who possesses a thing that is under a seat or otherwise not on someone's person when multiple people are in a vehicle.

Sometimes it is all of them and sometimes none.

The prosecutors can always add a charge later.

- Jim

I believe the husband would have been justified to shoot, and no-billed under the 'defense of another' part of the lethal force laws.

2 Late-teenage boys vs 1 older woman is an easy disparity of force in my (and hopefully the jury's) eyes, and the 3rd guy saying he has a gun is just icing on the cake. All 3 would have seen the business end of my .45 had I been in that situation.

frazzled wrote: If someone even raises a fist to my wife and I am around they would be dead. Whether legal or not it would be irrelevant.

dicion wrote:I believe the husband would have been justified to shoot, and no-billed under the 'defense of another' part of the lethal force laws.

2 Late-teenage boys vs 1 older woman is an easy disparity of force in my (and hopefully the jury's) eyes, and the 3rd guy saying he has a gun is just icing on the cake. All 3 would have seen the business end of my .45 had I been in that situation.

frazzled wrote: If someone even raises a fist to my wife and I am around they would be dead. Whether legal or not it would be irrelevant.

Agreed. I'll add these comments, I'm not much on laying on the horn, I consider it often to be rude and provacative. Also, I'd have asked my wife where the heck she was going if she tried to open the truck door to get out and yell at the dude. That said, there is no call to start beating women in a parking lot.

Remember what Woodrow said? " I hate rude behavior in a man. I won't tolerate it."

Jeff B.

Ok so I know what I would do if I were put in this situation. I agree that I should never end up such a situation, but if I did, here's what I would do and why:

I'd fire at the father first. He has stated that he's armed and going to fire at me if I try to stop his kids from beating my wife. If that doesn't stop the kids, or if they turn on me, or go for the car that allegedly has weapons in it, then they're next.

Does my reasoning make sense? Now is this lawful?

You feared for your life or the life of someone else. I do not even think it would make it to a jury, at least not in Texas. How did these thugs get a bail set so low, the Judge must be scum.

I guess there are those (far on the left) that may believe a 15 year old can't commit serious bodily harm/injury. My 14 year old is 6' tall, 240 lbs of football playing animal. Fortunately he is a good natured, happy go lucky kid. My wife teaches high school and can tell you some real horror stories about kids and how they think these days. Down through the ages, it was root, hog or die. If you didn't go out and work for it, earn it, you couldn't reasonable expect to have it. These days far too many kids have an unreal sense of entitlement and need for immediate satisfaction. My kids aren't perfect, but they take out the trash, clean their rooms, so their own laundry and help out around the house. I only have them every other weekend. If they are fixing a sandwich, they check to see if their grandfather (who lives with us) wants anything while they are up. They are not perfect, far from it. But I consider them better than most. They also know that if they get tossed in the slammer for drinking or drugs (or pretty much anything), Momma will have to bail them out. I won't. Actions have consequences.

PUCKER wrote:I heard about this on the news a few nights ago, from what I recall, the news story mentioned that the Lovelys (how lovely, eh?) did have three handguns in the car when they were arrested (or in their room, etc).

Since the older son's record includes theft of a firearm (TXPC31.03(e)(4)(C), state jail felony) it would be interesting to know if he could have been considered to have constructive possession of any of those.