TexasCHLforum.com

If I remember right, Falstaff was comic relief.

bizarrenormality wrote:If I remember right, Falstaff was comic relief.

If I remember correctly, Falstaff was a brand of beer.

tomtexan wrote:

bizarrenormality wrote:If I remember right, Falstaff was comic relief.

If I remember correctly, Falstaff was a brand of beer.

and the brewery stunk up NOLA so bad even the skeeters left!

VMI77 wrote:

TPC §9.32 wrote:Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

• (b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
  
  (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
  
  (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
  
  (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
  
  . . .
  
  (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
  
  (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.

And correct me if I'm wrong please Mr. Cotton, but as I understand the law "with force" in this case could merely be pulling up the handle and opening, or trying to open, an unlocked (or locked) door?[/quote]

Correct. "Force" means the use of any force whatsoever; it doesn't mean damaging force, overwhelming force, or anything approaching that nature.

Chas.

The story your not hearing.
Crystal Scott turned onto 1960 almost causing an Accident with Jonathan Ables. He had to merge lanes not to hit her. Then returned to the slow lane where he need to be to pull in the gas station to get gas to make it to work. Crystal was offended by this action and went around Jonathan and cut him off as well as "brake checked him". Jonathan almost rear ended crystal at that point. He moved to the center lane and tried to drive around her at that point Crystal used her car as a weapon and side swiped Jonathan truck causing an accident.Crystal came into Jonathans lane and hit him with her car. Crystal sped up after the contact with Jonathan, He sped up also to catch her, then got in front of her and made her slow down to 35 mph. and turned into the gas station.{ where he was going to get gas to begin with} Jonathan got out of his truck and approached Crystal car. when he reached the front tire, drivers side mirror area, she shot twice the first shot missed him and almost hit a by stander 15 feet away, the second shot hit Jonathan in the chest killing him.
If you look at the bullet holes in the car window you can clearly see no man is tall enough to reach the door handle from that point. Jonathan was 5'10". if he would have bent over to grab the door handle from where he was standing the bullets would have went over his back.
Crystal Scott was ticketed for the road rage. She had also gone to jail on Sept.6,2012 for other road violations and in July was arrested for evading arrest.
There were no marks found on Jonathans hands... " there was not a scratch on that boys hands" funeral home director. You want to know why Crystal was not arrested look towards politics, you will clearly see whats going on.

Your relation to the deceased is what exactly?

Anygunanywhere

4 Angels wrote:The story your not hearing.
Crystal Scott turned onto 1960 almost causing an Accident with Jonathan Ables. He had to merge lanes not to hit her. Then returned to the slow lane where he need to be to pull in the gas station to get gas to make it to work. Crystal was offended by this action and went around Jonathan and cut him off as well as "brake checked him". Jonathan almost rear ended crystal at that point. He moved to the center lane and tried to drive around her at that point Crystal used her car as a weapon and side swiped Jonathan truck causing an accident.Crystal came into Jonathans lane and hit him with her car. Crystal sped up after the contact with Jonathan, He sped up also to catch her, then got in front of her and made her slow down to 35 mph. and turned into the gas station.{ where he was going to get gas to begin with} Jonathan got out of his truck and approached Crystal car. when he reached the front tire, drivers side mirror area, she shot twice the first shot missed him and almost hit a by stander 15 feet away, the second shot hit Jonathan in the chest killing him.
If you look at the bullet holes in the car window you can clearly see no man is tall enough to reach the door handle from that point. Jonathan was 5'10". if he would have bent over to grab the door handle from where he was standing the bullets would have went over his back.
Crystal Scott was ticketed for the road rage. She had also gone to jail on Sept.6,2012 for other road violations and in July was arrested for evading arrest.
There were no marks found on Jonathans hands... " there was not a scratch on that boys hands" funeral home director. You want to know why Crystal was not arrested look towards politics, you will clearly see whats going on.

Who are you and what is your relationship to the parties? Where did you get this information and why does this information apparently conflict with the investigation? BTW, there is no "ticket" for so-called "road rage."

If you are going to join solely to post alleged facts, then you should be willing to disclose the information requested.

Chas.

the tickets were for unsafe lane change,reckless driving although I did not read the tickets the witness saw the officer writing them.
I am a friend of Jonathans family and good friends with the witness who was in the truck when this accident happened.

4 Angels wrote:the tickets were for unsafe lane change,reckless driving although I did not read the tickets the witness saw the officer writing them.
I am a friend of Jonathans family and good friends with the witness who was in the truck when this accident happened.

Thanks for the additional information and I'm sorry for your loss.

How is it that you came into information that has not been publicly released and that appears to conflict with the official investigation? I say it apparently conflicts because of the lack of an arrest and statements by the media that all but one witness (and apparently the security video) corroborate the woman's story.

Even if what you say about the driving is accurate, it has no bearing on the use of force in self-defense.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Even if what you say about the driving is accurate, it has no bearing on the use of force in self-defense.

Chas.

I'd figure they'll either find his fingerprints on the door handle, or they won't. That will be a telling piece of information.

Read your laws. You loose the self defense rule once you inter into a crime. The crime was her using her car to run into Jonathans truck on purpose.

What you are saying is that after an accident on a public road if someone approaches your vehicle to exchange information you have the right to shoot them???

Look at the photos of the car the bullets came through the front of her window not by the door handle. Do research find a car stand in front of the drivers side rear view mirror and reach for the handle, it can not be reached from an up right possession. the bullets would have went over his back. all im saying is do your research I have....
here is a video for you to think about also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L91_K-s4 ... ture=share" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Crystals windows were tinted witch made them stronger.

I see a rehash of the barstoolguru arguments coming.

Headed for the shower.

Anygunanywhere

to Charles L. Cotton
There are no videos the cameras were broken. If you think the media is telling the truth look at what NBC did to the Zimmerman case. its all about politics. Sheriff up for re-election in Harris county he needs the votes from Acres Home and Bishop Dixon Church.
why did the NAACP and her Atty. show up on the seen? Politics

4 Angels wrote:Read your laws. You loose the self defense rule once you inter into a crime. The crime was her using her car to run into Jonathans truck on purpose.

What you are saying is that after an accident on a public road if someone approaches your vehicle to exchange information you have the right to shoot them???

Look at the photos of the car the bullets came through the front of her window not by the door handle. Do research find a car stand in front of the drivers side rear view mirror and reach for the handle, it can not be reached from an up right possession. the bullets would have went over his back. all im saying is do your research I have....
here is a video for you to think about also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L91_K-s4 ... ture=share" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Crystals windows were tinted witch made them stronger.

I understand you are emotionally invested in this matter, but don't you think you should leave it to the Sheriff's Dept., the District Attorney, and a grand jury to decide whether the woman's actions were justified under Texas law? You don't know what happened any more than do I. The deceased’s friend in the truck with him is hardly an unbiased witness.

I know the law quite well. First, even being actively engaged in criminal activity does not deprive one of the right to use deadly force in self-defense. The controlling facts are whether the person using deadly force reasonably believed deadly force was immediately necessary to prevent someone else from using unlawful deadly force against them. (This ignores the felony murder rule that has no application to this case.)

Being engaged in criminal activity does matter when determining whether the presumption of TPC §9.32(b) is available to the person claiming self-defense. Again, you must be actively engaged in criminal acts (not traffic violations) at the time you use deadly force. (See below.) Even if your version of the traffic events is accurate, they were over by the time your friend was shot. (It’s also noteworthy that the woman was not charged with assault for allegedly “ramming” the deceased’s vehicle, so I doubt there’s any evidence to support that claim.)

Since the woman was not actively engaged in criminal activity at the time of the shooting, we need to look to TPC §9.32(b). Here we find that Texas law presumes that she reasonably believed that deadly force was immediately necessary. This is because she knew or had reason to believe that the deceased was unlawfully and with force attempting to enter or remove her from her occupied vehicle. (See §9.32(b)(1) below.) The evidence reported by the media (notoriously inaccurate I admit) appears to support this belief on her part. Apparently, the official investigation does also.

Your argument about shot placement is wrong tactically, but more importantly, it's legally irrelevant.

Again, I'm sorry for your loss and the family's loss, but all anyone can do is wait for the Sheriff's Dept., the DA and the grand jury to sort out the facts.
Chas.

TPC §.32 wrote:Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
. . .

• (b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
  • (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
    • (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
      (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
    . . .
    (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

anygunanywhere wrote:I see a rehash of the barstoolguru arguments coming.

Headed for the shower.

Anygunanywhere

I suspect it's the same person, or at least someone he/she prompted to join and post.

Chas.