TexasCHLforum.com

Keith B wrote:

sodchemist wrote:i am glad that she was indicted. i am getting sick of the excuse "i feared for my life". it is getting out of hand. there are victims who are truly fouled in this game of life, and the perps deserve a penalty--two shots in the chest here--but there are also certain types of "victims" that chose to engage in "flopping", i.e., crying foul at minimal contact. we must have the wisdom to distinguish the two. for example, you are in your car and you have to shoot someone (twice) because they are breaking your window? drive away or, just brandish and call them off. respect human life. this weekend's verdict is another good example. someone wants to be a neighborhood watchman; someone wants to pursue "strangers" walking around. great. but the watchman can't even handle a fight with a stoned teenager who is walking back to his dad's house with some munchies? so watcher-man ends up shooting the stoner as soon as he gets a bloody nose? maybe he shouldn't be a watchman. i wouldn't want him walking around my neighborhood near my teenage sons.

Let's hear you say it isn't justified when you are the one getting your head smacked against the sidewalk and beat up. The jury has spoken and did the right thing.

As for the woman in Houston, there must be enough evidence to say I may not have been justified. I say we let the court determine this one too.

I will also guess you must not have a CHL.

oops. i forgot to quote; my response is above.

sodchemist wrote:i do have a chl. and nice sig 220. and a new iwb holster that i picked up at the waco gun show this weekend. but the accessories that cause THIS opinion are my two sons--whom are typical boys--and my fear of the Lord.

If one of your sons attack me and is pounding my head into the pavement, I will defend myself in an appropriate manner, up to and including shooting one of them. Typical boys should not attack a person and try beating the snot out of them. Period.

And I have no fear of the Lord, he is my savior. But we will not get into religious discussions in this thread and on the forum as it is a rule violation.

my son's wouldn't attack people either, unless perhaps they felt threatened, for example by someone stalking them at night who the do not know, for reasons (i.e., recent crime) that they know nothing about because they are just teenagers who can only think about girls and video games. but they might pull over to the side of the road in an accident and approach someone's vehicle. good luck with our perfect children.

older post then I had thought I has seen sorry for that.

Keith B wrote:

sodchemist wrote:i do have a chl. and nice sig 220. and a new iwb holster that i picked up at the waco gun show this weekend. but the accessories that cause THIS opinion are my two sons--whom are typical boys--and my fear of the Lord.

If one of your sons attack me and is pounding my head into the pavement, I will defend myself in an appropriate manner, up to and including shooting one of them. Typical boys should not attack a person and try beating the snot out of them. Period.

And I have no fear of the Lord, he is my savior. But we will not get into religious discussions in this thread and on the forum as it is a rule violation.

right on man! report me for typing "the Lord". do the kingdom a favor! and be sure to love your neighbor with ALL of your pistol.

sodchemist wrote:

Keith B wrote:

sodchemist wrote:i do have a chl. and nice sig 220. and a new iwb holster that i picked up at the waco gun show this weekend. but the accessories that cause THIS opinion are my two sons--whom are typical boys--and my fear of the Lord.

If one of your sons attack me and is pounding my head into the pavement, I will defend myself in an appropriate manner, up to and including shooting one of them. Typical boys should not attack a person and try beating the snot out of them. Period.

And I have no fear of the Lord, he is my savior. But we will not get into religious discussions in this thread and on the forum as it is a rule violation.

right on man! report me for typing "the Lord". do the kingdom a favor! and be sure to love your neighbor with ALL of your pistol.

Uh, don't have to report you, I am a Moderator. And quit being a troll or you won't be long on this forum.

sodchemist wrote:i am glad that she was indicted. i am getting sick of the excuse "i feared for my life". it is getting out of hand. there are victims who are truly fouled in this game of life, and the perps deserve a penalty--two shots in the chest here--but there are also certain types of "victims" that chose to engage in "flopping", i.e., crying foul at minimal contact. we must have the wisdom to distinguish the two. for example, you are in your car and you have to shoot someone (twice) because they are breaking your window? drive away or, just brandish and call them off. respect human life. this weekend's verdict is another good example. someone wants to be a neighborhood watchman; someone wants to pursue "strangers" walking around. great. but the watchman can't even handle a fight with a stoned teenager who is walking back to his dad's house with some munchies? so watcher-man ends up shooting the stoner as soon as he gets a bloody nose? maybe he shouldn't be a watchman. i wouldn't want him walking around my neighborhood near my teenage sons.

Wow, if you can make that statement after the trial, then you're either deliberately playing dumb to provoke people (a troll) or you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

VMI77 wrote:

sodchemist wrote:i am glad that she was indicted. i am getting sick of the excuse "i feared for my life". it is getting out of hand. there are victims who are truly fouled in this game of life, and the perps deserve a penalty--two shots in the chest here--but there are also certain types of "victims" that chose to engage in "flopping", i.e., crying foul at minimal contact. we must have the wisdom to distinguish the two. for example, you are in your car and you have to shoot someone (twice) because they are breaking your window? drive away or, just brandish and call them off. respect human life. this weekend's verdict is another good example. someone wants to be a neighborhood watchman; someone wants to pursue "strangers" walking around. great. but the watchman can't even handle a fight with a stoned teenager who is walking back to his dad's house with some munchies? so watcher-man ends up shooting the stoner as soon as he gets a bloody nose? maybe he shouldn't be a watchman. i wouldn't want him walking around my neighborhood near my teenage sons.

Wow, if you can make that statement after the trial, then you're either deliberately playing dumb to provoke people (a troll) or you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

My vote; Troll, and as I have now replied, I participated in the feeding

Sick of the excuse "i feared for my life"
I don't think I can even dignify that with a response.

Grand juries often miss the chance to indite a guilty person, and often recommend to indite an innocent one..
it's an imperfect system for sure.. But just a initial step in the process...... innocent until proven guilty...that's the intended design, even if it is not evenly applied in the media, or politically motivated cases.... or shear ignorance on an individuals part.

Keith B wrote:

sodchemist wrote:

Keith B wrote:

sodchemist wrote:i do have a chl. and nice sig 220. and a new iwb holster that i picked up at the waco gun show this weekend. but the accessories that cause THIS opinion are my two sons--whom are typical boys--and my fear of the Lord.

If one of your sons attack me and is pounding my head into the pavement, I will defend myself in an appropriate manner, up to and including shooting one of them. Typical boys should not attack a person and try beating the snot out of them. Period.

And I have no fear of the Lord, he is my savior. But we will not get into religious discussions in this thread and on the forum as it is a rule violation.

right on man! report me for typing "the Lord". do the kingdom a favor! and be sure to love your neighbor with ALL of your pistol.

Uh, don't have to report you, I am a Moderator. And quit being a troll or you won't be long on this forum.

In fact, one more time will do it.

Chas.

Admin and mods on this site are extremely patient . Where was the conversation before , I forgot ?

chuck j wrote:Admin and mods on this site are extremely patient . Where was the conversation before , I forgot ?

We were wondering why the people up in arms about Trayvon Martin's death were not likewise outraged at Jonathan Ables' death. Other than racism.

Update to this case: http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... 356221.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Prosecutors on Monday dismissed murder charges against a Houston woman charged with murder in a 2012 road rage incident.

Crystal Scott was scheduled to go to trial in the shooting death of 22-year-old Jonathan Ables in a case that drew community support for Scott, who asserted that she was acting in self-defense.

"It was long fought," said attorney Letitia Quinones. "It's a perfect stand your ground case."

She said witnesses saw Ables try to open Scott's car door.

Police did not initially charge Scott with any crime after Ables was fatally shot after a traffic crash in northwest Houston on Sept. 17, 2012.

A Harris County grand jury later indicted Scott on charges of murder. Members of Ables' family disputed Scott's version of events, saying he had his hands up and was backing away from her car.

Scott told investigators that she and Ables pulled their vehicles into a Shell station on FM 1960 near Perry after a wreck. She said Ables screamed profanities at her, struck her car and tried to open her door. Scott then shot him.

Quinones credited prosecutors with postponing the case before it went to trial to take a close look at evidence gathered by the defense.

"Crystal hurts for Jonathan and his family," Quinones said. "She definitely feels grief for them."

Scott has been free on bail since she was indicted. She is planning on attending nursing school.

A spokesman with the Harris County District Attorney Office confirmed the decision but did not release any other details.

rev210 wrote:Update to this case: http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... 356221.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Prosecutors on Monday dismissed murder charges against a Houston woman charged with murder in a 2012 road rage incident.

Crystal Scott was scheduled to go to trial in the shooting death of 22-year-old Jonathan Ables in a case that drew community support for Scott, who asserted that she was acting in self-defense.

"It was long fought," said attorney Letitia Quinones. "It's a perfect stand your ground case."

She said witnesses saw Ables try to open Scott's car door.

Police did not initially charge Scott with any crime after Ables was fatally shot after a traffic crash in northwest Houston on Sept. 17, 2012.

A Harris County grand jury later indicted Scott on charges of murder. Members of Ables' family disputed Scott's version of events, saying he had his hands up and was backing away from her car.

Scott told investigators that she and Ables pulled their vehicles into a Shell station on FM 1960 near Perry after a wreck. She said Ables screamed profanities at her, struck her car and tried to open her door. Scott then shot him.

Quinones credited prosecutors with postponing the case before it went to trial to take a close look at evidence gathered by the defense.

"Crystal hurts for Jonathan and his family," Quinones said. "She definitely feels grief for them."

Scott has been free on bail since she was indicted. She is planning on attending nursing school.

A spokesman with the Harris County District Attorney Office confirmed the decision but did not release any other details.

This is excellent news! She never should have been indicted.

Chas.

It's a shame it's taken this long.

mojo84 wrote:It's a shame it's taken this long.

Well, it is Harris County.