TexasCHLforum.com

Purplehood wrote:I do agree that appearing to be Uncle Pervie following two young girls is not the best of ideas.

With the new allegations coming to light, that makes me wonder his real motive for following the girls.

seamusTX wrote:The man who was shot and left paralyzed has been accused of "unlawful sex activity with a minor" based on an alleged consensual relationship with a teenage girl before the shooting.

http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_st ... xNLQw.cspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=13766586" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

Just to reiterate for clarity, this was a "consensual relationship." The then-17 yr old girl says they were like boyfriend/girlfriend, just that she was underage. So no real predatory evidence there. Might be some evidence of poor judgement though.

Edit: that was earlier news article on this topic. One of these links now say there are 5 alleged victims charging sexual assault, abuse, or rape, and that one was only 14 yrs old at the time. (Warning: very little detail on these allegations in the article.) That's a much more serious issue and also much more closely related to the trial of the shooter, IMHO.

SlowDave wrote:Just to reiterate for clarity, this was a "consensual relationship." The then-17 yr old girl says they were like boyfriend/girlfriend, just that she was underage.

I used the word consensual to distinguish it from forcible rape.

As a matter of legal principle, a minor cannot give consent to sex (or any contractual relationship). An adult having sex with a minor is guilty of sexual assault (in Texas we no longer have a crime of rape) the same as if it were forcible rape.

Also, while the adult may not use physical coercion, adult predators frequently cajole their victims using some position of authority or ply them with gifts, alcohol, or drugs (the victims are not always innocent lambs).

We don't know in this case.

However, I still say it is irrelevant. The convicted shooter did not know the man's background, and there was more evidence than the testimony of the two parties directly involved.

No further proof is required that aggravated assault was committed, and the jury rejected the argument of self defense.

- Jim

"When I pulled him over, he pulled a gun on me, and I shot him," Campos told 911 dispatchers. "He got out of his car, pulled a gun on me, cocked it, and I let him have it."

Says it all ... Don't pull a gun on someone unless you are fast and accurate. They do sometimes shoot back.

It's true that if you're gonna get in a gunfight, you better be fast, lucky, or both.

The bit of testimony that you highlighted contradicts other evidence, namely that Serbeck's single-action pistol had the safety on.

It would be unusual, though not unheard-of, for someone to carry a single-action not cocked.

In any case, both guys' lives are fouled up beyond all recovery because they tried to play Batman.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:The bit of testimony that you highlighted contradicts other evidence, namely that Serbeck's single-action pistol had the safety on.

I've seen people hurt on the firing line still safe a weapon they were about to drop, simply due to good training and habit. I'm sure some of the LE folks here have worked wrecks where a badly injured and otherwise disoriented driver had managed to put the remains of their car in park and turn off the key. If Serbeck had trained to engage the safety immediately upon either lowering the weapon or deciding not to shoot, then it's certainly possible that a thought of "I'm done" would be enough to "engage the autopilot."

It would be unusual, though not unheard-of, for someone to carry a single-action not cocked.

Although it often seems we must, this forum doesn't actually have a monopoly on people who come up with goofy, incorrect and unsafe ways to carry their guns.

Another strong possibility is that fumbling the safety could easily be misinterpreted as cocking the gun by someone distracted by looking down the muzzle.

It is possible that Mr. Serbeck was just following the law. The article does not state that either man had a CFP. The handgun laws regarding using safeties, cocked/ uncocked and empty chambers in Utah are different for people without a CFP.

We can speculate all day, but a jury in Utah heard the evidence and found the man guilty. Utah is not exactly a bastion of liberalism.

Also note that Compos was pursuing Serbeck immediately before the shooting:

When the two vehicles crossed each other in the street, Campos made a U-turn, drove toward [Serbeck's] SUV and then slammed his brakes in front of the vehicle, causing the SUV to stop, according to Hutson.

Both drivers exited their vehicles, and the confrontation quickly turned to gunfire, Hutson said.

How many members of this forum would not be in condition red at that point?

I'm going to say it until I'm blue in the face: there were dozens of opportunities for both men to go home safe, and both passed them all up.

- Jim

I hope they both learned their lesson.