TexasCHLforum.com

Beiruty wrote:Maybe the instructor of his CHL course, if any, has to be investigated. Or, maybe he should be on Laxapro.

Investigated for what?

anygunanywhere wrote:

jmra wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

C-dub wrote:

jmra wrote:Will be interesting to see if he had a Texas CHL or a permit issued by another state. The story kept referring to a concealed handgun permit. With the publicity that CHL has gotten lately I can't help but wonder if the word permit was intentional.

If it is an out of state permit, I wonder if they can or how easy it will be to get it revoked or suspended?

Probably irrelevant if he is convicted and goes to the slammer.

I was just wondering if he got one from another state that doesn't cover de-escalation.
On a side note - not justifying the guys behavior, but who wants to bet the woman did a little more than bump her horn?

I see your point on the deescalation.

I won't take your bet on the woman.

Whatever she may have done, I betcha she wont ever do again!

Jim Beaux wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

jmra wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

C-dub wrote:

jmra wrote:Will be interesting to see if he had a Texas CHL or a permit issued by another state. The story kept referring to a concealed handgun permit. With the publicity that CHL has gotten lately I can't help but wonder if the word permit was intentional.

If it is an out of state permit, I wonder if they can or how easy it will be to get it revoked or suspended?

Probably irrelevant if he is convicted and goes to the slammer.

I was just wondering if he got one from another state that doesn't cover de-escalation.
On a side note - not justifying the guys behavior, but who wants to bet the woman did a little more than bump her horn?

I see your point on the deescalation.

I won't take your bet on the woman.

Whatever she may have done, I betcha she wont ever do again!

WildBill wrote:

Beiruty wrote:Maybe the instructor of his CHL course, if any, has to be investigated. Or, maybe he should be on Laxapro.

Investigated for what?

I was implying did this guy ever attended a real CHL class, or did he get a fake certificate for a $50.

Beiruty wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Beiruty wrote:Maybe the instructor of his CHL course, if any, has to be investigated. Or, maybe he should be on Laxapro.

Investigated for what?

I was implying did this guy ever attended a real CHL class, or did he get a fake certificate for a $50.

Just because the person attended and passed a CHL class, even with a good instructor, does not mean the person actually learned anything, or even retained and applied any valuable information they were given.

Keith B wrote:

Beiruty wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Beiruty wrote:Maybe the instructor of his CHL course, if any, has to be investigated. Or, maybe he should be on Laxapro.

Investigated for what?

I was implying did this guy ever attended a real CHL class, or did he get a fake certificate for a $50.

Just because the person attended and passed a CHL class, even with a good instructor, does not mean the person actually learned anything, or even retained and applied any valuable information they were given.

jmra wrote:
The dude is definately wacked.

You may be right, but my impression was that he just has a really sharp temper. The article said he pulled over, waited for the police, and told them he shot at her car. Sounded to me like he just lost it for a short time and realized he screwed up pretty fast. I am not really sure how to judge that. He will get a fairly severe felony, but I don't know how much jail time he will actually end up with. I don't see him getting charged with attempted murder, but I don't know.

Thankfully, she was not hurt.

MechAg94 wrote:

AlaskanInTexas wrote:As far as I am concerned, if you fire four rounds into the back of someone's car for no reason other than being cut off, you deserve the same penalty as murder would bring. For the life of me, I don't know why bad shots get dealt more leniency than good shots.

I bet that guy's ears are still ringing. Setting off a .45 inside my car is just about the last thing I ever want to do, let alone four times.

No. Punishment is based mostly on what actually was done as it should be. If you go by intent, you will have to start guessing and imagining what you think the suspects intent was. There isn't anything beyond a reasonable doubt in that.

The guy apparently pulled over and admitted what he had done to the officer on the scene. He may have a sharp temper, but he calmed down pretty quick.

I get what you're saying but I don't think there is any ambiguity in this case. Shooting into a vehicle you know to be occupied is attempted murder. I don't think there is any mystery about intent here. His actions tell us all we need to know about his intent. He may now claim he only intended to "scare" her....but his actions belie such a claim.

VMI77 wrote: I get what you're saying but I don't think there is any ambiguity in this case. Shooting into a vehicle you know to be occupied is attempted murder. I don't think there is any mystery about intent here. His actions tell us all we need to know about his intent. He may now claim he only intended to "scare" her....but his actions belie such a claim.

There is no such thing as attempted murder in Texas. There is criminal attempt, in penal code 15

§ 15.01. CRIMINAL ATTEMPT. (a) A person commits an offense if, with specific intent to
commit an offense, he does an act amounting to more than mere preparation that tends but fails to
effect the commission of the offense intended.

The mens rea (mental state) is specific intent to commit an offense. For instance, the mens rea of attempted murder is
the same as the mens rea of completed murder. The offender must have the specific mens rea of the
attempted offense.

Texas courts have held that the language “with specific intent” precludes attempts to commit crimes of
recklessness or criminal negligence. Thus, for instance, there can be no crime of attempted criminally
negligent homicide or attempted manslaughter.

So, basically I think they will stick with the current aggravated assault charge which is a 2nd degree felony.

Keith B wrote:

VMI77 wrote: I get what you're saying but I don't think there is any ambiguity in this case. Shooting into a vehicle you know to be occupied is attempted murder. I don't think there is any mystery about intent here. His actions tell us all we need to know about his intent. He may now claim he only intended to "scare" her....but his actions belie such a claim.

There is no such thing as attempted murder in Texas. There is criminal attempt, in penal code 15

§ 15.01. CRIMINAL ATTEMPT. (a) A person commits an offense if, with specific intent to
commit an offense, he does an act amounting to more than mere preparation that tends but fails to
effect the commission of the offense intended.

The mens rea (mental state) is specific intent to commit an offense. For instance, the mens rea of attempted murder is
the same as the mens rea of completed murder. The offender must have the specific mens rea of the
attempted offense.

Texas courts have held that the language “with specific intent” precludes attempts to commit crimes of
recklessness or criminal negligence. Thus, for instance, there can be no crime of attempted criminally
negligent homicide or attempted manslaughter.

So, basically I think they will stick with the current aggravated assault charge which is a 2nd degree felony.

Totally, off track now, but I have been meaning to tell you that you would be a great attorney - your analysis is always quite rigorous.

Keith B wrote:

VMI77 wrote: I get what you're saying but I don't think there is any ambiguity in this case. Shooting into a vehicle you know to be occupied is attempted murder. I don't think there is any mystery about intent here. His actions tell us all we need to know about his intent. He may now claim he only intended to "scare" her....but his actions belie such a claim.

There is no such thing as attempted murder in Texas. There is criminal attempt, in penal code 15

§ 15.01. CRIMINAL ATTEMPT. (a) A person commits an offense if, with specific intent to
commit an offense, he does an act amounting to more than mere preparation that tends but fails to
effect the commission of the offense intended.

The mens rea (mental state) is specific intent to commit an offense. For instance, the mens rea of attempted murder is
the same as the mens rea of completed murder. The offender must have the specific mens rea of the
attempted offense.

Texas courts have held that the language “with specific intent” precludes attempts to commit crimes of
recklessness or criminal negligence. Thus, for instance, there can be no crime of attempted criminally
negligent homicide or attempted manslaughter.

So, basically I think they will stick with the current aggravated assault charge which is a 2nd degree felony.

I wasn't attempting to describe his actions under the law. I was just describing in plain English what he did...attempted to kill someone. In my view there is no negligence here, just an attempt to kill that failed. He didn't shoot at the tires. He clearly didn't accidentally or carelessly shoot out her window, he did it deliberately. Whether that action satisfies a statutory definition is another matter, but I think anyone shooting into your vehicle, knowing it is occupied, is trying to kill you.

VMI77 wrote:[
I wasn't attempting to describe his actions under the law. I was just describing in plain English what he did...attempted to kill someone. In my view there is no negligence here, just an attempt to kill that failed. He didn't shoot at the tires. He clearly didn't accidentally or carelessly shoot out her window, he did it deliberately. Whether that action satisfies a statutory definition is another matter, but I think anyone shooting into your vehicle, knowing it is occupied, is trying to kill you.

Actually, you do not know what he was trying to do. Intent is totally at question here. As stated before, was he just intending to scare her? Was he even intending to do any harm at all? We don't know what was running through his mind, if anything, so until he makes a statement or it comes out in questioning, then it is totally speculation that he was trying to kill her.

Keith B wrote:

VMI77 wrote:[
I wasn't attempting to describe his actions under the law. I was just describing in plain English what he did...attempted to kill someone. In my view there is no negligence here, just an attempt to kill that failed. He didn't shoot at the tires. He clearly didn't accidentally or carelessly shoot out her window, he did it deliberately. Whether that action satisfies a statutory definition is another matter, but I think anyone shooting into your vehicle, knowing it is occupied, is trying to kill you.

Actually, you do not know what he was trying to do. Intent is totally at question here. As stated before, was he just intending to scare her? Was he even intending to do any harm at all? We don't know what was running through his mind, if anything, so until he makes a statement or it comes out in questioning, then it is totally speculation that he was trying to kill her.

True, maybe he didn't intend to kill her and he's just a moron. I'm taking the approach that anyone with much more than a room temperature IQ knows that shooting several rounds into an occupied vehicle is likely to kill someone, and therefore indicating an intent to kill. True, we can't "know" what he was trying to do and his making a statement about his intentions won't change that either. Regardless of whether he intended to kill her or not at this point he is very unlikely to admit any such intent so we still won't "know" what he intended. However, while such an inference may not satisfy a court of law I infer his intentions from his actions.

jmra wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

C-dub wrote:

jmra wrote:Will be interesting to see if he had a Texas CHL or a permit issued by another state. The story kept referring to a concealed handgun permit. With the publicity that CHL has gotten lately I can't help but wonder if the word permit was intentional.

If it is an out of state permit, I wonder if they can or how easy it will be to get it revoked or suspended?

Probably irrelevant if he is convicted and goes to the slammer.

I was just wondering if he got one from another state that doesn't cover de-escalation.
On a side note - not justifying the guys behavior, but who wants to bet the woman did a little more than bump her horn?

I can picture it now:

Clueless liberal speaking to mechanic shop service writer.

There is something wrong with my car. Every time I blow the horn my windows shatter....

I know a couple of women who are quick on the punishment-horn. I would not get away with that kind of honking.