Jump to content

Pizza-purveying personnel pummel pistol-packing-punk


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Steve O said:

Holy cow the manager beat the crap out of him. Kids lucky the gun jammed or he'd be dead. 

 

 

The manager may be lucky too. Hard to say what the circumstances were but you can’t simply shoot the guy because you are mad. Probably self defense is plausible but maybe not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BuffaloBill said:

 

 

The manager may be lucky too. Hard to say what the circumstances were but you can’t simply shoot the guy because you are mad. Probably self defense is plausible but maybe not. 

Texas is a stand your ground state. Chances of getting off on self defense are better there than in many other states but as you say, maybe not. 

Edited by Steve O
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, BuffaloBill said:

 

 

The manager may be lucky too. Hard to say what the circumstances were but you can’t simply shoot the guy because you are mad. Probably self defense is plausible but maybe not. 

 

15 hours ago, Steve O said:

Texas is a stand your ground state. Chances of getting off on self defense are better there than in many other states but as you say, maybe not. 

 

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

     (1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

     (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

           (A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

           (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(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

          (C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B)

 

 

Edited by LeviF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, LeviF said:

 

 

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

     (1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

     (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

           (A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

           (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(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

          (C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B)

 

 

The statute leaves a lot to interpretation. At the point where the gun jammed there was no longer imminent danger. Interestingly, that phrase is not used in the statute. However, the "other" did attempt to commit aggravated robbery. He was also attempting to enter unlawfully and with force. Therefore, the presumption is that the use of deadly force was reasonable. In Texas it would be pretty tough to find 12 people to vote guilty given the vagueness of the statute. The owner would stand a pretty good chance of getting off even though the use of deadly force was no longer necessary to prevent imminent danger. At least that's how I'm reading it. Not sure of the point you were trying to make?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Steve O said:

The statute leaves a lot to interpretation. At the point where the gun jammed there was no longer imminent danger. Interestingly, that phrase is not used in the statute. However, the "other" did attempt to commit aggravated robbery. He was also attempting to enter unlawfully and with force. Therefore, the presumption is that the use of deadly force was reasonable. In Texas it would be pretty tough to find 12 people to vote guilty given the vagueness of the statute. The owner would stand a pretty good chance of getting off even though the use of deadly force was no longer necessary to prevent imminent danger. At least that's how I'm reading it. Not sure of the point you were trying to make?

 

I wasn't trying to make a point. "Stand your ground" means different things in different places so it can be helpful to show what it means in (in this case) Texas. Brings some clarity to discussions of hypothetical legal consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, LeviF said:

 

I wasn't trying to make a point. "Stand your ground" means different things in different places so it can be helpful to show what it means in (in this case) Texas. Brings some clarity to discussions of hypothetical legal consequences.

Got it. The statute is likely intentionally vague to give all possible advantage to would be victims. And to serve as a warning to would be perpetrators. As mentioned on another post on this thread, hope the kid learns a trade in prison because he isn't cut out for a life of crime.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...