TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
I'm operating under the assumption that a) there is more to this than the media reports and b) a reason the DA initially did not charge him.
Texas Man Shoots Teen on Porch/Update/Plot Thickens
- Thread starter Fburgtx
- Start date
- Status
I'm operating under the assumption that a) there is more to this than the media reports and b) a reason the DA initially did not charge him.
Joe Demko
Member
I've enough experience with our own legal system here to know that DA's will sometimes defer pressing charges until they believe they have a better case. They don't like to bring a case to court and lose. YMM, of course, V.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
And again, here in Texas specifically;
Presenting a gun as a "threat of deadly force" is not considered to be USE of deadly force but an actual warning shot is.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Here's Mr Frosch's version of what happened. As I say, we'll find out when it goes to trial but there are always 2 sides to every story.
http://metrocolumnistsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/03/mr-frosch-responds.html
http://metrocolumnistsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/03/mr-frosch-responds.html
Joe Demko
Member
Whatever else may be the case, I question whether it is the wisest thing for Mr. Frosch to be talking to the media right now. When this goes to court, any prosecutor worth his salt will be looking for inconsistencies between what Mr. Frosch says on the stand and what he said to the media. I don't know what Texas law says, if anything, regarding a civil case following the criminal proceedings; but there also the attorneys will go over everything with a finetooth comb.
Just my opinion, but the only place I'd be giving my version of events is under oath and with counsel.
Just my opinion, but the only place I'd be giving my version of events is under oath and with counsel.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
I don't disagree with you but this guy was tried and convicted already by the media following this incident. When the mom died in the car crash he was dubbed the killer by the press and a lot of people around here.
"Oh she was a saint, she would be alive today if not for the shooter".
Well, we can take bets on that with alcohol, pot and meth in her system. And I'm not buying into the story that it's OK since it was just a "small amount". She was a user, that's pretty clear unless the autopsy is just wrong.
Funny that now we hear all this about the mom and there is practically no press coverage on that.
They needed someone to blame and he was it. With that kind of publicity going against him I'm not sure he was any worse off by talking.
Joe Demko
Member
I'm not going to restart one of the classic libertarian arguments here; suffice it to say that I don't judge a person's morality only on what chemicals s/he chooses to ingest.
http://www.lmu.edu/PageFactory.aspx?PageID=25066
Somebody posted earlier in the thread something to the effect that there was a difference between being legally drunk and being impaired. Not that it has any bearing on the shooting, but a BAC of .08 causes impairment of your judgement, vision, reactions and motor functions. Some states use .06 as the basis for DUI or BUI because they don't want you to get to that point and still be driving or boating.
Lets also please not start arguing about whether or not you are impaired at .08 for two reasons, it doesn't have much bearing on this thread and that number is rooted in some pretty good science. I brought it up just for informations sake.
Somebody posted earlier in the thread something to the effect that there was a difference between being legally drunk and being impaired. Not that it has any bearing on the shooting, but a BAC of .08 causes impairment of your judgement, vision, reactions and motor functions. Some states use .06 as the basis for DUI or BUI because they don't want you to get to that point and still be driving or boating.
Lets also please not start arguing about whether or not you are impaired at .08 for two reasons, it doesn't have much bearing on this thread and that number is rooted in some pretty good science. I brought it up just for informations sake.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
It's not a morality question here it's a question of judgment.
She was hailed as a saint for taking the boy to the hospital herself rather than waiting for an ambulance.
Knowing now the substances in her blood that's some VERY bad judgment. Knowing she'd taken that stuff she should have stayed home and called an ambulance.
That her judgment was so impaired that she was making poor decisions is the point and blaming the homeowner for her death is absolutely ridiculous.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Nope
wally
Member
Doh!
Were I grew up pre-gun control, you could buy guns by mail (except for the fine print "not available to New York City") nobody locked their doors or took the keys or of their cars. Everybody had guns. The sad thing is they never really needed them so they never thought gun control would be a big deal.
--wally.
Cosmoline
Member
Warning shots are for bears and moose. If you have time to take a warning shot at a person you probably shouldn't be shooting at all.
Joe Demko
Member
Then why do you keep using the word "saint" in a context where it clear you don't agree that she was one?
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Because I saw the news reports, the wailing and gnashing of teeth over this.
It was all over the local news to the point of drowning in it, every story about how sad it was that this perfect woman was taken due in part to the "horrible" shooting of her son.
News articles like the shooter himself referred to in the post above.
It was unreal. Now to find that she was an illegal substance user whose judgment was clearly impaired who put her OWN life at risk with the decision SHE made and there's hardly a blurb in the press today.
It's a shame she died in that car wreck, but it was the fault of the guy driving the car that hit her, and some fault of her own for exercising very poor judgment by being in that car in the first place.
Right or wrong the guy shooting from his home contributed in no way at all to her death yet it's believed around here that the only reason he is charged with a crime at all is because of the outcry over her death while the drunk that hit her has only been charged with failing to stop and render aid.
We have one man charged with basically nothing, and he killed a woman, and we have a homeowner who believed himself to be in peril charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
If the mom had been impaired because she too had been shot, and had nonetheless attempted to get her son to the hospital, she would undoubted be being hailed as a hero, regardless of any poor judgment. That any theoretical impairment is a result of chemicals is the only reason it's an issue; except there no evidence that it factored. The only pertinent question is did her son's actions deserve a bullet, since her judgment in all likelihood wouldn't have come into play had someone not shot him.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
That's sort of the point isn't it?
The DA refused to even send this to the Grand Jury originally. He wasn't "waiting for more info", his office flat out said they believed this to be a clear case covered under the Castle Doctrine and that was that.
Then after public outcry over HER death the DA sends it to the Grand Jury.
Would there have been the same public outcry if it had been known up front that she was intoxicated with various substances?
We'll never know but I suspect this would have played out very differently.
So it SHOULD not be pertinent but it most certainly BECAME pertinent.
packnrat
Member
i am not on the jury, nither are most of you out there in cyber space.
wait till all the facts have been released.
then you can condem someone.
.
wait till all the facts have been released.
then you can condem someone.
.
jrfoxx
Member
Just curious, since I dont think it's been mentioned, but does Texas have a felony murder law? If so, anyone think they will charge him with that also, saying that IF the shooting is found unlawful, then the man's unlawful act was the casue of the mother's death also, because if the boy had never been wrongfully shot, she would not have been driving to the hospital, to then end up hit by the drunk driver?
While I personally am on the fence about felony murder laws, and think it might be a strectch in this case, it does seem possible they could charge, and probly get a conviction for it, assuming the shooting is ruled to have been illegal (otherwise he would obviously not be guilty of felony murder since the death was not related to a felonious action, if he's acquitted).Just wondering if this man might not be in for a second murder charge with the mother, if he gets a felony conviction for the teenager, and at 74, thats DEFINTELY a guarenteed actual life sentence (which may be desrved, depnding on the facts)
I'll reserve any comments on anything else about the case until we have more info after the grand jury and/or trial (if here is one).
While I personally am on the fence about felony murder laws, and think it might be a strectch in this case, it does seem possible they could charge, and probly get a conviction for it, assuming the shooting is ruled to have been illegal (otherwise he would obviously not be guilty of felony murder since the death was not related to a felonious action, if he's acquitted).Just wondering if this man might not be in for a second murder charge with the mother, if he gets a felony conviction for the teenager, and at 74, thats DEFINTELY a guarenteed actual life sentence (which may be desrved, depnding on the facts)
I'll reserve any comments on anything else about the case until we have more info after the grand jury and/or trial (if here is one).
Many true things stated here, and for sure it´s a worry where the bullet falls down - that is fired into the air......
...but still, i´d take that risk, before aiming for center-torso and just
pulling the switch.
Warning shot could also be fired into the ground of course,
muzzle-flash at night and the bang will leave an impression.
if the story went like written - It definitely was poor judgement
by the ol man - and a very unlucky excursion for the teen.
...but still, i´d take that risk, before aiming for center-torso and just
pulling the switch.
Warning shot could also be fired into the ground of course,
muzzle-flash at night and the bang will leave an impression.
if the story went like written - It definitely was poor judgement
by the ol man - and a very unlucky excursion for the teen.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
The Grand Jury has already indicted him on one and only one charge.
That is "aggravated assault with a deadly weapon" with a 2 year sentence and $10,000 fine. No other charges have been brought.
Joe Demko
Member
This
Isn't quite the same as this
You can provide a cite of the DA's office making the statement concerning Castle Doctrine above?
I'm not blaming the man for her death nor do I believe it is germane to whether or not he should have shot the younger man. That shooting is what concerns me and what I wish to discuss. So, if I understand correctly you are saying that the only reason that Frosch was charged was public outcry, yet you expect that a jury drawn from the same public will let him walk on the shooting? Please expand.
Isn't quite the same as this
You can provide a cite of the DA's office making the statement concerning Castle Doctrine above?
I'm not blaming the man for her death nor do I believe it is germane to whether or not he should have shot the younger man. That shooting is what concerns me and what I wish to discuss. So, if I understand correctly you are saying that the only reason that Frosch was charged was public outcry, yet you expect that a jury drawn from the same public will let him walk on the shooting? Please expand.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
