csmkersh
Member
Someone's getting desperate. this case has nothing in common with with what was being discussed.
You can't shoot anyone in your home in Texas or El Tejon is proven right
- Thread starter Jeff White
- Start date
- Status
Someone's getting desperate. this case has nothing in common with with what was being discussed.
Did I say it had anything in common with case being discussed? If you would have actually read my post, you would have noticed that I said it was they most recent self defense case the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals had published an opinion on. And by the way there is a common link, the issue was once again jury instructions about previous threats.
Jeff
Jeff
csmkersh
Member
Bait and switch.
the second case mentioned wasnt self defense... you dont have a legal right to shoot someone because they threaten you... even if their actions may have warranted lethal force in the past, the actions of the present are the valid ones...
the brother that was shot may have even used verbal threats, but until he acts to carry them out, he has not reached the level that would justify an armed response... if he had drawn a gun, then it would have been justified... but he didnt, he merely was making verbal threats and was shot for it... that is murder in almost every state
the brother that was shot may have even used verbal threats, but until he acts to carry them out, he has not reached the level that would justify an armed response... if he had drawn a gun, then it would have been justified... but he didnt, he merely was making verbal threats and was shot for it... that is murder in almost every state
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
reading is fun de mental
Treo
member
Isn't It Ironic?
QUOTE:"Since I am tired of seeing members make posts here that the Brady organization could use against us,"
Like say, for instance , this one?
QUOTE:"Since I am tired of seeing members make posts here that the Brady organization could use against us,"
Like say, for instance , this one?
More specifically like this one:
Originally posted by texasrecurve;
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
its all a matter of perspective there is a class of person who thinks the one comment is way cool
its a darn funny thing though. i've never heard anyone ever post "hey i offed some punk last week who was ripping me off and i loved it. and the cops through me a party" funny that
on the other hand there are a large number of posts full of imagination bombast and testosterone.
i think its like teenage boys and sex the ones that get some don't talk about it. the others spend fevered hours imagining.
when i was a young buck i was also told that anyone who has to start out a sentence with "trust me" is telegraphing and shouldn't be
its a darn funny thing though. i've never heard anyone ever post "hey i offed some punk last week who was ripping me off and i loved it. and the cops through me a party" funny that
on the other hand there are a large number of posts full of imagination bombast and testosterone.
i think its like teenage boys and sex the ones that get some don't talk about it. the others spend fevered hours imagining.
when i was a young buck i was also told that anyone who has to start out a sentence with "trust me" is telegraphing and shouldn't be
Don Gwinn
Moderator Emeritus
You're all talking right past each other.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Granted it was a number of years back, but a Texas court precedent about verbal threats:
Party A says to Party B, at the tail end of a lengthy quarrel: "The next time I see you, I'm going to kill you."
B goes home. A is told by friends that he had been in the wrong in the quarrel. He should apologize.
So A goes to the home of B. As he approaches the front porch, B kills him via 12-gauge.
The finding was for self-defense because of a specific threat.
Antecedent history and people's reputations are part of the investigations and evidence. Or, IMO, should be.
Party A says to Party B, at the tail end of a lengthy quarrel: "The next time I see you, I'm going to kill you."
B goes home. A is told by friends that he had been in the wrong in the quarrel. He should apologize.
So A goes to the home of B. As he approaches the front porch, B kills him via 12-gauge.
The finding was for self-defense because of a specific threat.
Antecedent history and people's reputations are part of the investigations and evidence. Or, IMO, should be.
Self defense against relatives or someone involved in a past intimate relationship with you or your current partner is always heavily investigated and can lead to charges no matter how justified it is.
In this case it sounds like Roxanne was in a relationship with Torres. Irregardless he came and stayed at her house, and Valdez who still legaly resided in that home came back.
She was previously involved with Valdez who resided at that address until she threw his stuff out a couple days prior (not a legal eviction).
That automaticly means the investigation is going to be really intense and looking evidence of a love triangle killing.
It was not some stranger that broke in, or even just an acquaintance. It was her former lover, that automaticly changes the situation. That it was also his residence until just a few days (and legaly likely still was) prior means it is even more stacked against him.
That he then fled to another state after the fact makes things even more suspicious.
All around that is a case that is very different.
If you ever shoot your girlfriend's or wife's ex husband, boyfriend etc, or a family member you should expect charges and to have to deal with it in court whether it was justified or not. You should also expect to possibly lose even if justified.
The circumstances are vhastly different than shooting someone else in self defense, and investigators are going to assume the worst and build a case for court accordingly.
If you get involved with a woman and become the hero against her former lover you may lose your freedom even in justified action. That is one of the risks of that type of relationship.
Many Exs have problems with eachother. Any time one of them dies at the hands of the other, or at the hands of someone acting on thier behalf the prosecutor and investigators will build a case that it was something other than justifed. That is thier job, and they are covering that angle just in case so someone does not get away with murder.
Now whether you get convicted or not is up to the jury.
In this case it sounds like Roxanne was in a relationship with Torres. Irregardless he came and stayed at her house, and Valdez who still legaly resided in that home came back.
She was previously involved with Valdez who resided at that address until she threw his stuff out a couple days prior (not a legal eviction).
That automaticly means the investigation is going to be really intense and looking evidence of a love triangle killing.
It was not some stranger that broke in, or even just an acquaintance. It was her former lover, that automaticly changes the situation. That it was also his residence until just a few days (and legaly likely still was) prior means it is even more stacked against him.
That he then fled to another state after the fact makes things even more suspicious.
All around that is a case that is very different.
If you ever shoot your girlfriend's or wife's ex husband, boyfriend etc, or a family member you should expect charges and to have to deal with it in court whether it was justified or not. You should also expect to possibly lose even if justified.
The circumstances are vhastly different than shooting someone else in self defense, and investigators are going to assume the worst and build a case for court accordingly.
If you get involved with a woman and become the hero against her former lover you may lose your freedom even in justified action. That is one of the risks of that type of relationship.
Many Exs have problems with eachother. Any time one of them dies at the hands of the other, or at the hands of someone acting on thier behalf the prosecutor and investigators will build a case that it was something other than justifed. That is thier job, and they are covering that angle just in case so someone does not get away with murder.
Now whether you get convicted or not is up to the jury.
TallPine
Member
In that case, I could only defend my PO Box
Zoogster said;
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_09.html
In 2006 there were 14990 total homicide victims.
123 husbands were killed by their wives.
567 wives were killed by their husbands.
115 mothers were killed by their son or daughter.
114 fathers were killed by their son or daughter.
283 sons were killed by a parent.
179 daughters were killed by a parent.
80 brothers were killed by a brother or sister.
22 sisters were killed by a brother or sister.
298 other family members were killed by a family member.
3465 were killed by an acquaintance.
339 were killed by a friend.
150 boyfriends were killed by girlfriends.
450 girlfriends were killed by boyfriends.
127 were killed by their neighbor.
13 were killed by an employee.
10 were killed by their employer.
1095 were killed by strangers.
6750 victims didn't have the relationship with their killer reported.
Reported reasons for killings also are interesting:
103 killed in romantic triangles
27 children killed by their babysitter.
107 killed in a brawl due to influence of alcohol.
51 killed in a brawl due to influence of narcotics.
198 killed in an argument over money or property.
3607 killed in other arguments.
118 killed in gangland killings.
865 in juvenile gang killings.
22 killed in institutional killings.
2 killed in sniper attacks.
2173 killed in other, not specified.
5223 killed under unknown (unreported) circumstances.
There were 241 persons killed by a private citizen during the commission of a felony.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_14.html
If you look at the numbers and carry the trends out through the numbers of killings that have no data reported on the circumstances, you'll find that you have a much greater chance of having to use deadly force in an argument or other dispute with someone you know then of having to use it to stop the commission of a felony. Unfortunately the 'clean shoot" that everyone on the gun forums talks about is pretty rare. Expect that it will be a confusing mess. Expect to have every aspect of any relationship you have with your attacker to be scrutinized in great detail.
Jeff
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_09.html
In 2006 there were 14990 total homicide victims.
123 husbands were killed by their wives.
567 wives were killed by their husbands.
115 mothers were killed by their son or daughter.
114 fathers were killed by their son or daughter.
283 sons were killed by a parent.
179 daughters were killed by a parent.
80 brothers were killed by a brother or sister.
22 sisters were killed by a brother or sister.
298 other family members were killed by a family member.
3465 were killed by an acquaintance.
339 were killed by a friend.
150 boyfriends were killed by girlfriends.
450 girlfriends were killed by boyfriends.
127 were killed by their neighbor.
13 were killed by an employee.
10 were killed by their employer.
1095 were killed by strangers.
6750 victims didn't have the relationship with their killer reported.
Reported reasons for killings also are interesting:
103 killed in romantic triangles
27 children killed by their babysitter.
107 killed in a brawl due to influence of alcohol.
51 killed in a brawl due to influence of narcotics.
198 killed in an argument over money or property.
3607 killed in other arguments.
118 killed in gangland killings.
865 in juvenile gang killings.
22 killed in institutional killings.
2 killed in sniper attacks.
2173 killed in other, not specified.
5223 killed under unknown (unreported) circumstances.
There were 241 persons killed by a private citizen during the commission of a felony.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_14.html
If you look at the numbers and carry the trends out through the numbers of killings that have no data reported on the circumstances, you'll find that you have a much greater chance of having to use deadly force in an argument or other dispute with someone you know then of having to use it to stop the commission of a felony. Unfortunately the 'clean shoot" that everyone on the gun forums talks about is pretty rare. Expect that it will be a confusing mess. Expect to have every aspect of any relationship you have with your attacker to be scrutinized in great detail.
Jeff
I must have missed whatever precipitated this firestorm 
Jeff, do you mean to say that "you can't shoot JUST anyone in your home...." or that "there is no one that you can shoot in your home in Texas...? Sorry to be pedantic, but the title does sound like NO shoot in one's home is justified, and that just isn't so.
Apart from that, the critique that you've received, that you've picked a pre-Castle Doctrine case and tried to argue against the Castle Doctrine using it, is accurate. If you can show any cases similar to this, that have been prosecuted successfully since the Castle Doctrine was enacted, THEN you have a legitimate argument.
Otherwise, I don't see the point.
Springmom
Jeff, do you mean to say that "you can't shoot JUST anyone in your home...." or that "there is no one that you can shoot in your home in Texas...? Sorry to be pedantic, but the title does sound like NO shoot in one's home is justified, and that just isn't so.
Apart from that, the critique that you've received, that you've picked a pre-Castle Doctrine case and tried to argue against the Castle Doctrine using it, is accurate. If you can show any cases similar to this, that have been prosecuted successfully since the Castle Doctrine was enacted, THEN you have a legitimate argument.
Otherwise, I don't see the point.
Springmom
Springmom the thread was in answer to posters in other threads who stated it had never happened in Texas. It has and this thread is the evidence.
There have been no cases ruled on by the Texas Criminal Appeals Court since castle doctrine was passed.
I have proven that people have went to prison for shooting someone in a residence in Texas. That was my goal and it was accomplished.
Jeff
There have been no cases ruled on by the Texas Criminal Appeals Court since castle doctrine was passed.
I have proven that people have went to prison for shooting someone in a residence in Texas. That was my goal and it was accomplished.
Jeff
csmkersh
Member
fletcher
Member
I'm not really seeing this thread lasting much longer...
Yes Jeff White I am aware it is in fact the less than clean shoots that are common in certain situations, both the murders and the valid self defense cases.
They say that most of certain types of crimes from burglaries to rapes to identity theft to murder will be done by someone known to the victim (which includes gang members known to gang members.)
In such a case self defense is more of a grey area, and things can go either way in court.
I am just saying someone should expect to end up in a court room and pleading thier case with thier life in the balance if that should happen.
The authorities are not going to give you a pat on the back and go on thier way.
If the person using self defense and the deceased or injured individual are intimately or closely known or related to eachother, or connected via a relationship as in this case, then there is no clean shoot. There are lighter and darker shades of grey, and the jury will decide.
Such a case is always a bit of a gamble even if you are in the right and justified. Unlike the movies justice will not always prevail.
That means even valid self defense can and does end up with someone sitting in a cell for a good portion of, or the rest of thier life. (Or executed, especialy in Texas.)
They say that most of certain types of crimes from burglaries to rapes to identity theft to murder will be done by someone known to the victim (which includes gang members known to gang members.)
In such a case self defense is more of a grey area, and things can go either way in court.
I am just saying someone should expect to end up in a court room and pleading thier case with thier life in the balance if that should happen.
The authorities are not going to give you a pat on the back and go on thier way.
If the person using self defense and the deceased or injured individual are intimately or closely known or related to eachother, or connected via a relationship as in this case, then there is no clean shoot. There are lighter and darker shades of grey, and the jury will decide.
Such a case is always a bit of a gamble even if you are in the right and justified. Unlike the movies justice will not always prevail.
That means even valid self defense can and does end up with someone sitting in a cell for a good portion of, or the rest of thier life. (Or executed, especialy in Texas.)
Kersch,
Check your pms.
Jeff
Check your pms.
Jeff
M2 Carbine
member
Oh yes I can.
Don't believe me?
Show up in my house uninvited.
Hell. just show up in my barn uninvited.
Good advice, make sure your life insurance is paid up.
I've done that on another sight a couple of times springmom. I had to just step back and lay off posting for a few days. I know I am spending too much time on internet boards when I take them and myself too seriously. This is a form of enjoyment for me and I hate to have it become something else.
(I am not trying to project on anyone else, just my personal experience.)
(I am not trying to project on anyone else, just my personal experience.)
- Status