Patriot Mobile

Florida Man (here we go...)

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Younggun

    Certified Jackass
    TGT Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 31, 2011
    53,606
    96
    hill co.
    So you don't think death or bodily harm can come from being blindsided and knocked to the ground violently ? From an unknown assailant who may or may not be friends with the person you are yelling at so now you may be facing 2+ combatants ?

    There are just to many unknown variables to say how or what would be legal.

    I think a big part of it is if the person defending there lives feels death or severe bodily harm is likely.

    The law specifically states that provocation negates legal use of force regardless of the risk of death or serious bodily injury and does not provide an exception for being outnumbered.

    I personally don’t believe you would go around provoking people by screaming at them randomly in parking lots. But if you did and the altercation became physical you would not be legally justified in your use of force.

    Unless of course you clearly state your intention to leave peacefully and the attack continues. But you may not get that opportunity.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    Shady

    The One And Only
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 24, 2013
    4,648
    96
    Where in the law does it say yelling at a woman is provocation for someone else to blind side you ?

    And your right there is no situation I can think of that would have me yelling at someone in a parking lot
     
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Aug 17, 2010
    7,576
    96
    Austin
    Where in the law does it say yelling at a woman is provocation for someone else to blind side you ?

    Nobody is claiming it says that.

    It does say if you start some shit by running your mouth and the person attacks you, you cannot legally fight back. More or less.
     

    FireInTheWire

    Caprock Crusader
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Holy ship! This damn thread still going.
    tenor.gif
     

    Attachments

    • tenor.gif
      tenor.gif
      220.4 KB · Views: 235

    TxKronik

    New Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 31, 2019
    33
    11
    San Antonio
    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);
    (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
    (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
    (c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.


    (d) For purposes of
    Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.


    Above sections state Class C other than traffic offense negates justification.

    He Provoked the BF by starting a disruption in the parking lot with the GF.

    Disorderly conduct below is a Class C other than a traffic offense. In TX his justification is out the window.

    Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:


    (1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;
    (2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;


    (3) creates, by chemical means, a noxious and unreasonable odor in a public place;
    (4) abuses or threatens a person in a public place in an obviously offensive manner;
    (5) makes unreasonable noise in a public place other than a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code, or in or near a private residence that he has no right to occupy;
    (6) fights with another in a public place;
     

    Younggun

    Certified Jackass
    TGT Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 31, 2011
    53,606
    96
    hill co.
    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);
    (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
    (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
    (c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.


    (d) For purposes of
    Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.


    Above sections state Class C other than traffic offense negates justification.

    He Provoked the BF by starting a disruption in the parking lot with the GF.

    Disorderly conduct below is a Class C other than a traffic offense. In TX his justification is out the window.

    Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:


    (1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;
    (2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;


    (3) creates, by chemical means, a noxious and unreasonable odor in a public place;
    (4) abuses or threatens a person in a public place in an obviously offensive manner;
    (5) makes unreasonable noise in a public place other than a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code, or in or near a private residence that he has no right to occupy;
    (6) fights with another in a public place;

    Ain’t nobody got time for what the law actually says. The bad guy pushed him down and that’s all that matters. Not the law.

    /sarcasm


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    ZX9RCAM

    Over the Rainbow bridge...
    TGT Supporter
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    May 14, 2008
    59,732
    96
    The Woodlands, Tx.
    Shooter was in such a hurry to get out and start yelling at the woman in the handicapped spot...

    "Drejka’s car was not in a marked parking spot, Forcade says. He was parked in the middle of the lot."
     

    Younggun

    Certified Jackass
    TGT Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 31, 2011
    53,606
    96
    hill co.

    busykngt

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 14, 2011
    4,730
    96
    McKinney
    Trial - day four
    The state (prosecution) has rested its case.

    Judge tells jurors trial could wrap up tomorrow (Friday) and asks if they would consider staying late for deliberations.

    Apparently the defense has only two additional expert witnesses to testify before their defense concludes. Then ‘closing arguments’ from each side. Looks like this won’t drag out for weeks; I be surprised if we didn’t get a verdict next week. All six jurors have to agree, in order to convict.

    https://www.tampabay.com/news/pinel...r-parking-lot-shooting-day-4-making-the-case/
     

    busykngt

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 14, 2011
    4,730
    96
    McKinney
    Closing arguments now.
    The state (prosecution) has had their say and the judge has given a one hour lunch break for the jurors. Looks like the case will make it to the jury later today.

    The prosecution summarized the events leading up to the shooting and painted the defendant as a “parking lot vigilante”. I was watching the ‘live stream’ and I’d have to say, the state did a pretty good job presenting their closing arguments. We’ll see how the defense does when it’s their turn - I expect they will make equally powerful arguments.

    Still difficult to see how this will break (IMHO). 1) the verdict has to be unanimous among six people and 2) has to be beyond a “reasonable doubt”. Pretty high bar to achieve.

    BTW (FWIW), the shooter guy agreed to talk to the police WITHOUT a lawyer present. The police interview was recorded and the state played numerous clips of that interview (putting their own spin on things), during their closing argument - making for a very effective presentation to the jury. If the guy is convicted, it will be in large part due to him hanging himself during that interview! It’s a prime example of why CCW “insurance” lawyers say to shut the f up, until they get there!
     
    Top Bottom