Difficult shooting case in Texas on trial right now

[stija]

Getting right to the heart of the matter--advocating illegal activity is unacceptable on TFL and trying to dodge the issue by making it "hypothetical" doesn't change anything.

Pardon me?

You must refer to my "you must make sure the other guy cannot testify against you" statement?

Assuming so, are you saying that walking up to the truck, after shooting a few rounds into the robber, and checking for pulse to make sure he's alive/dead is illegal? Of course if dead, he cannot testify against you so it is only your word.

Again, it is your presumptions that get the better of you. Unless of course the above is illegal.

 

[OuTcAsT]

Of course if dead, he cannot testify against you so it is only your word.

You could not possibly be more wrong. It is not just "your word" in any event. There will be an investigation and "your" word may not mean squat.

And as for your advocacy of an illegal activity, I agree, it is completely out of line, then to try and spin it as a "hypothetical" after the fact? Sorry Sir, but you have no credibility with me due to that.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Of course if dead, he cannot testify against you so it is only your word.

Tell that to Harold Fish

 

[hogdogs]

I also bet that "your word" will get hammered by the DA and your "written statements" will get thrashed. If you choose to get on the stand, you better hope you did yer homework in high school civics and debate team or yer gonna get hacked to bits on "cross"... It is rarely just "your word". 3 can keep a secret if 2 are dead comes to mind as witnesses could be involved... Even when you don't know they are there. I was taught by some wise, if not very nefarious organized criminals... "The night has a thousand eyes..."
Brent

 

[stija]

...then to try and spin it as a "hypothetical" after the fact?

I am not trying to spin anything. It is your emotions and presumptions that are doing it.

Please quote the illegal activity I advocated? Please go ahead.

The mere statement "I am gonna go to Mars tonight" may sound looney if taken out of contest. But for all you know, there may be a bar called Mars in my neighborhood.

If you keep stating I advocated an illegal activity please refer to it or drop it altogether.

 

[w_houle]

The shooter's state of mind--mens rea.

So the shooter had a criminal intent?

 

[MLeake]

Ok, Stija, how about...

... your original statement:

First you have to make sure that the bad guy cannot testify against you.

That sounds like you are advocating making sure the bad buy expires, as opposed to making the threat cease. Those are not the same, morally or legally. I don't think a coup de grace is legal anywhere in the US, so it seems you were advocating an illegal and unethical approach.

The rest of that post confirms that you knew exactly what you were implying, including the caveat you put at the end.

Since then, your argument that you said nothing untoward has been disingenuous and silly.

 

[JohnKSa]

Please quote the illegal activity I advocated? Please go ahead.

You get one short post to either state plainly that you will no longer advocate illegal activity on TFL or CLEARLY and CONCISELY explain exactly how this:

First you have to make sure that the bad guy cannot testify against you.

is not advocating illegal activity.

 

[maestro pistolero]

tick, tick, tick . . . boy he must really be trying hard to make it concise, and to the point.

 

[stija]

Quote:
Originally Posted by stija
Please quote the illegal activity I advocated? Please go ahead.

You get one short post to either state plainly that you will no longer advocate illegal activity on TFL or CLEARLY and CONCISELY explain exactly how this:

I succinctly explained on multiple occasions exactly what I meant.

So..I am going to tell you, as I would to a prosecutor, to please refer to my previous testimony/explanations/statements. They were politely provided for you on at least 2 occasions which you ignored and continue to make your presumptuous accusations.

MLeake said: That sounds like.....

It sounds to you.

JohnKSa said: I merely pointed out that what you said should be done was not legal or justified.

How is it illegal to make sure the intruder is expired and cannot testify before giving your testimony illegal?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...How is it illegal to make sure the intruder is expired and cannot testify before giving your testimony illegal?

If he has ceased to be threat and is still breathing, finishing him off is murder. Any justification you may have for the use of lethal force ends when the threat ends, even if the assailant is still alive.

 

[MLeake]

Stija needs to consult with...

... the Oklahoma pharmacist.

He made sure his BG won't testify. Doesn't seem to have helped him; quite the opposite.

 

[hogdogs]

How is it illegal to make sure the intruder is expired and cannot testify before giving your testimony illegal?

Hmmm.... Lemme guess... Yer new here? You have little to no education or training in the use of firearms for defense or the legal possibilities including ramifications?
No where is it claimed that intentionally KILLING a person is acceptable.
It is, however, legal to use lethal force to "STOP" in many situations. To make the statement that you intend to make sure you are the only one able to testify screams that you intend to make sure the guy is dead for that reason which makes it FIRST DEGREE MURDER since you publically professed prior intent to kill!
Brent

 

[Al Norris]

OK folks. Just this once, I'm going to be Diplomatic and see if I can turn on some lights in stija's brain.

Stija, in post # 18 you replied to Tennessee Gentleman by saying:

First you have to make sure that the bad guy cannot testify against you.

Then you say: "I was afraid for my life and I shot back, I have nothing more to say".*

It is that simple. No need for a lawyer unless they decide to indict you, but with a statement like that they really have nothing on you. And best of all, no witnesses.

This was not a hypothetical situation. It was a direct response to something that was said by another member.

First. The purpose of using lethal force in a self defense situation is to STOP the aggression that caused you to fear for your life. It is unlawful in all jurisdictions to keep shooting if the aggression has ceased to exist. That is rightfully called murder. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Second. What you write on the Internet can be discovered and used against you in a court of law or equity (civil suits). Don't ever presume anything to the contrary.

Third. In a self defense shooting, nothing is ever simple or black and white. Never presume otherwise. To do so, is to spike your own defense. There are several recent examples of this kind of thinking, scattered throughout TFL.

Fourth. Normally, when I see someone espouse an illegal action, they are summarily banned. The only saving grace you have, is that JohnKSa intervened before I could hit the ban button. Count yourself lucky that you have been allowed to stay as long as you have.

Finally, I believe John has a few parting words to say...

 

[JohnKSa]

How is it illegal to make sure the intruder is expired and cannot testify before giving your testimony illegal?

First of all, you were to explain CLEARLY and CONCISELY exactly how your comment was not advocating illegal activity. You provided no explanation and instead asked a question.

Your question can be answered two ways and both, at best, imply illegal activity.

1. Your testimony must legally be the truth and will be borne out by the evidence so it doesn't matter whether the intruder is alive or dead nor does it matter what he says. UNLESS, of course, your intent is to lie to the police and perjure yourself and you want to make sure you won't be contradicted. That is clearly illegal.

2. To "make sure the intruder is expired" taken literally means that you take whatever steps are required to kill the intruder so he doesn't testify against you. That is clearly illegal.

The ONLY cogent reasons for "making sure the intruder is expired" are illegal. fiddletown's post clearly spells out one of the possible reasons, the only other possible one is to conceal the truth which means you are trying to (at best) deceive the legal system, a crime in and of itself and (at worst) conceal a crime that would be revealed if your story was not the only one given to the police.

I'm very disappointed at the recent rash of folks advocating actions that are not consistent with either the spirit or intent of the laws governing deadly force and self-defence. That is diametrically opposed to the basic philosophy upon which TFL is based. It's completely unacceptable.

Normally, when I see someone espouse an illegal action, they are summarily banned. The only saving grace you have, is that JohnKSa intervened before I could hit the ban button.

There will be no saving grace.