Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Texas Man Sentensed to 40 Years

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-28-2012, 01:02 AM   #11
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
beastmode986's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: California
Posts: 960
Liked 157 Times on 110 Posts
Likes Given: 171

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJK View Post
Did you watch the video? When did he brandish a firearm? The guy even asked where his firearm was. Something like, do you have a pistol in your pocket. He had called 911 multiple times.

Watch the video bud.

There's another I'll post later when I get home.
true i heard the same thing i did not see him pull his firearm however the guy also kept moving closer to him and the man told him to stop multiple times and the man kept instigating him
__________________
beastmode986 is offline  
 
Old 06-28-2012, 01:29 AM   #12
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Polygon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Utah
Posts: 832
Liked 68 Times on 53 Posts
Likes Given: 113

Default

I did not see him pull his fire arm, but from what I heard it sounded like they knew he had a gun and they threatened to get a gun a come shoot him at the beginning of the video. I assumed he informed them, or showed them his gun before the video.

Regardless, the other points still stand.

__________________
Polygon is offline  
 
Old 06-28-2012, 01:31 AM   #13
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Axxe55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: East Texas, Texas!
Posts: 27,328
Liked 19998 Times on 11369 Posts
Likes Given: 50448

Default

if the guy left his own property to to confront them about the loud music, then there was his first mistake. if going armed, leaving his property to confront them about the loud music, then that was his second mistake. he should have just called LE and made a complaint and let them handle it.

i support the Castle Laws and Stand Your Ground defences, but IMO, this wasn't that case. yes the others people appeared somewhat intoxicated and belligerent, but until he started telling them he was armed. which IMO is what caused the escalation and him firing his gun. so if i were a juror in his case, and after seeing that video, there is a high possibility, that i would find him guilty of murder, or at least negligent manslaughter.

__________________
Coming From The Village Of The Damned.
Resist All Tyranny And Oppression.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil, is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke.
Axxe55 is offline  
 
Old 06-28-2012, 01:47 AM   #14
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,427
Liked 40 Times on 39 Posts
Likes Given: 25

Default

I am scared after reading the majority of the responses here. The man had a CCL which entitled him to carry a concealed firearm anywhere not posted. I know people who even carry while at home. What difference does having his firearm on him in a lawfull manner make?

He had called the police at least twice. He started the call on the video by stating his name and that he had called before concerning this same incident. He was on a public roadway when the truck pulled up at which time multiple large sized males confronted him. He asked them to turn down the music countless times and they refused. At this point they became aggressive in mannerism and speech. They made numerous aggressive movements toward the individual. I counted around 5 men at one point. A couple of which were being held back by friends while threatening to get guns and shoot him. One man w/ multiple friends right behind him, aggressively approached the firefighter. At this point it would have been smart for him to retreat but according to my understanding of the law he is not required to, stand your ground. Right.

The 3 men lunged at the firefighter after threatening his life.

He was standing on public property reporting a violation of the law when he was approached by multiple men all of which appeared to be larger, stronger, younger, more fit, highly intoxicated, and ready to fight.

He was confronted by them.

Does standing on public property reporting a violation warrant an attack by multiple assailants?

Now what did the firefighter do that was illegal? Not wrong or not smart, but against the law.

__________________
MikeJK is offline  
 
Old 06-28-2012, 01:59 AM   #15
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
m72law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NC
Posts: 1,316
Liked 143 Times on 83 Posts
Likes Given: 764

Default

if this guy never left his property....this should change everything!

not guilty!

__________________
m72law is offline  
 
Old 06-28-2012, 02:05 AM   #16
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,427
Liked 40 Times on 39 Posts
Likes Given: 25

Default

Yeah lets all sit in front of the tv and rot away while others run wild and make us miserable. There's a reason for these types of laws.

__________________
MikeJK is offline  
 
Old 06-28-2012, 02:19 AM   #17
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JonM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Rochester WI,Rochester WI
Posts: 17,191
Liked 5316 Times on 2775 Posts
Likes Given: 335

Default

all i can do is comment based on a bad video. im not privy to the actual police reports interviews investigation evidence and trial testimony.

it appears similar to the zimmerman case. an individual attempting to take the law into his own hands resulting in a death due to vigilante behaviour.

__________________

"Gun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound." — L. Neil Smith

The problem with being stupid is you cannot simply decide to stop doing dumb things...

JonM is offline  
2
People Like This 
Old 06-28-2012, 03:27 AM   #18
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,427
Liked 40 Times on 39 Posts
Likes Given: 25

Default

I'm going off of the video as well. I just can't wrap my head around how he could have been convicted. It seems like he was convicted for not making the right choice rather than actually commiting a crime. Reporting a crime or protecting yourself is not vigilanty activity. He didn't walk onto their property demanding they turn their music down . He was standing on public property and was attacked by multiple assailants for asking them to turn down their music. Entitlement at its best. He did not chase these guys down, they came to him.

This is a stepping stone. A case that will be used as a cornerstone for convicting defensive shootings in the future.

__________________
MikeJK is offline  
 
Old 06-28-2012, 10:22 AM   #19
Big TOW
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
WebleyFosbery38's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Irish Settlement CNY
Posts: 5,131
Liked 5664 Times on 2805 Posts
Likes Given: 6027

Default

So much going on in this one that its really hard to know right or wrong with the info available. No doubt, exercising your rights does come with liabilities and possible outcomes that are not positive. If he truly felt in fear of his life, he did the right thing because he is still alive. Now comes judgement day when the right thing for him gets scrutiny by everyone else including the courts.

Having the right to do something and doing the right thing may not be the same thing, in this case, he really pushed the envelope too far. Actually, His filming probably was the death blow to his case, His fear factor didnt drive his response until after it got way out of hand, he was trying to make a point with drunks, not smart!. I do believe he was angry to begin with, probably not the first time his peace had been violated by these folks. Judgement lacking, he confronted drunks with a camera and a gun in hopes of creating a you tube moment, what did he think was going to happen, a beer summit at the Whitehouse? After he realized the situation had moved from uncomfortable to near riot, he got scared and did defend himself.

This is a chicken and egg thing, who really was responsible for the final action seems to be predicated on the belief that this was an unprovoked response, while the noise was the initial sign of an issue, the situation grew more dangerous as he attempted to control a dangerous situation that nobody with a brain should have tried to do alone with a camera.

MikeJK, you were 10th mt, would you have tried to defend your position against a mob of drunks alone with a camera and a handgun or retrograde and call for backup? Defending ones post is honorable but there was no danger close until he tried to deal with it inappropriately. My guess is you would choose the second response and live to fight another day. Im pretty sure most of us would do the same, loud music is not a precursor to the need of lethal response; that wasnt an invasion, it was an irritation.

Its not cold blooded murder but certainty isnt the classic case of one defending their property or self against an intruder. I wouldnt want to have been on that jury, it would be really tough for me to support his actions leading up to the shooting and I would have to be able to to set him free without any repercussions but I do think 40 years is excessive, someone was making a point, dont take the law into your own hands, right or wrong, he's got 40 years to think about it now.

Just because we can doesnt mean we should, the law of unintended consequences is always in effect and he should have thought more and acted less, sorry a drunk is dead but they sounded like a bunch of scumbags, he may have done his neighbors a favor. I do believe it will cause confusion and redirect the intent of the Stand your ground law in areas it wasnt designed to deal with, thats the really bad part.

__________________
WebleyFosbery38 is offline  
2
People Like This 
Old 06-28-2012, 10:47 AM   #20
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Yunus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: |,Maryland
Posts: 4,715
Liked 1038 Times on 613 Posts
Likes Given: 319

Default

"Stand your ground" is a bad name for these laws.

They don't give people the right to go provoking people and then shoot someone. From the limited evidence we have seen it seems like they got the verdict correct but 40 years seems a bit harsh. There are people who kill people at random and get less.

__________________

"Good people drink good beer."
Hunter S. Thompson

Yunus is offline  
 
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
After 6 years... evo9guy AR-15 Discussion 15 07-02-2012 03:58 PM
Only took 32 years to get it. BenLuby The Club House 19 10-19-2011 11:26 PM
25 years ago MobileMarine Politics, Religion and Controversy 2 09-27-2011 08:12 PM
Deadly Fires in Texas & Texas State Rifle Assoc. Members american121 Legal and Activism 1 09-12-2011 05:04 AM
Eight years ago right now..... canebrake Politics, Religion and Controversy 20 09-12-2009 04:37 AM