sherm03;1196366 wrote:It is clear that when he was caught molesting the man's daughter, he was no longer welcome in the home (regardless of the circumstances that brought him into the house in the first place) and was posing an immediate threat to the man's family. With those two factors, I'm not voting guilty in that jury room.

justincredible;1196379 wrote:The admittance of "probably killing a man" is based on walking in on that situation and snapping I.E. going temporarily insane. Previously stating what you'd "probably" do has no bearing on that. It's not like we're all premeditating a murder here.

Steel Valley Football;1196370 wrote:Post the law please.

Under Penal Code, sec. 9.32, use of deadly force against another is justified when and to the degree the person reasonably believes deadly forceis immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's useor attempted use of deadly force or to prevent the other's imminentcommission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.</SPAN></SPAN>



CSHB 284 would shift the burden from the victim to the aggressor bygranting victims, under certain circumstances, a presumption ofreasonableness in their belief that the use of force or deadly force wasimmediately necessary. In addition, removing civil liability would allowvictims to focus on defending themselves and their families instead ofthinking about potential lawsuits.

Steel Valley Football;1196395 wrote:You can't prove to me right now where ANY of this took place. Unless you were there and, if so, then I apologize.

That's my whole point here. Until I find out what took place, I'm not sure he's not guilty of murder. Everyone here pretty much exonerated the guy without any facts.

justincredible;1196331 wrote:This is what I'm thinking. I can't think of many situations that would cause someone to go insane quicker than walking in on someone molesting their child.

Glory Days;1196432 wrote:walking in on someone that is a liberal molesting their child while stabbing a puppy?

Glory Days;1196432 wrote:walking in on someone molesting their child while stabbing a puppy?

LJ;1196402 wrote:Are you gonna admit you are wrong?

(just an FYI, your immediate family is generally accepted as "yourself" by the courts)

http://www.hro.house.state.tx.us/pdf/ba80r/sb0378.pdf#navpanes=0


.

</SPAN></SPAN>

Steel Valley Football;1196455 wrote:When it's proven that the death was necessary to stop the assault only, I may reassess my opinion. As it stands now, no.

would shift the burden from the victim to the aggressor by granting victims, under certain circumstances, a presumption of reasonableness in their belief that the use of force or deadly force was immediately necessary

fan_from_texas;1196462 wrote:LJ, from your post:

"Under Penal Code, sec. 9.32, use of deadly force against another is justified when and to the degree the person reasonably believes deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of deadly force or to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery."

The guy was likely justified to take whatever measures necessary to prevent the imminent commission of the molestation of his daughter. His justification ended immediately upon the neutralization of that threat. E.g., he walks in, sees guys, hits him on the head, knocks him out. Justified so far, even if the guy later dies. But if he continues to beat him until he dies, the killing is no longer justified. At this point, it's probably manslaughter, not murder. The justification only lasts so long as is necessary to remove the imminent threat.

Steel Valley Football;1196533 wrote:Which is why I said way before let's see what the autopsy shows. You posted that law as if he can kill him carte blanche in anger. It's funny how I can say the same thing as FFT but you give me shit and post different responses.

LJ;1196547 wrote:I didn't give any different responses, and I am not sure the autopsy will be able to show whether the hit occured at the same time that he reacted to the immediate threat, or 2 minutes after. The only people who will be able to tell if he went back after the guy went down are the few witnesses. Until they come out and say "nope he went back after him" the law is on the father's side.

Neutralizing the threat means taking action until you feel that you and your family are safe. It's not like a movie where you sneak up and hit them in the head with a shovel and boom they are down.

Steel Valley Football;1196558 wrote:I'm also pretty sure (Justin) that if you post somewhere or are on record saying to someone "I'd kill someone if they did X" and then someone later does X and you kill them that you can't then claim temporary insanity.

justincredible;1196566 wrote:Oh, well, I guess I'll have to watch it then.

Steel Valley Football;1196557 wrote:You conveniently missed where I said there's a difference between a one crack to the head and 25 cracks to the head. That's my whole point. Almost everyone here immediately justified the killing, without facts, because of the terribleness of the crime. If it was an anger killing then it wasn't justified. My other point this whole time were that the people who said they'd kill him if they did that to their daughter, I said fine but they'd go to jail. It's not a difficult concept to grasp, but I still got shit about it.

LJ;1196575 wrote:I didn't miss anything. You are missing the fact that these laws give you the right to protect yourself (and your family) by any means ness. until you feel that the threat is neutralized. If that takes 25 hits to the head, then it takes 25 hits to the head. It if takes 10 shots to the chest, then it takes 10 shots to the chest. I believe that the standard instance usually cited is the guy that cops shot over 18 times in the chest over the course of under a minute and he was still able to injure multiple officers.

Steel Valley Football;1196587 wrote:No, it doesn't. It states reasonable. The law judges that as what an average person would view as reasonable and not whatever someone can argue they thought was reasonable.

reasonably believes deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of deadly force or to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

Steel Valley Football;1196587 wrote:No, it doesn't. It states reasonable. The law judges that as what an average person would view as reasonable and not whatever someone can argue they thought was reasonable.

LJ;1196592 wrote:No it doesn't.


reasonably believes deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of deadly force or to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.





It says nothing about reasonable force, it says that you can use deadly force.

fan_from_texas;1196594 wrote:This.

There's a difference--if there's significant overkill, that's going to look suspicious, for sure. I generally think the dad is fine and was probably in the right, but it's possible a jury would find that bludgeoning someone to death was unreasonable. It's a grey area.

fan_from_texas;1196602 wrote:You have to reasonably believe that the deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent an imminent commission of a crime. If the guy is incapacitated, he can't imminently commit a crime. There's some point between first hit and killing someone where the guy is no longer a threat.