White Texas Property Owner Avoids Arrest After Killing Moroccan Driver

You might want to contact law enforcement and tell them you have it all figured out.

 

Juxtaposition.

 

I'm old and slow... and it's easy enough for someone to keep 40 ft from the house if not 100ft. , But thanks for the actual attack range with a knife

 

Don't have to
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...moroccan-man-unfamiliar-car-driveway-n1282285

I noticed you didn’t answer the question posed.
Care to take a crack at it or will it cause your cognitive dissonance too much discomfort?

 

Again: These crimes have elements and precedents, which you should know if you want to blithely assert them, and law shield's blurb is not very helpful. People who get off on pure property defense have shown the property was of a high value (ie felony theft not misdemeanor theft), one such occurring in the City of Houston, Harris County (the jurisdiction I practice law in). If you pop someone for property you better have some ironclad evidence or you're not goin to have a good time.

You did helpfully bold them, and you're continuously saying he can shelter under the statute, so you'll excuse me if I took that for an assertion in his defense.

Given his account he has no right to chase, and therefore no right to shoot, because he hasn't triggered any of the elements that would show the one thing he might shelter under: The guy was running off with property I couldn't get back without applying deadly force. You don't get to chase someone down and shoot them for criminal mischief, which is about the most he can claim to be in fear of given his account, as its excluded from the flight part of the statute . If they're running and not continuing the mischief you're stuck with letting them run unless they stole something you can't get back without deadly force.

Try not to practice law for yourself and others, you don't have a license.

 

Already stated my feelings about shootings, defensive or otherwise.

You shoot someone, you will face a grand jury.

 

I showed you Texas Penal Codes and proved you wrong. Just take the L.

 

You keep saying he can shelter under the statute, but you can't point to any tangible property he was chasing to retrieve. Just take the L.

 

I didn't proffer the statute as his defense.

The statute does not include any mention of amount, much less felony amount, as criteria for pursuit.

You insisted that it had to be a felony amount in order to legally pursue the thief, I showed you where you wrong.

As for the Land Owner I'm this case, we'll have to see won't we.

 

You did proffer the statute for force to protect property when the offender is fleeing.

I mean we won't get a result for a bit, but its an open and shut case. If you want to shoot someone, wait until they're trying your door at night and shoot them through the door like a normal person.
You don't get to chase them out in to the street for sitting in your driveway when they flee as soon as you appear. That's outside the statute.

 

This appears to be the usual fake news dindu nuffin type story. No attempt to contact the shooter or his attorney or his family for a statement. No actual facts other than a guy was shot in someone's driveway. A lot of emotional speculation from the family of the man shot. No actual investigation by the media or honest reporting. The article is heavily laced with anti-white racism. That is the way the fake news rolls.

 

NRA offers insurance to help defend against criminal and civil suits

 

I looked at the various insurance plans available, compared them, and went with the US Concealed Carry Association Silver Plan insurance.

 

Texas penal codes aren’t the only measure judges go on especially considering how old and out of use so many are.

 

Not sure about that. He was wondering what it would be like to kill somebody on Twitter.... now he knows. Wonder if he will follow up his 2017 post with his thoughts now that his curiosity has been sated. One thing is for sure, Alec Baldwin has officially killed and shot more people than the "insurrectionists" did on January 6.

 

You're wrong.

 

What are the other measures? 9.41 is the law on the books. Period.

 

That dude is screwed. He chased down the car then shot. I don't think it was race related but it was also not self defense.

The confrontation began in the early morning hours of October 11 in Martindale, a small town about 35 miles south of Austin.
Terry Duane Turner, 65, told police he woke up to use the bathroom and "discovered an unknown vehicle with its headlights off, to be parked inside of the driveway next to his pickup truck," according to an arrest affidavit obtained by CNN.


Terry Turner
Turner said he returned to his bedroom to get his handgun and ran outside to find the headlights of the vehicle turned on, according to the affidavit. Turner told police that the car rapidly backed out of his driveway, he chased after it, and "struck the front driver's side door window twice with his handgun" and fired the gun, striking the driver, the affidavit said.

 

Yeah, he obviously couldn't even tell the race of the driver when he grabbed his gun and ran outside. But it still obviously wasn't self defense. I'm surprised he wasn't arrested on the spot.

 

They have. It clearly states:
To address the shortcomings of the outcome test, we built on Becker’s ideas to develop a more robust statistical measure of discrimination: the threshold test.

In other words the threshold test is the test that takes into account the flaws.

Stanford university is one of the most prestigious universities on this planet, and you are out of line to claim you demand a better source, while almost all would be fine with wikipedia as a source. You're just upset about the outcome that systemic racism is real, and complain irrationally. That's all.

As for your "You may not care for my opinion. But I don't care that you don't care." I indeed do not care about your opinion. My opinion also does not matter. What matters is the opinion of Stanford university. And we both know what their conclusion is.

 

Ah, when a black guy gets a trial and is found not guilty, it means in your eyes he is still guilty but got away with it.
I'm guessing it works differently for you when it's a white guy who is found innocent. tss tss

 

We all know how things flied with Chauvin, a white thug with a badge who executed a cuffed black man in the middle brought daylight with the help of 3 other cops. You would think one of them 3 would have a problem with it, but no. And this cop culture is rather typical in the US vs the black population, in an era where people think there is no discrimination against black people.... while most of the US population has been raised with the norms and values during the Jim Crow era or by people from the Jim Crow era. A US population that is rather keen on conservative thinking that goes hand in hand with going along with old norms and values. Them norms and values are no conspiracy.

 

scientific research says no.

 

How about a few more facts before rushing to judgement? Remember "hands up, don't shoot" and what baloney that turned out to be?

 

Ah. You previously claimed there are 3 races. And suddenly now there are 5. That sure makes you sound that you know what you're talking about. lol

In this case, we're talking about a Moroccan. Moroccans are simply brown, and the key thing is that white American has a thing against brown Muslims. Your shenanigan theme is to come with alternative idea's about race, while you are aware were talking about ethnicity. And people being racist against a persons ethnic background. With your idea's you wouldn't be able to be racist against the Jews when white. A Jew would not agree. We all know that.