White Texas Property Owner Avoids Arrest After Killing Moroccan Driver

Because FACTS are almost non-existent on internet discussion boards.

I come here for comic-relief and to cure boredom. Orginially I had hoped to find some authentic philosophical ideas to discuss, but one look at the philosophy section I just laughed - all it is, is atheists attacking believers.

This all OK with you?

 

FYI, if is based on facts then it wouldn't be a conspiracy theory, it would just be fact, by definition.

 

Amazing - you have heard all the facts BEFORE a trial even takes place! Are you a democrat lawyer? Could I get your name so I am sure never to retain you?

Its amazing - I presume the gentlemen is innocent until proven guilty - and defer to a Jury - and people are hysterical over it.

How far we have fallen as a society...

 

we choose what we talk about here, why do we pick some over others?

 

Don't frequent the philosophy section so I'll have to take your word on that. We do have several facts in this case. We've got the where, when and who. I believe it has also been established that the deceased was not in possession of a gun or property of the defendants at the time of the shooting. We've got the defendants statements as to what occurred that morning, which appears pretty straight-forward and I have no reason to doubt it at this time. We've got Texas state law which we can compare against the defendant's statements. Perhaps the defense can come up with factors that ameliorate the evidence as it currently stands. I don't say that he is guilty but I do state that as the evidence stands now he is guilty.

 

In this thread there are facts from the defendant's own mouth. He doesn't express he was chasing after someone stealing his property. He expresses he saw a trespasser and tried to hold them at gun point, then chased them as they fled and eventually shot them.

I mean arguing with either a theist or atheist the contra position is an exercise in futility so yeah we're okay with them having the right to freely express their scorn for opposing beliefs like the rest of us do daily.

 

All I said was I presume the gentleman is innocent until proven guilty by a jury and I will wait for a JURY to decide the facts - not rush to a conclusion based on what some guy on an internet forum that claims to be a lawyer, says...

And you go hurling insults.

I am not an attorney but I once actually won a $200,000 judgement for a homeowner, against a builder and his attorney...

 

O don't be coy now. You said more than that. Emphasis mine.
See the and? That means you're talking about 2 things at least. HMMMMMMM What else could you have been saying there?

Practicing law without a license eh? Sure you did.

 

You are grasping at straws.

 

I'm not. Its been pointed out the evidence out so far is not sufficient for him to shelter under 9.42. Its also been established that he would need to shelter there, because the driver is confirmed by the defendant to have been in the midst of flight.
We're all saying that means the result of the trial on those facts is assured, if not yet in occurrence and subject to additional facts being discovered.
You quite blithely instruct that we're not familiar with Texas law, which is silly because we're examining the en pointe statute in the Texas Penal Code against known facts and actually legally admissible evidence IE the defendant's statement. You then add that you'd also not rush to judgment. Which we haven't, we've simply stated that given the defendant's statement if that's all he's got he's gonna get ****ed.

 

Looks like he could be from southern Europe or North Africa. At what point on the skin color spectrum does one become "brown"? Late at night looking through a closed window I doubt the shooter could distinguish him from a white person. Race though, of course is always injected where it doesnt belong.
Had he instead been a woman, and the shooter could see it was a woman, this probably wouldn't of happened. And yet no one condemns the shooter for being a sexist.

 

I will wait and see what the Jury says.

 

Looks like 3 maybe 4 rounds fired given the markings and holes in the glass. That's going to go hard for him as well.

 

As stated: We're all bound by what the jury says and new facts might reveal. That doesn't change where the meter is at which is what we're discussing. You wanted a discussion: Here it is.

 

All I've said is given his statement he has no way to shelter under 9.42 and without other facts he's going in. Statements against interest always come in, they're evidence, they're facts. GOING IN, ie a jury will end up sentencing him given the facts from his own mouth are the facts.
As others have said in fact as YOU yourself have said: He seems an honest sort so I have no reason to doubt his word on why he did what he did. It just so happens to not have been a legal excuse.

Don't worry about it bud, I wouldn't take someone with your attitude or history of practicing law without a license and bragging about it for a Client. Additionally: Libertarian.

 

I'm kinda surprised that a non-lawyer has you so upset. I am ready to drop this if you are?

 

I'm amused personally. Maybe you're projecting?
I put that post up and it got taken down so I altered the offending portion and reposted it.

Drop what? If you are done participating in the thread you can always just cease posting in the thread.

 

Sure seems like a conspiracy theory to me. People think there's all sorts of stuff that proves their conspiracy theories.

Grievance studies are not science.

 

so it's the culture inspiring against black people?

so far there's one grievance study and grievance studies are notoriously speciesist. So that's all you got that's too bad for you.

Or they want more evidence than a biased grievance study.

 

No, they proved racial disparity and simply label it systemic racism. Thats what CRT does.

 

This false idea (that if was based on facts would not be conspiracy) is likely the source of much of your confusion. "FYI"

The idea that calling something a conspiracy makes it false - is simply false - an idea if believed would make one uber koolaid succeptible.

 

I can’t help that your inability to recognize how our justice system works prevents you from being capable of rationally discussing the issue. If you think trespassing alone is justification for lethal force then it is you who are deluded.

 

Your expectations of the general population are a bit high - methinks

 

No one has ever proved systemic racism, not even once, nor have they ever even come close. Nor are the social sciences actual science. It’s opinion science lol. They find differences in outcome and immediately jump to the conclusion of systemic racism despite the complete lack of evidence.

 

I think you need to read my posts a little better. Confronting a trespasser does not equate to plugging them without preamble. Its when you go out armed and say "this is private property. **** off" then when they leave you just stand there not shooting them in the back like a criminal since trespassing doesn't shelter under 9.42.

Additionally: You said judges weren't bound by the penal code. That's incredibly non-sensical, and quite hilarious since you claim I don't know how the justice system works but you're LITERALLY saying judges aren't bound by the ****ing penal code