TexasCHLforum.com

This young man's death certificate will list the primary cause of death as a gunshot wound, but it seems to me the secondary cause is likely to be testosterone poisoning, a common affliction in that age group, although not always fatal. A pity, if accurate.

barstoolguru wrote:Now correct me if I am wrong but the law says you can't claim self-defense if you instigate or antagonize another

PC §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE.
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity,

That's right. If you provoke the fight you lose the justification of self defense.

Just throwing this out there.

What if the CHL holder/shooter had been a 28 year old male?

Still justified?

AB

smoothoperator wrote:

barstoolguru wrote:Now correct me if I am wrong but the law says you can't claim self-defense if you instigate or antagonize another

PC §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE.
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity,

That's right. If you provoke the fight you lose the justification of self defense.

An unintentional minor collision, "fender-bender", is not going to be provocation, in and of itself, and certainly not criminal.

I'm only talking about what the law says. I'll leave interpretation for you and the others who witnessed this event.

JALLEN wrote:This young man's death certificate will list the primary cause of death as a gunshot wound, but it seems to me the secondary cause is likely to be testosterone poisoning, a common affliction in that age group, although not always fatal. A pity, if accurate.

Maybe not poisoning, but acute intoxication. RIP

JALLEN wrote:

smoothoperator wrote:

barstoolguru wrote:Now correct me if I am wrong but the law says you can't claim self-defense if you instigate or antagonize another

PC §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE.
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity,

That's right. If you provoke the fight you lose the justification of self defense.

An unintentional minor collision, "fender-bender", is not going to be provocation, in and of itself, and certainly not criminal.

Your right but reckless driving does, her own words... she provoked him ... If I was his parents I would have me a lawyer right now.

Ables was shot to death, investigators say by Crystal Scott following a minor accident that spilled over into a gas station parking lot on Monday near FM 1960 and Perry Road. Scott, 23, told deputies she and Ables had been cutting each other off. After they hit and both pulled in to the gas station, Scott said Ables walked up to her car yelling and beating on her window. She claims he grabbed for her door, and that fearing for her life, she grabbed her gun and opened fire.

barstoolguru wrote: Your right but reckless driving does, her own words... she provoked him ... If I was his parents I would have me a lawyer right now.

So where do you get your info that it was reckless driving?

The Law Enforcement officer who has actual training and experience deciding such things made no such determination, nor is there a report of such a implication, nor citation.

Do you know the TC that covers reckless driving?

§ 545.401. RECKLESS DRIVING; OFFENSE. (a) A person
commits an offense if the person drives a vehicle in wilful or
wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.

What info do you have showing her actions were "wilful " or "wanton " the LEO did not?

It would seem those charged with making such a determination disagree with your assessment. Perhaps a later investigation will reveal the info on scene LEOS's did not have. Who knows, we have only the info presented thus far.. but that info leads most rational thinkers to a different conclusion then you from what i can see.
Show us what you are seeing different

§ 545.401. RECKLESS DRIVING; OFFENSE. (a) A person
commits an offense if the person drives a vehicle in wilful or
wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property

your right; her driving down the road taking turns cutting each other off is normal every day driving. What was wrong with me to think that they were endangering everyone around them with their little road rage stunt. And while all this is going on I bet they used their blinkers too

What info do you have showing her actions were "wilful " or "wanton " the LEO did not?

Scott, 23, told deputies she and Ables had been cutting each other off.

Was there someone else driving her car? Last time I checked it took two to have an accident. SHE rear ended someone. We call that failure to control your vehicle. all she had to do was let him go but she chose to fight because SHE HAD A GUN AND NO ONE WAS GOING TO PUSH HER AROUND

barstoolguru wrote:

§ 545.401. RECKLESS DRIVING; OFFENSE. (a) A person
commits an offense if the person drives a vehicle in wilful or
wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property

your right; her driving down the road taking turns cutting each other off is normal every day driving. What was wrong with me to think that they were endangering everyone around them with their little road rage stunt. And while all this is going on I bet they used their blinkers too

If they were both engaged in doing the same thing by cutting each other off, even though it may escalate the emotions, if would basically nullify the provocation by the woman IMO. And, as others have mentioned, the woman has a trump card in the fact that he was a male and she is female; it's called Disparity of Force. No matter what happened prior, if she was sitting in her car, on the phone and he got out of his truck and started beating on the window breaking it and then trying to enter the car, she has several things in her favor, the biggest being the Castle Doctrine. IMO unless they can prove she provoked him to a level that justified his attempt to break and enter her occupied car, then I'll bet she is going to be no billed.

Keith B wrote:If they were both engaged in doing the same thing by cutting each other off, even though it may escalate the emotions, if would basically nullify the provocation by the woman IMO.

I disagree. If two people in a bar call each other names and make threats, it doesn't cancel out, unless you mean they both lose the ability to claim self defense as a result of the mutual provocation and escalation.

apostate wrote:

Keith B wrote:If they were both engaged in doing the same thing by cutting each other off, even though it may escalate the emotions, if would basically nullify the provocation by the woman IMO.

I disagree. If two people in a bar call each other names and make threats, it doesn't cancel out, unless you mean they both lose the ability to claim self defense as a result of the mutual provocation and escalation.

That would apply if said bar idiots argued, then started fighting..

But antagonizing each other (cutting each other off), then separating (one person drives off to a neutral area)... THEN one person follows and attacks... Different set up.

But again, my opinion means little..

The copious amount of officers ON scene, who likely conferred with an ADA before releasing the victim did not find a sufficient amount of evidence of any type to so much as cite the Victim for a traffic citation, never mind a criminal complaint.

The Grand Jury may decide differently, but those empowered to investigate and make decision on sight.. differ from the opinions of a few folks here.

Keith B wrote:

barstoolguru wrote:

§ 545.401. RECKLESS DRIVING; OFFENSE. (a) A person
commits an offense if the person drives a vehicle in wilful or
wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property

your right; her driving down the road taking turns cutting each other off is normal every day driving. What was wrong with me to think that they were endangering everyone around them with their little road rage stunt. And while all this is going on I bet they used their blinkers too

If they were both engaged in doing the same thing by cutting each other off, even though it may escalate the emotions, if would basically nullify the provocation by the woman IMO. And, as others have mentioned, the woman has a trump card in the fact that he was a male and she is female; it's called Disparity of Force. No matter what happened prior, if she was sitting in her car, on the phone and he got out of his truck and started beating on the window breaking it and then trying to enter the car, she has several things in her favor, the biggest being the Castle Doctrine. IMO unless they can prove she provoked him to a level that justified his attempt to break and enter her occupied car, then I'll bet she is going to be no billed.

it can be argued that by her own admittance she was engaged in mutual combat wither it be verbal or physical which would cancel out the "self-defense" defense

The copious amount of officers ON scene, who likely conferred with an ADA before releasing the victim did not find a sufficient amount of evidence of any type to so much as cite the Victim for a traffic citation, never mind a criminal complaint.

They could have wrote her a ticket for failure to control her vehicle but didn't. they were investigating a shooting so I doubt if ticket writing was on the top of the list

barstoolguru wrote: Was there someone else driving her car? Last time I checked it took two to have an accident. SHE rear ended someone. We call that failure to control your vehicle. all she had to do was let him go but she chose to fight because SHE HAD A GUN AND NO ONE WAS GOING TO PUSH HER AROUND

???? Two of what?

bronco78 wrote:

apostate wrote:

Keith B wrote:If they were both engaged in doing the same thing by cutting each other off, even though it may escalate the emotions, if would basically nullify the provocation by the woman IMO.

I disagree. If two people in a bar call each other names and make threats, it doesn't cancel out, unless you mean they both lose the ability to claim self defense as a result of the mutual provocation and escalation.

That would apply if said bar idiots argued, then started fighting..

I agree. The law also talks about abandoning the encounter, which may or may not apply in some road rage shootings.

IDK. I saw the space shuttle today but I readily admit I didn't see this shooting or the incident(s) leading up to it.