TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.khou.com/news/crime/hpd-road ... /126340267

Looks like it happened this morning, father is a defense attorney. Lets see how this plays out.

The shooter's father is attorney Grant Hardeway. His car sports a license plate "Not Guilty.”

Sounds like she was potentially justified in using deadly force to defend herself. Also, note that SHE was the one that left the scene to get away from the threat and called 911. This plays well in her favor for her case.

Calling 911 and voluntarily returning makes it sound better. Returning with your defense attorney doesn't, even if the attorney is her father. It does make sense to do so however, so I am not faulting her for it.

My friends in Houston, but I truly do not like KHOU, and the way they report a news story. They kept calling the one who got shot as the 'victim', and not the lady who acted in self defense. Shouldn't that be the other way around?

The "victim" throws a bottle at someone and then the "victim" gets out of her vehicle and attempts to attack someone. I've never liked the term "road rage".

How about "crazy psychopath attacks armed citizen in an attempted car jacking and gets shot".

That article pretty much illustrates, again, the blatant anti 2A bias that's wrapped up in today's yellow journalism.

Everyone is supposed to just wait and see if the crazy on the other side is going to act with deadly force first?

I don't think so. You getting out of your vehicle and reaching for my car door is considered condition red to me. It signals that you are belligerent and determined to make forceful physical contact with me. The law is pretty clear from that point on.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

That may be true but that woman is going to spend some time in jail. I see 2-3 issues here, first of all this was described as a road rage situation. I do not know all the facts but in road rage it takes two to tango. So that is my first red flag. In a road rage situation, you can (must) stay in your car and drive off if you can. If not do not get out of your car! Then if you are being followed go to a neutral area and solicit help, IF YOU ARE NOT THE AGRIVATOR The second was a bottle was thrown, big deal. Have you ever played dodge ball? A bottle is not a deadly weapon and that does not make for 'fear for my life.' Reaching for my door will put me in the red zone but I still wouldn't fire at that point. See above, lock your doors. This may make you look like a pansy, but it beats the ride you are about to make. We have way to many details missing but I can see the ride and a lot of problems ensuing on this one.

When we carry the first thought must be, HOW CAN I defuse this situation. A 'robbery situation' and 'road rage' are completely different scenario. If you handle both the same way you will be spending time in jail just like this woman is going to!!! With or without a lawyer for a father.

JerryK wrote: That may be true but that woman is going to spend some time in jail. I see 2-3 issues here, first of all this was described as a road rage situation. I do not know all the facts but in road rage it takes two to tango. So that is my first red flag. In a road rage situation, you can (must) stay in your car and drive off if you can. If not do not get out of your car! Then if you are being followed go to a neutral area and solicit help, IF YOU ARE NOT THE AGRIVATOR The second was a bottle was thrown, big deal. Have you ever played dodge ball? A bottle is not a deadly weapon and that does not make for 'fear for my life.' Reaching for my door will put me in the red zone but I still wouldn't fire at that point. See above, lock your doors. This may make you look like a pansy, but it beats the ride you are about to make. We have way to many details missing but I can see the ride and a lot of problems ensuing on this one.

When we carry the first thought must be, HOW CAN I defuse this situation. A 'robbery situation' and 'road rage' are completely different scenario. If you handle both the same way you will be spending time in jail just like this woman is going to!!! With or without a lawyer for a father.

Although the media, police and entirely too many citizens use the term "road rage," there is no such thing, at least in legal terms. It's either an assault, terrorist threat, deadly conduct or nothing. I do wish people would quit buying into this creation of the media before the Legislature tries to create yet another automobile-related offense.

While I may or may not fire upon someone trying to enter my car, making the attempt triggers Tex. Penal Code §9.32(b). (See below.)

Chas.

Tex. Penal Code §9.32(b) wrote:(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or . . .

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

JerryK wrote: That may be true but that woman is going to spend some time in jail. I see 2-3 issues here, first of all this was described as a road rage situation. I do not know all the facts but in road rage it takes two to tango. So that is my first red flag. In a road rage situation, you can (must) stay in your car and drive off if you can. If not do not get out of your car! Then if you are being followed go to a neutral area and solicit help, IF YOU ARE NOT THE AGRIVATOR The second was a bottle was thrown, big deal. Have you ever played dodge ball? A bottle is not a deadly weapon and that does not make for 'fear for my life.' Reaching for my door will put me in the red zone but I still wouldn't fire at that point. See above, lock your doors. This may make you look like a pansy, but it beats the ride you are about to make. We have way to many details missing but I can see the ride and a lot of problems ensuing on this one.

When we carry the first thought must be, HOW CAN I defuse this situation. A 'robbery situation' and 'road rage' are completely different scenario. If you handle both the same way you will be spending time in jail just like this woman is going to!!! With or without a lawyer for a father.

Although the media, police and entirely too many citizens use the term "road rage," there is no such thing, at least in legal terms. It's either an assault, terrorist threat, deadly conduct or nothing. I do wish people would quit buying into this creation of the media before the Legislature tries to create yet another automobile-related offense.

While I may or may not fire upon someone trying to enter my car, making the attempt triggers Tex. Penal Code §9.32(b). (See below.)

Chas.

Tex. Penal Code §9.32(b) wrote:(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or . . .

Great information as always Charles.

Sad indeed

JerryK wrote:In retrospect I would like to see the legal term of "enter" defined.

As you might suspect, it has different meanings in different parts of the law. Chapter 9 (Justifications) does not define it, so it takes the common meaning (based on the Code Construction Act on how to define terms).

This is for burglaries, which is the entry without consent with the intent to commit an assault, a felony, or a theft. Section 30.02(b) says it means:
(b) For purposes of this section, "enter" means to intrude:
(1) any part of the body; or
(2) any physical object connected with the body.

This is for burglary of a coin operated machine. Section 30.03(b) says:
(b) For purposes of this section, "entry" includes every kind of entry except one made with the effective consent of the owner.

For burglary of a vehicle (Section 30.04) the definition is the same as for burglaries in 30.02.

The important difference to me is in section 30.05 on criminal trespass. This is also used for 30.06 and 30.07. There it says:
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.


That pretty much makes it clear to me that 9.32 says that your perception of their intent is important. If you think they are just getting in to ask for a ride or something, then it would be their whole person, but if they are going to attack, it is any part of them. Since self-defense requires a threat against you, if they are trying to get in or opening the door or breaking the window to reach in, you are legally justified.

As a reminder, think back to the first justified shooting after CHL. It was a road rage incident where one person tried to beat up another. It established, to me, a very clear precedent for Texas.

Categorically ruling out the use of a gun make no more sense than seeing the gun as a solution to all problems. The determining factor is should be whether someone is using imminent unlawful deadly force against you, that could result in your death or serious injury. The part of the law Charles Cotton cited gives you a very handy trip wire for flagging this when you are in a vehicle.

The first CHL shooting that srothstein referred to was a guy getting punched several times through his open vehicle window after he and his attacker clicked mirrors. He was trapped in a line of traffic. He lost sight in one eye because of the beating he took before he finally fired. Not all problems can be solved with a gun, but not all "road rage" incidents can be driven away from.

I'm with Chas. on this one, let's not allow the media to manufacture yet another catchy name for a violent criminal act that is already illegal. I am still angry at "making a terroristic threat" which gets applied to every schoolyard threat that we used to laugh at as kids. It's just one more tool for an enthusiastic LEO to escalate a misdemeanor charge into a felony.

I'm with Chas. on this one, let's not allow the media to manufacture yet another catchy name for a violent criminal act that is already illegal.]

I am sorry that cat is already out of the bag! I do not remember when I heard the road rage phrase for the first time but I am confident, it was about 10 years ago. That's what the media does best!!!