Absolute trash. Those two idiots with firearms were just looking for trouble.

Really sounds like both idiots got what they wished for.

I hate to be so callous, but in the NFL they would call this offsetting penalties.

A mattress in a dumpster if a very, very stupid reason to get in a confrontation with someone.

And that goes for both sides. But screaming for a person with a gun to "point it at you" and further threatening them that you will "kill them" is equally, (if not a touch more) stupid.

Looks to me like everyone is gonna win and lose at the same time. Society wins because there are 3 less morons walking around on the street. The morons lose because Johnny big balls got killified, and hoosier n son got locked up for bringing guns to an unnecessary confrontation.

WHen idiots collide....

quote:

Originally posted by KevinCW:
Really sounds like both idiots got what they wished for.

I hate to be so callous, but in the NFL they would call this offsetting penalties.

Kind of where I’m at based upon what I can see from a video. Add in ample opportunity to de-escalate/walk away but both side just had to prove they had a bigger dick.

Bat boy was an IED. That does not bode well as the case goes forward. His 'wife' says he had been getting treatment - was on medication - well, obviously that wasn't working.

A discarded mattress. Can it get any more stupid than that?

Bat boy was in the wrong. Tossing furniture in a dumpster is illegal in every jurisdiction I've been in.

'Model trains and imitation crab meat' father and son duo provoked the confrontation by removing the mattress and placing in Bat boy's yard. I have a pretty good idea that Bat boy recognized calling the police about the provocation would find him in violation of the law for placing the mattress in the dumpster - so he opted to browbeat the portly pair into submission. That had been his formula in life up until his demise - so he went to the only tool he ever had.

Bat boy realized he had been backed up. He knew his actions were illegal, and that the pair had effectively punked him. He couldn't stand that. He ultimately lost it and threw the bat at the father, striking him in the chest. Bad move. Lethal force. Granting the man boob machine gunners justification to open fire.

I have zero fu*#s given for Bat boy. He was going to be put down someday. I am fine with any day and he found one. He allowed himself to be killed by, not a group of highly trained operators, but a couple of lardasses that probably ran out of wind going to the refrigerator and back. Maximum humiliation.

What is of more interest to me is, how did everyone end up out at the dumpster armed with weapons? That is going to weigh heavily on what happens to father and son.

It appears that Bat boy was down and well out of the fight after the father popping off a couple with the handgun. Son popping off a few "just to be sure" shotgun blasts to ensure he got a participation trophy is likely to put him in the Texas penal system. I hope both of them go to prison. White trash like that is hard to witness.

There are a few parallels here to the Florida shooting where parking space enforcement boy was knocked down and put a lethal round in Shovey McShoversons chest. Parking space enforcement boy may go to prison, too. An as far as I'm concerned, I'm fine with Shovey bleeding out on the convenience store floor as well.

In the various versions of "The 10 rules for a Gunfight", the first is usually the quip, "Bring a gun". In my version of the list, the first rule is, "Don't get in a Gunfight." There is a bullet out there with my name on it. But it is all those other bullets with "To whom it may concern" inscribed that I'm more likely to encounter - because they're loaded in the firearms of dolts like the ones under discussion.

this case makes me think there should be 'mutual combat' carve-outs

OSG seemed quite content to enter into the melee despite being out-gunned

he paid the price

-------------------------------------------

Appears the trash has been taken out litter alley...

And in our next episode of Life In The Trailer Park...

Intermittent Explosive Disorder”

I think that the diagnosis is incorrect. I do not see anything intermittent about his explosive behavior. His facebook ramblings are paranoid, rambling and frankly do not make much sense. A Personality Disorder perhaps with poor judgement, limited social skills, and impulse control issues would make more sense. Repeated run ins with law enforcement would suggest antisocial characteristics and serious problems with authority.

That was just sad. They all could have just walked away but instead they all made the choice to forever change their lives over a pissing contest.
I feel bad for the lady who had to see that happen to her husband regardless of any fault.

quote:

Originally posted by Ryanp225:

I feel bad for the lady who had to see that happen to her husband regardless of any fault.

Despite it all, her anguish was heartbreaking.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by Ryanp225:

I feel bad for the lady who had to see that happen to her husband regardless of any fault.

Despite it all, her anguish was heartbreaking.

Yes it was. I can't get the sound of her voice out of my head.
A good reminder to be courteous to everyone around you if just for your loved ones sake.

The "wife" of the dead guy, who shot and posted the shooting video, is shit-talking in the comments in response to the trolls on his Facebook page. What an utter piece of trash.

quote:

Originally posted by tatortodd:
Here are the two applicable portions of Texas Penal Code

quote:

Texas Penal Code § 9.32. Deadly Force in Defense of Person

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31;  and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force;  or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.


(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

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used;  and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.


(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.


(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

quote:

Texas Penal Code § 9.33. Defense of Third Person

A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:

(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect;  and

(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

Without researching Texas case law, I find it hard to be believe that doing something that someone else dislikes, such as removing a mattress from a dumpster, would be considered provoking the person in this context. A better example would be the deceased saying repeatedly “I’m going to kill you”. If the dad raised his gun in response to those words, and then was killed with the bat, bat guy would be precluded from using self-defense because of his provocation.

Again, without researching, and Texas caselaw may say differently.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Yes, he dead.

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:
Lesson: Don't fuck with guys unafraid to openly brandish their guns and man boobs.

Words to live by

I don't believe Churchill could have said it better.

Had a deadly confrontation out here in Central MT a few years back over a GATE. The victim had rightful access through the shooters property. Shooter puts up a gate and makes the victims life tough, by locking it, refusing access, etc. They have several arguments, LE called, and so on.

Finally comes to a head one day and the gate guy KILLS the poor guy who had rightful access.

Crazy stuff.

Let them out of jail and give them a medal.

quote:

Originally posted by Ryanp225:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by Ryanp225:

I feel bad for the lady who had to see that happen to her husband regardless of any fault.

Despite it all, her anguish was heartbreaking.

Yes it was. I can't get the sound of her voice out of my head.
A good reminder to be courteous to everyone around you if just for your loved ones sake.

And yet, she was able to hold onto the camera and keep it pointing in the general direction of all the action, so zero sympathy for her, she goaded them all on.

You know the littering is getting out of control.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
It seems unlikely that self defense laws allow someone who feels threatened to verbally draw an arbitrary line in the sand (3ft, 10ft, whatever) and then to shoot someone for crossing said line, right? Surely it doesn't actually work like that.

Apparently it does, and don't call me Shirley.

6'7" 230 pounds.

Frequent visitor.

https://texas.arrests.org/sear...&startdate=&enddate=

This message has been edited. Last edited by: wcb6092,