Man verbally threatens another, gets choked to death during physical altercation

[waggy]

Moron, YOU read the article:

http://news92fm.com/429099/1-dead-in-apparent-road-rage-homicide-in-se-houston/



To summarize:

1) A verbally threatened B
2) A pushed B
3) A started beating on B, pounding him badly.
4) C intervened to defend B, jumped on A, and ended up strangling him.

But in your mind, steps 2 to 4 didn't occur. In your confused state, B retaliated to A's verbal threat by strangling him.

lol poor spidey.


Good for the younger man. i have no sympathy that the bully died. After threatening the man and his family then defending his father? yeah totally justified.

 

[spidey07]

eagerly awaits to see how spidey responds to this one.

Read the article in the op. There are conflicting articles. In my article the person who was threatened did the choke. There is no mention of anybody else or a son.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Read the article in the op. There are conflicting articles. In my article the person who was threatened did the choke. There is no mention of anybody else or a son.

Try using google, the article in the OP does not have all the facts.

 

[zinfamous]

Try using google, the article in the OP does not have all the facts.

only Spidey's article has freedom, tho.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

In your scenario, C could've defended his life for two reasons

Firstly, A threatened C when he told B he would kill him and his family. C was family, that was a direct and credible threat on C's life. Even with no altercation, in many states that is justified self defense.


Secondly, A attacked B with intent of great bodily harm, so C was able to do whatever required to stop the forcible felony.


If there's one thing spidey definitely knows, it's self defense laws. I have literally never seen him proven wrong in these discussions.

You're just as ignorant as Spidey when it comes to self defense laws. Even he heard the threat he could not get involved until the assault began and felt he needed to defend his father.

The son was justified in his use force in defense of his father.

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/9.33.00.html

Read and learn:

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.

 

[RampantAndroid]

If there's one thing spidey definitely knows, it's self defense laws. I have literally never seen him proven wrong in these discussions.

Then you don't read many spidey threads. He's wrong as can be in this one, I'll tell you that.

only Spidey's article has freedom to attack someone for no good reason, tho.

ftfy.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Read the article, moron.

http://news92fm.com/429099/1-dead-in-apparent-road-rage-homicide-in-se-houston/

Read the detailed article. Man in Ford was being beaten by the man in the Nissan when his son intervened and placed the Nissan driver in a headlock that cut off his oxygen supply and resulted in the man's death.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/h...e-incident-near-texas-medical-center/25492174

Police said while the older driver was being attacked, his son got out of the truck and tried to defend his father. Officers said there was at least a 100-pound difference between the young man and the driver of the Nissan,but in that moment, detectives say, the younger man jumped on the driver's back and put him in a choke hold.


"While the older driver's son was on the other driver's back, he was yelling 'Call 911. Call 911.' The driver of the Nissan collapsed before emergency crews arrived," said Sosa.

 

[dank69]

only Spidey's article has freedom, tho.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

It would appear to be a justified use of force, tragically convoluted by our resident "(Not So) Ambiguously Trigger Happy Duo".

Indeed. It's hilarious to see our resident Ace and Gary tying themselves in knots arguing the wrong side of a completely irrelevant issue (i.e., whether or not the statement "I'm going to kill you and your family" could, without more, justify the use of deadly force, which it could not).

 

[spidey07]

Indeed. It's hilarious to see our resident Ace and Gary tying themselves in knots arguing the wrong side of a completely irrelevant issue (i.e., whether or not the statement "I'm going to kill you and your family" could, without more, justify the use of deadly force, which it could not).

Step into my free state and say that.

You and others have been dead wrong on self defense so many times that you even comment with false advice is just downright moronic.

How many more threads will it take before this ignorance will end?

 

[RampantAndroid]

Step into my free state and say that.

You and others have been dead wrong on self defense.

Then back up your claim with court cases instead of empty claims.

 

[Jaskalas]

Step into my free state and say that.

You and others have been dead wrong on self defense so many times that you even comment with false advice is just downright moronic.

How many more threads will it take before this ignorance will end?

Show us one thread which involves a person escaping conviction after murdering another over a mere verbal threat.

 

[highland145]

Hmmm, P&N agrees on the force used but still argue on the law.


Darwin has claimed his own.

/thread.


or not.

 

[Tweak155]

Step into my free state and say that.

You and others have been dead wrong on self defense so many times that you even comment with false advice is just downright moronic.

How many more threads will it take before this ignorance will end?

I need to know how many more you plan on posting to give you an accurate answer.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Step into my free state and say that.

You and others have been dead wrong on self defense so many times that you even comment with false advice is just downright moronic.

How many more threads will it take before this ignorance will end?

You can't use deadly force in self-defense in any state I know of unless there is a reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm. Someone saying "I'm going to kill you and your family" does not qualify because there is no basis to believe that it constitutes any risk of imminent harm. It is a threat but it doesn't include any basis for believing that the person is in fact capable of carrying it out or likely to do so, much less imminently. Even if the Kentucky legislature was stupid enough to enact a law which would permit deadly force in self-defense under such circumstances, that would apply only to Kentucky, not to Texas, where this case occurred.

in this case, you have based a stupid and false theory of law on a set of "facts" which is totally incomplete and inaccurate, as you would know if you'd bothered to read even the most cursory information about the case about which you started this thread.

Why don't you go back to arming up for the race war, oh brave Grand Dragon?

 

[zinfamous]

Hmmm, P&N agrees on the force used but still argue on the law.


Darwin has claimed his own.

/thread.


or not.

this guy actually attacked someone--he didn't simply make a verbal threat and was then met with violent retaliation.

in this situation, the strangling sure seems legit.

spidey seems to think I can say something to him, which would immediately justify his shooting me in the face or stabbing me in the neck.

spidey is wrong about that, obviously.

but that argument doesn't really apply to the story that spidey posted.

 

[Incorruptible]

The article in the OP doesn't mention all the details and how the father was attacked. After reading the more detailed article it was justified.

OP seems to believe you can take action on a threat which you can't and is just idiotic.

 

[spidey07]

You can't use deadly force in self-defense in any state I know of unless there is a reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm. Someone saying "I'm going to kill you and your family" does not qualify because there is no basis to believe that it constitutes any risk of imminent harm. It is a threat but it doesn't include any basis for believing that the person is in fact capable of carrying it out or likely to do so, much less imminently. Even if the Kentucky legislature was stupid enough to enact a law which would permit deadly force in self-defense under such circumstances, that would apply only to Kentucky, not to Texas, where this case occurred.

in this case, you have based a stupid and false theory of law on a set of "facts" which is totally incomplete and inaccurate, as you would know if you'd bothered to read even the most cursory information about the case about which you started this thread.

Why don't you go back to arming up for the race war, oh brave Grand Dragon?

Again.

This very aspect of self defense is covered in my state's mandated ccdw classes.

You are wrong. You have been wrong on all self defense cases before

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Again.

This very aspect of self defense is covered in my state's mandated ccdw classes.

You are wrong. You have been wrong on all self defense cases before

You saying this doesn't make it true. All you do is say, over and over, "this was covered in my self-defense classes," but never cite to any actual law. You are not a lawyer, nor even a self-defense instructor.

Find me a case in which a person has been exonerated of murder based solely on a claimed verbal threat to harm someone at an unknown time in the future. The threat here was not something reasonably specific and immediate like "I'm going get in my car and run you over" - it was entirely vague as to how and when it would be carried out, and there was no reason to think the speaker would ever actually do it. I would be shocked if you can find a case involving a similar threat in which self-defense was held to be legal. I know you're enthusiastic about the idea of shooting someone, but you're living in a fantasy world if you believe you can do so with impunity just because someone tells you "I will kill you and your family."

 

[norseamd]

No doubt the race brigadiers are trying to figure out skin color before deciding who to support. “You are going to be sorry you gave me your information. I am going to kill you and your family” = Good shoot.

umm no

possible self defense

still the ideal thing to do would have been to restrain the guy and call the authorities

 

[etrigan420]

Again.

This very aspect of self defense is covered in my state's mandated ccdw classes.

You are wrong. You have been wrong on all self defense cases before

You know what? I think I finally see your problem:

You are under the impression that you can just magically make things true by stating them over and over and over, like a child (or an adult with the intelligence of a child) might.

Thinking people (stay with me here) have a need for "evidence"...or, "proof of claim" as you will. You have provided a grand total of 0.

"Neener neener" seems to be the summation of your argument, and color all of us dumbfounded that you have stated it as your final answer.

503.050: Use of physical force in self-protection -- Admissibility of evidence of
prior acts of domestic violence and abuse.
(1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable
when the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect himself
against the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by the other person.
(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is
justifiable under subsection (1) only when the defendant believes that such
force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious physical injury,
kidnapping, sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat, felony involving
the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS
503.055.
(3) Any evidence presented by the defendant to establish the existence of a prior
act or acts of domestic violence and abuse as defined in KRS 403.720 by the
person against whom the defendant is charged with employing physical force
shall be admissible under this section.
(4) A person does not have a duty to retreat prior to the use of deadly physical
force.
Effective:July 12, 2006
History: Amended 2006 Ky. Acts ch. 192, sec. 3, effective July 12, 2006. --
Amended 1992

Not that the above quoted passage would apply to the case in question...but just for the lulz, would you care to restate your opinion?

 

[RampantAndroid]

Again.

This very aspect of self defense is covered in my state's mandated ccdw classes.

You are wrong. You have been wrong on all self defense cases before

Then quote us the law allowing it. You WANTED to hear that it was OK to kill someone over a verbal threat.

Hmmm, P&N agrees on the force used but still argue on the law.


Darwin has claimed his own.

/thread.


or not.

Just arguing with the OP. No surprise, since it's spidey tho...

 

[railer]

I know you're enthusiastic about the idea of shooting someone, but you're living in a fantasy world if you believe you can do so with impunity just because someone tells you "I will kill you and your family."

Unfortunately for poor Spidey, his fantasies of murdering someone will never come to fruition, as it's nearly impossible to shoot someone whilst standing behind your own triple locked door, squinting out the peephole with urine streaming down your leg.

I suppose he could shoot through his own door into the hallway, while screaming "..WE THE PEOPLE MOTHERFU**ERS!!...NOBAMA!!...OUTRAGE!!!...WE THE PEOPLE!!" , but it's far more likely that he will just poop himself and faint. I hope for his sake that his gun doesn't go off and shoot him when they hit the floor together.

 

[RampantAndroid]

with urine streaming down your leg

Dunno, I think the idea of him shooting someone gives him an erection...

 

[spidey07]

You saying this doesn't make it true. All you do is say, over and over, "this was covered in my self-defense classes," but never cite to any actual law. You are not a lawyer, nor even a self-defense instructor.

Find me a case in which a person has been exonerated of murder based solely on a claimed verbal threat to harm someone at an unknown time in the future. The threat here was not something reasonably specific and immediate like "I'm going get in my car and run you over" - it was entirely vague as to how and when it would be carried out, and there was no reason to think the speaker would ever actually do it. I would be shocked if you can find a case involving a similar threat in which self-defense was held to be legal. I know you're enthusiastic about the idea of shooting someone, but you're living in a fantasy world if you believe you can do so with impunity just because someone tells you "I will kill you and your family."

You ae purposefully changing the verbal threat to I will kill you from I'm going to kill you

Nice try. They are not the same. You've been wrong so many times before on this matter.