Do unto others before they do unto you.Originally Posted by TCinVA
Do unto others before they do unto you.
Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits - Mark Twain
Tact is the knack of making a point without making an enemy / Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
At 1:42 there are clear holes in the wall, note the sort of divets I would expect from a handgun into concrete. I would suspect they are metal stud framing with blow in walls and stucco based on both my limited exposure to commercial framing and my less limited exposure to multiple real world apartment-to-apartment shooting incidents.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
I agree with the hole vs divot observation but I would guess that the wall in question is stucco'd not concrete based upon the surface finish alone. If I had to bet based on what I know of commercial construction materials- I would guess it is a EFIS type synthetic stucco which would offer even less ballistic resistance than a traditional Portland Cement and metal lath.
Skinner Precision LLC official Account
07 Manufacturer specializing in Competition Rifles
It’s not that on my part, and I doubt it for others in this thread. For me, it’s surviving the legal battle afterwards. I do understand that this homeowner is fine there, but what are the odds in other jurisdictions?
#RESIST
Agreed.. @Mas...
pat
My experience locally is: If you hit a child, you're fucked. You may beat the case, but you're getting charged. Hitting an adult is a maybe, and I've seen very little consistency on the matter over the years, even from the same prosecutors.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
If this case went to court, I would expect the accusing side to argue that he was shooting blind with an innocent person's apartment in his backdrop/line of fire, and was thus reckless and negligent. I've heard "blind man with a gun" used as an exemplar for recklessness.
I would expect the defense to argue that the defender did know (from the ring camera) where the armed home invaders were and vectored his fire in their direction, and that the reason the bullets missed the felons and hit the wall of the apartment across the hall was the stress induced by the criminal invaders upon the defendant: their fault, not his. I would hope they would argue doctrine of competing harms (doctrine of necessity, doctrine of two evils) which holds that one should be held harmless for breaking rules or laws when exigent circumstances create a situation in which following those rules would likely cause more human injury than breaking it.
Gentlemen.....directly from the Texas Statutes for you to ponder:
PENAL CODE
TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 9.05. RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON. Even though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED. The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
"It's surprising how often you start wondering just how featureless a desert some people's inner landscapes must be."
-Maple Syrup Actual
@Mas thanks for sticking around this forum.
The most powerful and harmful influence Trump has had on our politics…has been the effect on his opponents. They have been triggered into an orgy of self-mutilation—eager to amputate their own history and disfigure their own political traditions.
That's a good observation of the recklessness exception/exclusion. One other thing to chew over, is the definition of recklessness under Texas statute:
Sec. 6.03. DEFINITIONS OF CULPABLE MENTAL STATES. (a) A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.
(b) A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.
(c) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.
(d) A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.
It would be interesting to see what the case law and jury instructions say with regard to recklessness in Texas. It is obviously a higher standard than simple negligence (which could lead to civil liability).
Reply With Quote