What did the baboon say?

[fool]

Lets not forget, these killers killed children. Tamir Rice still hasn't receive his justice till this day.

 

 

And paid by big corporations to beat native Americans.

[Kent.S]

[ATTACH=full]1570._xfImport[/ATTACH]

[13511]

Statement with no supporting evidence from the video you linked to. That is a supposition held by you.

 

No third party was in imminent danger. If there is any, show me the evidence, otherwise there is none. I cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on your side.

YOU are not the arbiter of what an individual feels is immediate danger. That is up to the individual being "threatened". That belief is then either ruled as justified (no charges filed), rules as questionable (charges filed), ruled as justified (jury/judge returns not guilty verdict) or ruled as unjustified (jury/judge returns guilty verdict).

 

Absolutely not. From the video it's clear that the flame doesn't endanger anyone because of the sufficient distance. No imminent threat was presence.

There is an implied threat there because that distance can be closed within less time than people can react to. The same theory is why someone with a knife within 21 feet and is determined to BE a threat as soon as they step towards you.

It is the perception of the "victim" (in this case, the one the flame is pointed at) that is the determining factor, not the intent of the person being the idiot and waving the flame around.

 

No one does and that makes you a murderer. The popo are well known killers, thugs with small penises and guns paid by the tax payers. At least other thugs use their own money.

I'm sure you'll find anyone that believes in self-protection would have the same philosophy.. and nope, the government wouldn't be paying me to do it, I'd be doing it for free.

[fool]

I just feel so "discouraged"...:rolleyes:

 

That is up to the individual being "threatened".

 

No it's not. It's defined by the law, not up to what individuals feel. I know the popo always feels threatened and that's why they killed so many people.

[Kent.S]

[ATTACH=full]1571._xfImport[/ATTACH]

[fool]

I just feel so "discouraged"...:rolleyes:

There is an implied threat there because that distance can be closed within less time than people can react to.

 

The fact that no one suffered any burn makes all your claims amount to garbage.

[13511]

That is up to the individual being "threatened".

 

No it's not. It's defined by the law, not up to what individuals feel. I know the popo always feels threatened and that's why they killed so many people.

No, you need to look a little closer. The facts are based upon the victims perception, not what the offender was thinking. Self defense/defense of third party is based upon the perception of the one taking the defensive action.

Point being, don't threaten people with possibility of being injured and you don't have to worry (and you are trying to segue away into what the police do and the video is of a citizen of the US, not LEO).

I figured you would be tired of being pwned by now, but I can keep this up as long as you desire to be made to look idiotic.

[Kent.S]

I can keep this up as long as you desire to be made to look idiotic.

 

I have to believe he actually enjoys being made to look idiotic, either that or he is truly stupid.

[13511]

There is an implied threat there because that distance can be closed within less time than people can react to.

 

The fact that no one suffered any burn makes all your claims amount to garbage.

Whether a person WAS burned or not does not matter... you have a very difficult time in dealing with the intricacies of self defense by an civilian - that is readily apparent. THEY don't have the same requirements as LEO's do, mainly because they have not received the level of training, so their expectation of reaction is lower.

It deals with the perception by the party of the POSSIBILITY of the injury. You don't have to frigging wait until it occurs.

[fool]

The facts are based upon the victims perception,

 

No, it's not! It's defined by the law!

 

---

 

Generally, force is justified "when and to the degree necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force." The individual must have a "reasonable" belief that the use of force is immediately necessary.

 

So to start, force is justified when an individual has a "reasonable" belief. The use of force must also be immediately necessary.

 

There are special rules which govern the use of deadly - such as using a weapon. Generally, you cannot use deadly force unless its immediately necessary to protect against the other person's use or attempted use of deadly force. In other words, you have to reasonably believe someone is trying to use deadly force against you.

 

You are also authorized in using deadly force if it's necessary to prevent the imminent commission of "aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery or aggravated robbery." You can also use deadly force against someone who "unlawfully and with force" enters your habitation, vehicle or place of work.

 

---

 

What is the law of Self-defense in Texas

[13511]

And the reasonable belief comes in when when a person is facing someone (that they don't know especially) with a flame ejecting object that has a high probability of injuring them. The individual that has the flame emitting item is NOT a street performer doing a performance but an individual who's stability is in question using the item to intimidate/threaten others.

Oh, and typically deadly force against you is NOT the only requirement... it can also be something that can cause serious bodily injury (extensive burns to the body would fall into that area).

 

Sorry, just because the guy was a dumb fuck waving a home made flame thrower around doesn't mean he can get a walk on threatening others, especially considering when you watch his actions.

 

Don't know about the state that it occurred it, but it will not surprise me if the shooter's defense attorney doesn't use defense of 3rd party as his rebuttal.... and probably get either a dismissal or a not guilty verdict.

By the term "reasonable belief" as used herein is meant a belief that would ... an ordinary and prudent person in the same circumstances

And most reasonable persons would think that someone forcing a flaming can of material towards someone puts them in fear of serious bodily injury or death. We know that what a normal reasonable person would think doesn't apply to you, as the actionable word "reasonable" doesn't apply.

What's that old saying.. play with fire and you may get burnt?

Edited September 10, 2017 by 13511

[Kent.S]

[ATTACH=full]1572._xfImport[/ATTACH]

[fool]

Sorry

 

Yeah, I was quoting a career criminal attorney who himself was paraphrasing Section 9 Texas Penal Code. What's your source? You do know this forum isn't one of your regular traffic stop where you can just make up laws out of your ass, do you?

[Kent.S]

[ATTACH=full]1574._xfImport[/ATTACH]

[13511]

Yeah, I was quoting a career criminal attorney who himself was paraphrasing Section 9 Texas Penal Code. What's your source? You do know this forum isn't one of your regular traffic stop where you can just make up laws out of your ass, do you?

Enforcement of said laws...

And if you actually conversed or had first hand knowledge you would know that the perception (read belief) of the shooter is paramount to prosecution (and the defense thereof). I don't have to "read it on the interwebz" as I actually lived with it for 1.5 decades.

[Kent.S]

Enforcement of said laws...

And if you actually conversed or had first hand knowledge you would know that the perception (read belief) of the shooter is paramount to prosecution (and the defense thereof). I don't have to "read it on the interwebz" as I actually lived with it for 1.5 decades.

 

[ATTACH=full]1575._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

Again!!

[fool]

In other words, you made shits up your ass. Laws are written, not made up on the spot when you stop and frisk minorities.

[13511]

In other words, you made shits up your ass. Laws are written, not made up on the spot when you stop and frisk minorities.

Like I said, my knowledge is first hand from enforcement - yours is from reading on the interwebz.

You seriously need to learn how to read and comprehend as pictographs won't get the point across for your enlightenment.

 

Let me once more emphasize

Legal definition for REASONABLE BELIEF: That which an ordinary person of average intelligence and sound mind would believe.

 

Repeating the same points gets rather tiresome. It's readily apparent that you don't fit the definition provided above (ordinary person of average intelligence and sound mind) so your perception of reasonable is drastically different from what the majority of society has.

[Kent.S]

you made shits up your ass

 

How does one "made shits up your ass"?

[fool]

I'm quoting current active practicing career criminal attorney whose website even has chat function for potential customers. He specifically paraphrased section 9 Texas Penal Code while all you did was commit logical fallacy (argument from authority without any source to back you up).

 

The two baboons can repeatedly suck your dick and tell you that you won but the fact remain the same. You offered no source apart from your own made up stories.

[Kent.S]

[ATTACH=full]1577._xfImport[/ATTACH]

[13511]

I'm quoting current active practicing career criminal attorney whose website even has chat function for potential customers. He specifically paraphrased section 9 Texas Penal Code while all you did was commit logical fallacy (argument from authority without any source to back you up).

 

The two baboons can repeatedly suck your dick and tell you that you won but the fact remain the same. You offered no source apart from your own made up stories.

Instead of paraphrasing, here is the actual law in Texas

Texas Penal Code - PENAL - PENAL § 9.31 | FindLaw

Texas Penal Code - PENAL - PENAL § 9.32 | FindLaw

Texas Penal Code - PENAL - PENAL § 9.33 | FindLaw

Texas Penal Code - PENAL - PENAL § 9.34 | FindLaw

 

Good luck reading and comprehending, as there are no pictures or videos involved.

[Digital Phoenix]

I don't bother to keep up with the news anymore, so let me get this straight.

 

Some moron pulled out an improvised flame thrower in public and got shot?

 

What's the problem?

 

Or is vice just crying for the sake of it again?

[Kent.S]

I don't bother to keep up with the news anymore, so let me get this straight.

 

Some moron pulled out an improvised flame thrower in public and got shot?

 

That is pretty much what happened.

 

What's the problem?

 

There is no problem, the situation was handled correctly.

 

Or is vice just crying for the sake of it again?

 

Exactly!

[ATTACH=full]1578._xfImport[/ATTACH]

[fool]

Instead of paraphrasing, here is the actual law in Texas

Texas Penal Code - PENAL - PENAL § 9.31 | FindLaw

Texas Penal Code - PENAL - PENAL § 9.32 | FindLaw

Texas Penal Code - PENAL - PENAL § 9.33 | FindLaw

Texas Penal Code - PENAL - PENAL § 9.34 | FindLaw

 

Good luck reading and comprehending, as there are no pictures or videos involved.

 

Thanks, it says exactly as what the criminal attorney said. Everything you've said so far is complete rubbish.