White Texas Property Owner Avoids Arrest After Killing Moroccan Driver

Something that they have not done yet for their model. It IS cute that you try and use their own language here but you failed to acknowledge that they did that for Becker's test. Not their own.

That is the difference between hard scientists and soft scientists. Hard scientists will discard anything about assumptions or inferences. They only deal with hard facts. Soft scientists use inferences and assumptions because...well... they're soft. Why do you think they make the distinctions between hard sciences and soft sciences? Hard sciences use provable facts. Soft sciences depend upon assumptions because they can't prove what they claim.

For example:

Hard Science: A Hydrocarbon atom and 2 oxygen atoms makes water. Don't believe me? Combine them as I have prescribed and you will see it for yourself. No need of assumptions.

Soft Science: Because we found X culture to predominately have red pigmentation in the things they built we can infer that X culture preferred the color "red". (lets ignore the fact that most of their things was wiped out by a volcano 5 thousand years ago so we can't really prove that they preferred red)

Those are the differences between soft sciences. And hard sciences. And what Stanford is doing, or attempting to do anyways, is prove something via a soft science. Inference. Assumptions.

You may not care for my opinion. But I don't care that you don't care. I demand hard proof. Not inferences. I'm a hard scientist. You're a soft scientist. I'm more likely to be right in my claims. You're just as likely to be right as you are to be wrong. Until you give me hard proof. You will be considered wrong by me, and any other hard scientist.

 

And I remember a black guy that didn't get arrested immediately until they did arrest him 5 days later. And then he got away with murder. Know who that was?

We can go back and forth with examples day in and day out. We both know this. Which is why its common knowledge. But go ahead. Lets continue the back and forth of exchanging individual cases. I won't stop if you won't. But as I said, it will just prove my point more and more.

 

And the local state and federal police are all in on a conspiracy to wipe out anybody who isn't white?

 

White privilege is a victim complex.

 

it's wrong he was not arrested, but to call it white privilege is racist

in the same way calling black people not arrested black privilege would be racist

we need to stop applying the bad of some in a group to all of that group

and stop only defending ones own skin color, we are all in this together

plenty of examples of both white and black people not arrested, getting off easy, ect... when they should have been

 

My "shenanigan" in simply reciting the most elementary list of the main components in the human race is unsettling to those who have a 'mission' to wipe out of existence any and all knowledge that runs counter to their post hoc 'woke' fantasies, but facts are facts. Besides, to this day I've never been able to find out why (WHY) although we who are Caucasian ("White"), or East-Asian ("Oriental") find nothing disquieting or 'wrong' with who and what we are, those who are Negro ("Black") seem deeply annoyed and offended with who and what they are.

That's part of why I've said so often that the important thing is that we must, above all, be a society that is governed by RULE OF LAW. Thus, in Texas or in any other state, all citizens are judged according to legal standards that apply to every other citizen in that state -- and that way, no matter what 'fad or fantasy' is in vogue at any given moment, all of us, of ALL THREE RACES, are treated in exactly the same way! (And to add to the controversy, the most modern studies show that there are actually FIVE races, which must just drive the hyperliberal Left berserk!)

 

Good shoot.

 

That's the process for every defensive shooting. Not just his. If you shoot someone in self defense you had better be able to convince a grand jury that you needed to. If you can't, you're in deep doo doo.

Thought you knew that already...

 

Where are you from? Delaware?

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

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

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

 

So you feel proud of yourself for not stepping out and just blasting away? Why? That's what the rest of us do.

 

Agenda.

 

You can chase them in Tx.
https://uat.uslawshield.com/defend-property-texas/

• Step 1: The jury must find that you were justified under Texas Penal Code section 9.41 to use force to stop a trespasser or an interference with your property.
• Step 2: The jury must decide whether you had a reasonable belief that deadly force was immediately necessary to prevent a perpetrator from fleeing immediately after committing a burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime.
• Step 3: The jury must find that when you used deadly force to protect property, you reasonably believed it could not have been protected or recovered by other means; or using something less than deadly force would expose you to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

<Trolling>

 

Being in accordance with sections 9.41 and 9.42, what crime do you think he should be held for?

 

If those are the facts its open and shut then. You can shoot someone absconding with a felony level of your property at night in Texas, but here he doesn't have any facts to show he had reason to believe the person was absconding with property of his at all.

If this is all that happened, he's catching a murder 1 conviction.

 

You can only chase to prevent them absconding with a felony amount of your property. Key: It has to be a felony amount, don't take law shield's word for it go read the use of force during the nighttime statute.
Except he has no facts for step 2. He's likely to get convicted if he takes this to trial, so he'll likely plead down.

 

See this is just incorrect. HOW did he assault someone? By flagging them with a loaded weapon.
How did she harass someone? By pointing what even the McCloskeys admit at least appears to be a functional firearm in someone's face.

 

Whataboutism. Strawman. Deflection.

 

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

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

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
------------------------------------------------------------

I love to learn new things, please show me where it says what you say it says.

 

My SOP for suspicious trespassers is, call 911, keep my weapon ready (by side, finger off trigger) , wait for LE, allow the trespasser to pass thru, if the trespasser approaches me or mine, THEN I point weapon, finger off trigger, if that does not dissuade trespasser to move along and they continue their advance towards me and mine, at around 40 feet (range at which a knife attacker can expect a successful attack) then I am opening fire until the threat is canceled.
BTW my house is in the middle of a 5 acres estate.. you can not "accidently" wander near the house.

 

Brother, it is not 40 feet, it's 21 feet.

https://www.defensetraining.org/21-foot-rule

 

It's pretty specific in mentioning theft and "criminal mischief," but there seems to be no evidence of either in this case. He was simply suspicious of the car parked there (rightly so), but there was no mention of suspected theft or other specific criminal conduct. Seems like a possible case of trespassing at worst.

 

He busted out someone’s window that was reversing out of his driveway and then shot them.
He would have to have reasonable suspicion that the individual was a threat or was in commission of a crime and there is no evidence of that.

The world you people wish that we lived in is terrifying. I have more than a dozen cars a week pull into the driveway of one of my homes to turn around or look up directions as it is on a busy street — should I be legally allowed to go outside and shoot each of them?

 

While you are certainly entitled to your 'personal' beliefs, you may find that your factual understanding concerning anthropology is enriched by taking a college course or two.

I had always hoped during my long life that the human population would, eventually, become one entirely 'commingled' group, achieved through interbreeding. But more recently, a more sinister alternative seems to be emerging in several parts of the world -- one in which one or two of the three main races simply wipes out or totally subjugates one of the others -- possibly through biological warfare.

Anyway, lucky for the White guy he's a citizen of the State of Texas and not some hyperliberal insane asylum....

 

You realize each of those listed acts have elements to prove so you can try to nest under them.... right?

So you point me to the tangible moving property he couldn't recover by any other means, and I'll tell you whether or not he could shelter there.
Do use his account to point that out. I'm sure there's something about property being absconded with in there, right? He didn't just chase someone down for apparently trespass only did he?

 

Your assertion was you can't give chase unless it's a felony amount.

I corrected you. Nowhere did I say that the scenario here was about theft at night. For why he shot him, and the police questioned him for only two hours, we'll both have to wait for more information.