Friend pulled a gun yesterday

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hey Frank, bring your girlfriend over to my house so I can push her around. I only weigh 275 and am 6 feet tall. I promise it'll be a gentle shove (as gentle a shove as a 275 pound man benchpressing 400 lbs can get).
 
Settle down, no need for thread lock.

He pushed a woman out of the way, who voluntarily inserted herself into a quarrel between to men.
Click to expand...

Well, that depends on your definition of "to":neener:

You can all put away your law degrees now.
Click to expand...
<insert Simpson grandpa voice>MATLOCK!<insert Simpson grandpa voice>

Battery? Not so much.
Click to expand...
Exactly that, pushing someone is simple battery in many, if not all States.

Anyway, I don't have a dog in this fight, I hope the Marine does not face any serious legal trouble.
 
If the girlfriend wouldn't have got in the "madman's" face, she wouldn't have got pushed out of the way.
Click to expand...

I seem to remember that argument. If the girl hadn't XXXX then she wouldn't have gotten XXXX.

That's called blaming the victim.
 
"Hey Frank, bring your girlfriend over to my house so I can push her around. I only weigh 275 and am 6 feet tall. I promise it'll be a gentle shove (as gentle a shove as a 275 pound man benchpressing 400 lbs can get)."

Can I shoot you if you do? Or should I just knock your dick in the dirt.
 
frankie wrote:
...your entire post is about a guy who was going to shoot a guy who threatened to beat his ass
Click to expand...

That's a leap of logic there, hoss. If the accused was "going to shoot a guy" then there would have been a shot fired. Unless, that is, you have some magical way of knowing his intent when he drew the gun.

It can be ascertained that he had the means and tools needed to "shoot a guy" therefore if such was his intent it bears asking why he failed to do so.

And then there's this gem:
If the girlfriend wouldn't have got in the "madman's" face, she wouldn't have got pushed out of the way.
Click to expand...

That's right up there with the old "his face got into the path of my fist" line.

And frank, from the lack of logic and high-road-worthiness of your posts on this subject I'll share some needed wisdom: When you're in a hole, the best thing to do is stop digging.
 
I have seen nothing from the OP regarding a UCW charge, but the friend should be ok under the traveling laws. Secondly the aggravated assault charge will probably not stand. Did the friend get too close to the attacker's child on the water? No one here knows because we weren't there. Was he justified pulling a gun? I believe so because we (and probably the OP's friend) do not know what kind of H2H training/skills the attacker had. Did the friend think that he was in imminent danger of sever bodily harm? Probably so, will the jury think so? depends on the case. Ideally this case will be dropped, dismissed, or no-billed. My feelings are that this will probably go to trial for deadly conduct instead of aggravated assault if it goes to court. The DA will probably offer a plea agreement for deadly conduct if nothing else. Now if this happened in Harris county then the friend may have some issues.

Regarding castle doctrine and the revisions of the Texas traveling laws these do not go into effect until September 1st, 2007
 
Did the friend get too close to the attacker's child on the water?
Click to expand...

Not sure if this has really been touched on in the last 7 pages but does it matter? Really?

Obviously the child was not hurt. Sure he *may* have gotten too close but as my earlier example one person's too close is definitely not another's. Then obviously the bad guy (yes I consider him the bad guy) loads his kid onto the boat, I hope he loaded the kid at least and didn't just leave him floating in the water. So any kind of perceived imminent danger has passed.

Going from skier to dock takes a bit of time. We aren't talking 10 to 30 seconds here as if someone got "too close" in a parking lot with a car. We're talking minutes depending on the size of the lake. Even a small ski-able lake we're talking probably 5 minutes absolute minimum. That is 5 minutes of any kind of perceived imminent danger to a boat or skier getting to close to another skier gone.

After both boats were off the water THEN the bad guy comes charging at the good guy. It's pretty obvious to me by the shoving of the girl that he wasn't going up to have a little chat.

Imminent danger level now goes to the good guy.

I don't care how close the bad guy *thought* the good guy's boat was, the fact is that that imminent threat level was gone, over and done. If he thought it was an issue he should have contacted lake patrol or local police if lake patrol wasn't available instead of taking it into his own hands. The bad guy had absolutely ZERO right to charge the good guy and shove the girl with obvious intentions to inflict harm on the good guy.

Difference between friend and me though? I probably would have cleared kydex the second he shoved the girlfriend (wife in my case).
 
Brerrabbit, I hope you never find yourself in a witness stand telling the jury, "I thought he was going to give me a fat lip, so I killed him." While it's true that you have no moral obligation to "take a whupping," that doesn't mean you're legally permitted to use deadly force to avert minor injury or inconvenience.

That's why God gave us batons, pepper spray and the right to file assault charges.

--Len.
Click to expand...

I guess you just have a much greater faith in what passes for humanity these days than I do. :rolleyes: I have seen people beaten to a pulp over trivial issues. I know of people dead, or crippled and brain damaged at the hands of someone just giving them a good "whipping". If I or anyone else could look into the future and know what the end result of an altercation would be then your line of "logic" might stand. Unfortunately we don't and again I personally refuse to allow my fate to rest in the hands of my attackers.

As for batons, pepper spray etc. well batons rely on physical ability to use them something that some folks don't have enough of it to overcome the physical skills of their attacker, pepper spray is less than completely reliable, and outside it can get the user as well as attacker. Again if YOU want to rely on guessing which is the appropriate tool then hey, go ahead and go that way. I just hope that you are not wrong! Now I will do my best to defuse the situation, leave, etc. then if placed in the position where I cannot get out of it, I will rely on my weapon.
 
It seems sorta pointless to argue whether the "facts" as presented are true or not. You can't really figure that out until you hear both sides.

In the interest of having a conversation about the incident, it seems reasonable to accept the version of the incident as presented.

As I read it, things went like this:

guy=the fellow in jail
other guy=the fellow who had a conflict with the fellow in jail

1. The guy was waterskiing behind his boat which contained the guy's brother and girlfriend

2. The other guy thought the boat and/or skiier came too close to his child who was in the water

3. The guy left off skiing and rode back to the boat ramp in his boat with his brother and girlfriend.

4. The guy and his girlfriend got out of his boat, leaving the brother to drive in circles until the trailer was in the water

5. The guy backed his truck/trailer down into the water to load the boat

6. The other guy, who has driven his boat to the ramp, has gotten on shore and proceeded towards the guy screaming "I'm going to kick your a**". The guy notes that the other guy is big enough that he doesn't think he can win a fight with him.

7. The guy apologizes to the other guy: "said he was sorry to the guys (other guy's) kid and him"

8 The guy's girlfriend gets between the other guy and the guy and tries to defuse the situation.

9. The other guy pushes the guy's girlfriend out of the way and advances on the guy

10. The guy repeatedly tells the other guy to stay back.

11. The other guy continues to advance with the apparent intention of inflicting bodily harm on the guy.

12. The guy grabs a gun from his truck and points it at the other guy.

13. The other guy apparently desists in his approach.

14. The guy calls 911 and reports the incident.


Other stuff

This is in Texas. Traveling with a gun in your vehicle is legal. This happened outside the county of residence of the guy, so it appears that his possession of the pistol in the truck is legal.

My take:

The guy was being pulled by a boat. He presumably was not remote controlling it, and so was not in control of where he traveled. My read is that he did not deliberately precipitate the initial event that angered the other guy.

The guy did not prolong the encounter with the other guy. On the contrary, the other guy followed the guy. At this point, the other guy becomes the aggressor EVEN if the guy had precipitated the original incident.

The other guy had the ability and intention to hurt the guy and the proposed hurting was imminent. The guy wears the mantle of innocence. The guy did not precipitate the original conflict, attempted to defuse the conflict by apologizing, and resorted to the threat of lethal force only after an actual assault and battery had occurred. Also, the guy was the one that called 911, indicating an innocent state of mind.

Legal Self defense would be my vote on a jury.
 
I guess you just have a much greater faith in what passes for humanity these days than I do. I have seen people beaten to a pulp over trivial issues.
Click to expand...
Absolutely true. But the law (in general; some jurisdictions vary) does NOT allow you to use deadly force EXCEPT to prevent death or grave bodily harm, where "grave bodily harm" generally includes rape or permanent injury.

In short, if you aren't going to be killed, maimed or raped, and you use deadly force, then you can expect to be accused and convicted. You can dislike it if you want, but that's the law in most of the US. If you can convince a jury that a reasonable man would have thought he was going to be killed, maimed or raped, you're good. But "I killed him to avoid a fat lip" is a one-way ticket to a same-sex prison marriage.

--Len.
 
Right, You should probably ask a extremely angry man exactly how many times he is going to hit or kick you and defend yourself accordingly. If he says, "probably just a fat lip", then you should just let him attack you.
 
Tnieto, you can argue with me all you want, it doesn't change the law: if you can't convince a jury that you were afraid for your life (or of rape or permanent injury), then you will be charged and convicted. Use of deadly force is illegal except to prevent death or grave bodily harm.

It is possible that by this standard you might not shoot some someone, who then proceeds to kill you. That can certainly happen. On the other hand, your proposed standard certainly means that you might shoot someone who was not threatening you at all. US law isn't structure to let us blow away innocent people just to make sure we don't miss any genuine threats. You're just going to have to deal with that.

--Len.
 
Who is arguing?

I just use logic. In this day and age, fights can turn deadly REAL quick. How can anyone say you should be able to see if you are going to just get a busted lip? What indicators are used to gauge the severity of a fight?
 
Tnieto, you are:

Right, You should probably ask a extremely angry man exactly how many times he is going to hit or kick you and defend yourself accordingly. If he says, "probably just a fat lip", then you should just let him attack you.
Click to expand...

--Len.
 
I just use logic. In this day and age, fights can turn deadly REAL quick. How can anyone say you should be able to see if you are going to just get a busted lip? What indicators are used to gauge the severity of a fight?

And you also conveniently forgot that this man assaulted a woman. Hey this guy seems familiar doesn't he?
 
Tnieto: if you believe that the risk is real and substantial of the fight "turning deadly," then you can go ahead and use deadly force. And you will tell the jury, "I feared for my life." You will not tell them, unless you're crazy, that you killed him to prevent a black eye, or a bloody lip, or a ripped shirt.

You will tell the jury, now repeat after me, "I was in fear for my life."

If you can't convince the jury that you really were in fear for your life, you will be convicted of a crime. Therefore, if you really AREN'T in fear for your life, think twice before using deadly force. Otherwise, you've got the uphill battle of convincing the jury to believe a lie.

In your posts, you repeatedly fail to articulate mortal fear.

  • "He pushed my girlfriend" is not a reason for deadly force.
  • "He clearly wanted a fight" is not a reason for deadly force.
  • "He was gonna hit me" is not a reason for deadly force.
  • "He was clearly suffering from boat rage" is not a reason for deadly force.
  • "He's big and mean and ugly" is not a reason for deadly force.
  • "He's a hothead" is not a reason for deadly force.

There is one and only one reason for deadly force: "I was afraid for my life." Repeat after me: "I was afraid for my life."

Learn it. Live it.

--Len.
 
You conveniently forget the two failed apologizes, the long chase on the water, the man continuing the chase him on land, the ASSAULT (in legal terms not a "push"), and you still haven't told me indicators of the "black eye, or a bloody lip, or a ripped shirt" fights. SHEESH I feel like I am watching CNN. Ha!

P.S My FRIEND called the police and stated that he feared for his life. The BG (In question) wasn't the one who called the police.
 
frank23185 said:
Get a clue, dude, your entire post is about a guy who was going to shoot a guy who threatened to beat his ass.
Click to expand...

I think you need to get a clue Frank. If he was going to shoot him, he would have been shot. Apparently no one was shot, but you keep harping on this. Were you there? I think you weren't.

There are plenty of times where producing a gun stops the aggressor. I know. I have been there myself. I had to pull my gun, and I did not shoot anyone. I did not even have to hit him, yell at him, or do anything other than display my ability to shoot if I needed to. That diffused the situation. You seem to be having a hard time with that. Producing a gun and displaying the will to use it if necessary does not mean someone needs to shoot someone else. What part of that don't you get? :banghead:

Oh yeah, for all you macho guys who are going to take a beating instead of shooting, or threatening to shoot the beater, get over it. I posted before about a local guy who DIED from ONE PUNCH to the HEAD. I wonder if he thought he would be able to take a beating too? Actually, he never got the chance. You don't know until it happens, and then it is too late.
 
You conveniently forget the two failed apologizes, the long chase on the water, the man continuing the chase him on land, the ASSAULT (in legal terms not a "push")...
Click to expand...
Tnieto, please get it through your head: none of that matters. Apologies, chases, pushes, etc., don't matter. IF YOU'RE NOT AFRAID FOR YOUR LIFE, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO USE DEADLY FORCE.

A push can be prosecuted as assault. You're right. But if you aren't afraid for your life, you're NOT allowed to use deadly force.

A fistfight can be prosecuted as battery, and the threat of a fistfight can be prosecuted as assault. Yes. But if you're not afraid for your life, you're NOT allowed to use deadly force.

You can say anything you want in the whole wide world. But you'd better say, "I was in fear for my life." If you can't, you're not allowed to use deadly force.

You don't need to convince me that the guy is a jerk; I'm ready to believe it. I'm sure he's a blemish on God's earth. I'm sure, for the good of all that is righteous and holy, that he should be purged before he reproduces. But unless he puts someone in fear for their lives, nobody can shoot him.

It's really quite simple. Please say you understand.



PennsyPlinker, I'm afraid Frank is right: generally speaking, you are not allowed to threaten with a gun unless you're also allowed to shoot. If you brandish and the attacker desists, then you don't have to shoot him. So you're right that brandishing doesn't equal shooting. But if the law won't let you shoot, it also won't let you brandish.

That's why there's so much discussion on S&T about drawing while keeping the weapon concealed, or covertly putting your hand on your weapon, or otherwise getting ready without letting anyone know. If it isn't time to shoot, it isn't time to draw down.

I suggest a thorough read of Mas Ayoob's book, In the Gravest Extreme, which covers the legal issues very well.

--Len.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Friend just got an Exemption for a CCW at work
Replies
16
Views
1K
Don Gwinn
D
T
  • Locked
Texas Gun Law Questions
Replies
9
Views
874
Tyrannosaurus
T
N
  • Locked
Does anyone here carry a knife? (need legal info)
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
NYenthusiast
N
D
  • Locked
False results on background check?
Replies
10
Views
821
El Tejon
E
G
  • Locked
would a simple battery affect RKBA & CCW?
Replies
14
Views
1K
gunsmith
G
Back
Top