Originally Posted by bivenator (Post 7859885)

You can legally kill them if they have stolen property, you cannot legally kill them if the property is not stolen.

Originally Posted by Heel n Toe (Post 7859890)

BTW, you're the only person here asserting that "Foxy has kicked my arse in every post."

So please stop trying to establish it as fact that you are part of a group that is saying the same thing.

You got yourself into this mess by claiming something you can't back up... don't embarrass yourself further by thinking you're going to have a posse come help you out.

Originally Posted by Heel n Toe (Post 7859898)

You have to back up your assertions with reasoned responses.

All you're doing is saying, just look at this and that, and everyone will see it exactly as I see it.

Sorry, that doesn't work in the real world.

So you're just left with empty claims.

Again.

But thanks for trying. :)

Originally Posted by EMJ (Post 7859902)

Don't need a posse. You embarrass yourself with every post while most here are debating. Troll on this subject - as others have said.

Originally Posted by EMJ (Post 7859907)

Stop dancing: How can you can defend someone who shot an innocent, the victim's wife, and could have possibly shot others? Did the wife deserve to be shot?

Originally Posted by Heel n Toe (Post 7859910)

Deflection again? You're the one who's dancing.

You need to back up your other assertions first.

While you're doing your research, you can look for where I said the things you are now claiming.

:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by fintstone (Post 7859920)

No the wife did not deserve to be shot...and would not have been if her husband had not been acting like a douche bag.

Originally Posted by foxpaws (Post 7859899)

But, isn't it true it has to be at night - deadly force with regards to stolen property is only an option at night in Texas?

Originally Posted by EMJ (Post 7859913)

Direct question, not a deflection. How about answering it? I see you have nothing to say now.

Originally Posted by EMJ (Post 7859924)

...and would not have been if the old man hadn't shot her...

Originally Posted by Heel n Toe (Post 7859930)

It may be a direct question, but you still need to back up your other assertions first.

If you want to be taken seriously.

That's just how it works.

You've got time... I need to be gone for awhile.

Give it your best shot. :cool:

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey (Post 7859931)

Technically he did not shoot her.

She stuck her hand in front of his bullet.

Carry on.SmileWavy

Originally Posted by Baz (Post 7859755)

FP: Where are you getting this equal blame? Who said that? Not me, I know for a fact.

There is not equal blame.

Just circumstances which led up to the shooting - including poor decision making from both parties.

Not equal.

But the texter would likely still be alive today had he been courteous in the first place....that's for sure.

Originally Posted by fintstone (Post 7859945)

--snip-- She placed herself in the line of fire trying to restrain her husband's attack on the older man. An accident.

Originally Posted by stuartj (Post 7855678)

Is that what happened? Do you know?

What we do know- according to the posted report- is one person pulled out a gun and killed another when a minor incident escalated.

I suggest that absent the gun, everyone would likely have gone home alive.