|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 24, 2009, 08:33 PM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 1, 2005
Posts: 249
|
To respond to a few of the comments in this thread...
Just as an educated guess, I suspect Terry Graham's total legal fees and costs were in the upper half of the five figure bracket, counting both representation up to the grand jury by Buck File, and the splendid defense he got from Tracy Crawford in the civil case. The defense went to the expense of deposing critical witnesses including the plaintiff's expert, and this wise investment gave them very powerful ammunition that Crawford used to devastating effect at trial. By contrast, plaintiff's counsel did not bother to depose the defense experts. Terry Graham having been the one who called in his own shooting, and told his side of it early, helped enormously to lead the investigators to the truth of the matter. His candid testimony in front of the grand jury helped them to realize that he should be no-billed. When you did the right thing, the truth will set you free. In the end, that was the story here. I'm convinced that the shot Terry fired almost certainly saved his life, and the lives of the two eyewitnesses. The decisions of the grand jury on the criminal side in May '07, and of the civil jury last night, indicate that they agreed with this assessment after having seen and understood the facts in evidence. |
July 24, 2009, 09:07 PM | #27 | ||||
Junior member
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 21
|
Oldmarksman,
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
There is no need for evidence unless it goes to trial. The point I was trying to make is that if there is an intruder in my home, taking my stuff and possibly (I dont know whether he is) armed, you better believe that I am going to defend myself while being scared ****less. And that is EXACTLY what I am going to tell the cops. Not an inch more. Where I live they won't be bringing David Caruso and the CSI trying their best to bring me, the criminal (in your mind), to justice. Nor will they be looking at my posts for premeditation of a random robbery. My state law allows use of deadly force in a situtation where I was afraid for my life, as I surely would have been in this HYPOTHETICAL situation. Again, in this hypothetical situtation, the shooter didn't pick up a drunk vagabond and drove him to his house for the sole purpose of shooting him. This was a real, not staged, random (hyothetitcal) home invasion. Like the one that started this thread. Last edited by stija; July 24, 2009 at 09:16 PM. |
||||
July 24, 2009, 09:44 PM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 31, 2000
Location: Texican!
Posts: 4,453
|
Yes I read today about the not guilty verdict. Glad Graham is free. Terrible what it cost him to keep his freedom but he is still free.
Did any of you guys read about the counties 'CSI' investigation of the shooting and their 'tire track' evidence? Get the latest issue of Popular Mechanics and see what they have to say about the science of 'CSI'. And notice guys, one may have a fancy riot shotgun, all stolked out with gear, but Graham used a single shot, aimed strait, and stopped the attacker. I bet the single shot didn't cost $80 bucks.
__________________
“To you who call yourselves ‘men of peace,’ I say, you are not safe without men of action by your side” Thucydides |
July 24, 2009, 10:04 PM | #29 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,931
|
Quote:
Legal self-defense is completely unconcerned with the prognosis of the attacker, it is exclusively about preventing the injury or death of the defended. If the defender is trying to "make sure that the bad guy cannot testify against him" then his focus is not in accord with the law. The death of the attacker may be a legal CONSEQUENCE of the use of deadly force in self defense but it can not be the GOAL. So, NO, you do NOT set a goal of "making sure that the bad guy cannot testify against you". That is not a legal justification for the use of deadly force. You will never find any law that justifies the use of deadly force to prevent the testimony of the attacker. In plain and simple terms, if you shoot someone to "make sure ...(he)... cannot testify against you" then you have committed murder or attempted murder depending on the outcome.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
July 24, 2009, 11:21 PM | #30 |
Junior member
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 21
|
I agree 100% with that. I never stated that killing someone in order to prevent his testimony is legal or justified.
Those are your presumptions. |
July 25, 2009, 01:20 AM | #31 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
In the latter, I'm not aware of any insurance carriers who will cover the insured against a willful tort. This is why you very frequently see civil actions where the plaintiffs make very unusual - sometimes extremely so - arguments alleging the defendent negligently or accidentally discharged the firearm. That is because they seek to recover any potential damages from the insurance carrier, not the defendent, who may otherwise have nothing to recover against. |
|
July 25, 2009, 01:48 AM | #32 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,931
|
Quote:
Getting right to the heart of the matter--advocating illegal activity is unacceptable on TFL and trying to dodge the issue by making it "hypothetical" doesn't change anything.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
July 25, 2009, 07:34 AM | #33 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Quote:
However, as soon as the invader leaves the structure, that presumption disappears. Quote:
Quote:
They have to determine whether it was in fact a "real" crime! Now, in the case of a shooting of someone who has forcibly and unlawfully entered the occupied domicile of another, the investigation should be rather straight forward--unless, of course, the perp had already taken off. You are, of course, aware that in the criminal case cited by the OP, the shooter acted under Texas Code 9.42, which has to do with the protection or recovery of tangible, movable property, and did not mount a self-defense claim. No where else in the country would that work. Go back and read the document, and here's something else worth studying: http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...2_StudyDay.htm |
||||
July 25, 2009, 09:45 AM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 1, 2005
Posts: 249
|
This was not a strict "shoot to protect property" incident, despite the plaintiff's unsuccessful attempts to make it appear so.
At the time of his death, Josh Chambers had two loaded, stolen pistols in his possession in the front seat of his vehicle. He had been seen by two of the witnesses to make a furtive reach toward the bag containing those pistols as he moved from the house to his vehicle. He was now accelerating his vehicle toward Mr. Graham. All three witnesses stated that at the last moment, Graham stepped to the side to escape being hit and almost simultaneously fired the single shot, which passed through the open driver's window and killed Chambers. Distance was four feet, from muzzle to head. Evidence at the scene confirms this unanimous account. It was a shooting in defense of life. |
July 25, 2009, 09:49 AM | #35 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; July 25, 2009 at 09:55 AM. |
||
July 25, 2009, 11:43 AM | #36 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
My thought, and you can correct this, was that the so called "Castle Doctrine" did not apply because the decedent had already left the house. Ordinarily, in most places that means the property owner or tenant cannot invoke the castle doctrine in claiming self defense. Where I live in Missouri, I have no business going out after an intruder who has departed, or so I understand. However, in Texas, one may attempt to use force, even deadly force, to recover property. If, in the course of that lawful pursuit, the perp attacks the homeowner or tenant, it becomes a defense of life situation...or so I assumed from the news articles and from your post. Comments? |
|
July 25, 2009, 12:25 PM | #37 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
Making no claim as to this particular case one way or the other, just saying that it seems like mere fractions of a second from being no longer defensive.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
July 25, 2009, 12:30 PM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 1, 2005
Posts: 249
|
Old Marksman, FWIW my interpretation of Texas law on this is the same as yours.
Castle Doctrine generally extends to house and curtilege, i.e., adjacent outbuildings. The decedent was inside when the homeowner came home from church, saw the unfamiliar car, and called his foreman who lived nearby. The two were approaching the home when the decedent emerged with the bag and ignored orders to stop. He then jumped in the car and drove straight at the homeowner, who jumped to the side and fired. At no time did the homeowner pursue. Texas' rescinding of the retreat requirement was passed into law a few months after this shooting, and therefore did not apply. However, safe retreat had not been possible under the circumstances anyway. |
July 25, 2009, 12:54 PM | #39 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
Quote:
Mas Ayoob, thanks for the rest of the story. I'm surprised that the judge let this civil case go to trial. |
|
July 25, 2009, 03:57 PM | #40 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Eastern, TN
Posts: 1,236
|
Quote:
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska - Last edited by OuTcAsT; July 25, 2009 at 04:03 PM. |
|
July 25, 2009, 04:24 PM | #41 | |
Junior member
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 21
|
Quote:
You must refer to my "you must make sure the other guy cannot testify against you" statement? Assuming so, are you saying that walking up to the truck, after shooting a few rounds into the robber, and checking for pulse to make sure he's alive/dead is illegal? Of course if dead, he cannot testify against you so it is only your word. Again, it is your presumptions that get the better of you. Unless of course the above is illegal. Last edited by stija; July 25, 2009 at 04:34 PM. Reason: added |
|
July 25, 2009, 06:04 PM | #42 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Eastern, TN
Posts: 1,236
|
Quote:
And as for your advocacy of an illegal activity, I agree, it is completely out of line, then to try and spin it as a "hypothetical" after the fact? Sorry Sir, but you have no credibility with me due to that.
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska - |
|
July 25, 2009, 06:39 PM | #43 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|
July 25, 2009, 06:46 PM | #44 |
Staff In Memoriam
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
|
I also bet that "your word" will get hammered by the DA and your "written statements" will get thrashed. If you choose to get on the stand, you better hope you did yer homework in high school civics and debate team or yer gonna get hacked to bits on "cross"... It is rarely just "your word". 3 can keep a secret if 2 are dead comes to mind as witnesses could be involved... Even when you don't know they are there. I was taught by some wise, if not very nefarious organized criminals... "The night has a thousand eyes..."
Brent |
July 25, 2009, 06:51 PM | #45 | |
Junior member
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 21
|
Quote:
Please quote the illegal activity I advocated? Please go ahead. The mere statement "I am gonna go to Mars tonight" may sound looney if taken out of contest. But for all you know, there may be a bar called Mars in my neighborhood. If you keep stating I advocated an illegal activity please refer to it or drop it altogether. |
|
July 25, 2009, 06:59 PM | #46 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 29, 2007
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,391
|
Quote:
__________________
How could you have a slogan like "freedom is slavery" when the concept of freedom has been abolished? |
|
July 25, 2009, 07:01 PM | #47 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Ok, Stija, how about...
... your original statement:
First you have to make sure that the bad guy cannot testify against you. That sounds like you are advocating making sure the bad buy expires, as opposed to making the threat cease. Those are not the same, morally or legally. I don't think a coup de grace is legal anywhere in the US, so it seems you were advocating an illegal and unethical approach. The rest of that post confirms that you knew exactly what you were implying, including the caveat you put at the end. Since then, your argument that you said nothing untoward has been disingenuous and silly. |
July 25, 2009, 07:23 PM | #48 | ||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,931
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
||
July 25, 2009, 07:58 PM | #49 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
tick, tick, tick . . . boy he must really be trying hard to make it concise, and to the point.
|
July 25, 2009, 09:06 PM | #50 | ||||
Junior member
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 21
|
Quote:
So..I am going to tell you, as I would to a prosecutor, to please refer to my previous testimony/explanations/statements. They were politely provided for you on at least 2 occasions which you ignored and continue to make your presumptuous accusations. Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by stija; July 25, 2009 at 09:13 PM. |
||||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|