Chucktshoes

You’re posting the gallery link, not the individual image link. In Safari all you have to do is tap on the image and it will rise up and at that point you can press the arrow button at the bottom and copy the image link. This is what the gallery looks like. This is what it looks like if you have an individual image selected. See the little up arrow in a circle in the bottom center? If you press that button this menu pops up. at that point you can click “copy link” and then you’ll copy the link for the individual image. One way to know that you got it right is that the link will end in the image format file name like this. https://i.imgur.com/TAeyUC9.png This one ends in .png because it was a screenshot in Safari.

I can’t speak for anyone else, only myself. My biases are well known here and I won’t insult anyone by trying to deny them. That said, for me what this hinges on, and why I believe her sentence was unduly light is simple. Bothan Jean was sitting in his own home, on his own couch when a person who didn’t belong there (that she thought she did is irrelevant and not a mitigating factor in my eyes) and shot him to death. There was no accident here, only negligence. Her confusion in the moment does not alleviate her of her guilt. Her sentence should have been double what it was. Her being a cop is irrelevant to this view Where her being a cop does come into play for me is that with her training she especially should have been able to recognize her error before killing Bothan Jean. So while I don’t think that should make the sentencing harsher, it does make such a light sentence that much more egregious to me.

10 years & eligible for parole in 5 for killing a man on his own couch seems mercifully Light to me.

While folks are busy feeling sorry for the woman who they think got unfairly overcharged, I feel like this is an opportune time to remind folks that the actual victim here was sitting on his own couch eating ice cream when someone who didn’t belong there walked in and shot him to death. Did she make some terrible mistakes, yep. That doesn’t lessen her responsibility for her actions any in this case. Texas is a state that’s pretty liberal with its laws regarding use of lethal force. You can use lethal force to defend property, not just a person in Texas. Yet, she was convicted of murder. Why? I believe it’s because ultimately she was in that man’s home. It was his castle, not hers, and she made conscious choice to take action to kill him. That admission of hers is what I believe sealed her fate, and rightfully so. If he had accidentally wandered into her home and she shot and killed him, it would have been tragic still, but no charges would have been filed because he would have been someplace he didn’t belong. You can find yourself in a terrible situation through accident and errors in judgement, and still be 100% responsible. In this case she did, and she is.

One thing that sticks out to me was Sturgill’s assessment process. He wasn’t concerned with if it was a legally good shoot, he knew it was. He was assessing “is this person a threat” and that says he was not asking “can I shoot” but asking “do I have to shoot” instead. Luckily for the burglar, Sturgill concluded the answer was no. I really liked how he laid that out in that manner for Joe’s audience.

Or his heart and compassion for the man who had wronged him. That restraint was birthed from a quick and accurate assessment of the situation at hand. That compassion only comes from a good heart.

Looks like a fox to me.

Sturgill Simpson on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast relayed his home invasion/burglary experience from earlier this year at his Nashville home and how the follow on events affected him. *Language warning as Sturgill is a fan of F-bombs* There is a lot to chew on here.

I think I’m just going to endeavor never to be in that position. This discussion does tangentially relate to something I saw earlier today on the JRE podcast with Sturgill Simpson relaying his home invasion story from earlier this year at his Nashville area home.

But then we’d lose the Tisas thread.

100%. Anyone who has been around this joint a while knows that if I find myself in court and they scour my posting history here, I’m screwed. I’ve said some really dumb and inflammatory stuff over the years.

Motive =/= intent they aren’t the same thing. Intent makes a homicide a murder, but motive isn’t required to prove intent. It just makes proving intent easier. Hypothetical time. I’m walking down the street, calmly pull out my gun and shoot a total stranger in the head and kill them in front of witnesses. Then I say nothing about why or my state of mind. In nowhere is that not still murder. My motive is unprovable, but the intent to kill was easily provable by the deliberate nature of my actions. Her words doomed her for sure, but there’s plenty of case law that shows that the deliberation required in most murder statutes doesn’t require advance planning, but only a deliberate decision to kill that can be made on the spot.

Intent, yes the intent to kill or engage in an action that would obviously likely result in the death of another. It doesn’t matter why you want to kill the person, only that you wanted to kill them. Proving motive makes that easier, sure, but isn’t required in the least. I can be proven wrong, but I’m pretty sure that’s the standard everywhere.

I really respect Judge Nap, but he’s wrong about the requirement of a motive. No level of murder requires proving a motive. It only requires a conscious decision to kill. Manslaughter would have been a easy choice for a guaranteed conviction, but it did meet the definition by statute. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.19.htm

There is a purpose and reason for it relating to the software and the gun was shown and demonstrated to be empty and without a magazine.

No and no.

The best way to win a fight is to not take part in it. The question should never be “am I allowed to use deadly force in _____ situation.” Thats the wrong way to approach the mental work involved in defensive force, though it is quite common amongst folks when they first start carrying. I myself asked the same questions until others here helped me see that my thinking was misaligned. The question should always be “did I do my best to avoid any situation where I may be compelled by lack of reasonable options to use deadly force?” If the answer is yes and you unfortunately found yourself having to use deadly force, at that point your fate is no longer in your own hands. It’s in the hands of police, a prosecutor and possibly a judge and jury. That reality, ugly as it may be doesn’t stop me from being as prepared as I can be to engage in the necessary (key word) amounts of violence to protect myself or my loved ones because the other options aren’t acceptable. Reading through most of your proposed scenarios, my view is informed by being a truck driver who has dealt with more than one road rager in my career. The main pieces of advice I would give is 1) don’t ever get out of your vehicle and engage with the rager in the first place. 2) if you are in a stationary vehicle with someone approaching you, don’t remain stationary! Leave!

Be careful! Do yourself (and your wallet) a favor if you’re really impressed with that Leupold and don’t ever put a Nightforce optic to your eye. They’re a hella expensive addiction to take up.

I don’t think either one of us is saying that it places the burden of record keeping on TGO or the gun show, but I’ll only speak for myself from here forward. This proposal wouldn’t reclassify TGO or similar entities. It also wouldn’t cause the Arby’s scenario you laid out. TGO already is a commercial entity that provides space for the buying and selling of items, to include firearms. It places no new burdens on the already existing commercial entity, but it does reclassify the transaction itself based upon the involvement of that commercial entity. That is what would then provide the new burden on those taking part in said transactions to seek out the services of a transfer agent. The Arby’s scenario is absurd because Arby’s doesn’t provide space for the purpose of entering into private transactions of firearms nor the listing of firearms for sale. TGO, gun shows, online sales ad sites, etc. do. Once again, I agree with you that this is BAD. It’s very, very bad. It’s bad enough that me, mister anarchist who doesn’t vote or generally dirty his hands with direct politics action, is imploring folks to get in touch with their Congress critters to ensure they understand the political consequences of supporting this. This proposal is only a quarter step from UBCs and half a step from creating a registry. It’s every kind of bad we’ve been expecting for a hot minute and it’s time to go to work to prevent it.

So, pretty much exactly like I called it. It’s nice to know I’m not too crazy.

TGO isn’t selling firearms, and neither are the promoters of a gun show or most of the sales generated through the big online ad sites. I agree with everything you wrote, but I still believe that the wording of that idea document sets the stage for the legislation to 100% include online advertising/for sale ads. I mean, after all, “All we are doing is connecting people with each other, and the transactions of personally owned items that occur between individuals aren't commercial sales.” describes private party sales at gun shows as well. We all know that “gun show loophole” means all private party sales to the folks who say it. Also, anyone who has been to a gun show in the last decade knows they’re not well attended anymore. Most private party sales are arranged through the internet, so there is no doubt in my mind that this legislation will be aimed directly at us and anywhere else that provides a space for advertisements of firearm sales. So I second what you said about burning up the representative’s lines. They need to know that they’re being watched and will suffer if they attempt a fast one. *edited to add* I’m probably coming off as a little bit paranoid here, of course that’s usually warranted when dealing with the government, but I just can’t see any way to criminalize a private party transfer arranged at a gun show without criminalizing a private party transfer arranged through the net.

In rereading the language used, “a background-check requirement would be extended to all advertised commercial sales, including sales at gun shows” I believe it absolutely would include all classified ads. I would posit that a private sale made between friends/family that did not involve a posted ad listing would be what is exempt. It would break down like this, list an ad on a website, publication, or go to a commercial gathering such as a gun show or swap meet, BG check needed. Your buddy Bob asks you how much you want for that revolver or you ask uncle Charlie how much he’s willing to give you for that Glock of yours he’s been drooling over, no BG check. That would place a BG check requirement on far and away the vast majority of private sales.