Chucktshoes

I’m slightly more confident. I don’t believe it will result in a blanket coverage of a right to carry a firearm outside of the home. That’s not really the subject before the Court at this time. What I do believe has a high likelihood of being the outcome is the application of strict scrutiny to firearms laws. If that happens, this could ultimately be as important to 2A litigation as Heller.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/10/new-york-gun-case-to-move-forward/ NYC fails in its argument for mootness. The case will be heard before the SCOTUS.

@DaveTN up above did me better and gave a good link. When I worked in a gun store in Memphis we had folks who used UPINs and while I can’t say for sure that they were used by TICS, I know nobody who used one ever had a delay.

It may be of value to attempt to get a Unique Person Identifier Number. Of course, if they had actually run the social it sounds like that would have solved it as well. Do you have your HCP? It really seems like some either some serious incompetence or a big failure point in the TICS system is at play here. Just further proof that the TICS system shouldn’t exist. We should be using NICS.

You say they’re shields, but are you sure you didn't buy rabbits by mistake?

Yep. It’s a wiggler.

There’s a lot of leverage in not being a motivated seller.

This is similar to my interpretation of that statement. The way I interpreted it was that it was simply a judgment on himself. He determined for himself that the burglar wasn’t a threat, at that moment he was left with a decision. He found himself in a position where he could have shot someone, but he didn’t have to. And by choosing not to shoot that person even know he knew he could have and been legally covered, he learned something about himself.

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