4th and 5

Took a day off from a golf vacation in Sarasota yesterday to do some fishing. We couldn’t get out til 10 due to the fog, but when we did, it was on. We landed a dozen snook in 45 minutes then made a run out into the bay. We tried to pick up some mangroves for dinner, which we did, about a 10, but the jacks were ruthless. Every cast. Maybe 8 to 1. My elbow is sore AF. Then we went back into the river and did some more snooking, flipping freelined pilchards under docks and trying not to get broke off. Landed about a dozen more and called it a day by 2.

THIS IS NICE 20 21 South Carolina 19 Commits 87.39 0 2 17 206.05 21 25 Oklahoma 12 Commits 90.65 0 6 6 202.72 22 23 Rutgers 18 Commits 87.29 0 4 13 202.25

Dieunerst

is Ewers' haircut worse than Nick Rose's?

18. the case of Idleman v. Pops

It does if the cops charge you with Evading Detention or Arrest in a Motor Vehicle, which makes it a felony. This is a legal joke, but I know many ADAs would would try. Again the use of force or deadly force has to be justified to defend one's self, another, property, or make an arrest or prevent escape. Four justifications. We can eliminate property. As the dude is going away from the shooter or other cop, I see no justification for self or the other officer. So that leaves us with to arrest or prevent escape. The leading case is Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) which is used to claim that the use of deadly force against a fleeing suspect who has committed a felony was necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, which is essentially codified in all state penal codes to conform to the minimum standards in Garner to be constitutional. In Texas, that is Texas Penal Code 9.51. Below is Arizona's version - 13-410. Justification; use of deadly physical force in law enforcement C. The use of deadly force by a peace officer against another is justified pursuant to section 13-409 only when the peace officer reasonably believes that it is necessary: 1. To defend himself or a third person from what the peace officer reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force. 2. To effect an arrest or prevent the escape from custody of a person whom the peace officer reasonably believes: (a) Has committed, attempted to commit, is committing or is attempting to commit a felony involving the use or a threatened use of a deadly weapon. (here: felony aggravated assault of the employee or cop working security) (b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon. (c) Through past or present conduct of the person which is known by the peace officer that the person is likely to endanger human life or inflict serious bodily injury to another unless apprehended without delay. (d) Is necessary to lawfully suppress a riot if the person or another person participating in the riot is armed with a deadly weapon. D. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, a peace officer is justified in threatening to use deadly physical force when and to the extent a reasonable officer believes it necessary to protect himself against another's potential use of physical force or deadly physical force.

I'll just leave this here now, will look at later https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/police/general-orders/2000USE_OF_FORCE.pdf

ALL THIS CLIP TALK IS MAKING ME ITCHY

That’s a QUARTER POUND of lead in the cripple’s back.

the law on provocation..... The Texas Penal Code plainly provides that a person is not justified, as a matter of self-defense, in using force against another if the actor provoked the person against whom the force was used. See TEX. PENAL CODE §§ 9.31(b)(4), 9.32(a)(1). "[A] charge on provocation is required when there is sufficient evidence: Elizondo v. State, 487 S.W.3d 185, 197 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (quoting Smith v. State, 965 S.W.2d 509, 513 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998)). In deciding whether to include a provocation instruction, the trial court must "decide whether evidence has been presented that could support a jury's finding on all three elements of provocation beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. (emphasis omitted). In reviewing the trial court's decision to include a provocation instruction, the appellate court views "the evidence in the light most favorable to giving the instruction," resolving conflicts in the evidence and drawing reasonable inferences in favor of the instruction. See Smith, 965 S.W.2d at 514.

did the rifle accidentally go off while he was playing with it? free money, someone take the bet

What you speak of is element one (with three alternatives), there are two other elements to the castle doctrine: actor did not provoke the person against whom force was used and actor not violating the law other than class C. Also the three alternatives in element one include an attempt to commit those acts, and thus a person within the curtilage but not (yet) in a habitation could be the subject of a legal use of force or deadly force under the castle doctrine. Example: a burglar or rapist or robber on your porch trying to get in. The shooter may have a problem with provocation. Not only with 9.32(a)(2), the general rule of deadly force + 9.32(b) castle doctrine, but with 9.32(a)(1) which also requires justification for force under 9.31 (use for force), and where 9.31(b) says: (b) The use of force against another is not justified: (1) in response to verbal provocation alone. And in addition, possibly losing the "stand your ground" jury instruction in 9.32(c) and (d) due to provocation. I think the shooter made a bad call when he went and got the rifle (force), and then discharged it in the ground by his feet (deadly force). It sure makes the deceased look more like a victim who had a right of self defense. A jury might find that provocation. Or they might not. Per sec. 9.41 the jury would have to find the shooter was justified in using force (the production of a weapon, see 9.04) against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land. A jury may say that's too much. Is terminating a trespass upon land by the production of a firearm is a reasonable belief? Maybe. Is it immediately necessary? The in your face, chest bump, what looks like an attempted grab of the rifle and a verbal threat takes this from a defense of property situation to a force (or deadly force) to defend self situation. I have a lot less of a problem with the deadly force at that point. Still, the question goes back to provocation. Did he lose his right of self defense? or the castle doctrine presumption? or stand your ground instruction? Regardless, both of these guys are idiots beyond a reasonable doubt. Of that I am sure.

Bentcarrot.com commercial was nice

Entering or attempting to enter would arguably include a porch outside a habitation but I see no intent to do so. Which is why I said upthread that all 3 elements of the castle doctrine are problematic

Well if the D is engaged in criminal activity at the time it matters for defensive use of force Here he might have been, but it doesn’t look like it was kidnapping

That is not the law. It is a reasonable belief (and not necessarily a correct one) that force or deadly force was immediately necessary. It is not a kidnapping because there is no abduction, as defined by the penal code. The kid was at his grandma’s.

Yep. We did Isla and Turks back to back and had a much better time at Grace Bay. But it cost a shitload more money, like 350 vs 120 for lodging and 250 vs 50 for dinner.

I don’t think the property owner would be a party to the crime of Interference With Child Custody or subject to being held in contempt of the court’s order regarding custody. The dad is still trespassing. And she is guilty of the above. They are not mutually exclusive.

Playa Arena is my go to Yes. Ain’t what it used to be. Early and late ain’t bad but mid day on PN can get packed. Still, it’s a great weekend getaway.

8 rounds of 30-06 typically

I just crushed a Yuengling Flight ....... in 40 seconds

That could’ve been the agreed-upon spot, and his entry upon the property was legal, but once the owner or person in control of the property gives notice to depart and he fails to do so he is a criminal trespasser.

SHANK IT