[UPDATED] Seeking perspective on a situation my neighbor is going through...

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Neighbor was charged for drawing a firearm. Looking for perspective.

    • The aggravated assault with a deadly weapon charge was appropriate.

      Votes: 10 32.3%
    • Drawing his gun would have been fine, had he not pointed it at the husband.

      Votes: 6 19.4%
    • It was complete self defense and he should not had been charged.

      Votes: 15 48.4%

    • Total voters
      31

    skfullgun

    Dances With Snakes
    TGT Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Oct 14, 2017
    4,947
    96
    In the woods...
    What law says not to chase a hit and runner?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    My guess would be the law of diminishing returns.

    Add that to Murphy, and things will most likely go downhill FAST. Or, There is a one in 1 million chance you’ll be a celebrated hero. Likely not.
     

    cycleguy2300

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Mar 19, 2010
    4,059
    96
    Austin, Texas
    I brought that up very early. I disagree that LTS is a breach of the peace. If it is, then a shop owner can legally prevent someone from leaving while waiting for LE to show up to trespass that person and we know they can throw you out but they can’t keep you from leaving.

    Second the transportation code requires a movable vehicle to be moved out of the roadway and doesn’t require LE at a non-injury accident, so in my book it would be real hard for me, as a juror, to convict on a disorderly conduct charge.

    See Woods v. State, 152 Tex. Crim. 338, 213 S.W.2d 685 (Tex. Crim. App. 1948)

    June 16, 1948. Appellant's Motion for Rehearing Denied (Without Written Opinion) October 13, 1948.

    1. — Arrest — Without Warrant.

    One not a peace officer may arrest without a warrant an offender who has committed an "offense against the public peace" in his presence or within his view.

    2. — Peace — Breach of — Defined.
    The term "breach of the peace" is generic, and includes all violations of the public peace or order, or decorum.

    3. — Peace — Breach of — Circumstances.
    Whether or not a given act or state of conduct amounts to a breach of the peace depends upon the circumstances attending the act.

    4. — Peace — Breach of — Acts Constituting.
    An unprovoked assault by a man upon a woman in a public place and in the presence of her husband and others is a breach of the peace.

    5. — Arrest — Without Warrant — Right Limited.
    The right of a private individual to arrest without a warrant for a breach of the peace, is limited to the time the offense is committed or while there is continuing danger of its renewal.

    6. — Arrest — Without Warrant — Pursuit Not Included.
    The right of a private individual to arrest without a warrant does not include the right to pursue and arrest for the purpose of insuring apprehension and trial of the offender.
    Re: trespass...

    Snatching someone up an simply holding them until police arrive to document a trespass warning isn't justified.

    However, if the person is told to leave and refuses, force (violence) is explicitly justified. I have seen a Travis County Judge sign an affidavit of arrest for Trespass not in view of the officer because the officer articulated it was a breach of the peace. Several driving offenses can be articulated as a breaches of the peace I think a crash (violent and dangerous) and then unlawfully fleeing the scene before providing the law information requirwd by law is a breach of the peace and could allow any person to arrest.

    In Kunkle V State of Texas*:

    The generally accepted explanation of what constitutes a “breach of the peace” is contained in Woods v. State, which states in part:

    "Actual or threatened violence is an essential element of a breach of the peace.   Either one is sufficient to constitute the offense.   Accordingly, where means which cause disquiet and disorder, and which threaten danger and disaster to the community, are used, it amounts to a breach of the peace, although no actual personal violence is employed."

    In other words, a threat of violence to the community is sufficient to constitute a breach of the peace.

    What constitutes a breach of the peace is to be determined on a case-by-case basis, looking to the facts and circumstances surrounding the act.
    END OF KUNKEL

    *I edited the detailed case info out for readability.

    Надіслано з дому вашої мами за допомогою Tapatalk
     

    toddnjoyce

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Sep 27, 2017
    16,623
    96
    Boerne
    ...
    The generally accepted explanation of what constitutes a “breach of the peace” is contained in Woods v. State, which states in part:

    "Actual or threatened violence is an essential element of a breach of the peace.   Either one is sufficient to constitute the offense.   Accordingly, where means which cause disquiet and disorder, and which threaten danger and disaster to the community, are used, it amounts to a breach of the peace, although no actual personal violence is employed."

    In other words, a threat of violence to the community is sufficient to constitute a breach of the peace.
    Ironically, Woods v. State, 213 S.W.2d 685 (Tex. Crim. App. 1948) is precedential and very clearly limits the citizen's right of pursuit and is drawn from another precedential case, Satterwhite.

    Very clearly, the Woods court held:
    The rule of law established by the Satterwhite* case, then, appears to be that the right of a private individual to arrest without warrant for a breach of the peace, committed in his presence or view, is limited to the time the offense is committed or while there is continuing danger of its renewal, and does not include the right to pursue and arrest for the purpose of insuring the apprehension or future trial of the offender.​
    *Satterwhite v. State,112 Tex. Crim. 574, 17 S.W.2d 823
    Appellant was not a peace officer in the sense that his right to effect arrests was governed by the statutes defining the duties of peace officers. However under the terms of Art. 212, C. C. P., Appellant was not a peace officer in the sense that his right to effect arrests was governed by the statutes defining the duties of peace officers. However under the terms of Art. 212, C. C. P., if a breach of the peace was committed by deceased in his presence or view, appellant had the right at the time of the commission of the offense to arrest deceased without a warrant. This right however would not continue, after the breach of the peace had ceased. It has been held that the right to make all arrest in cases of breach of the peace is confined to the time of the commission of the offense. See Corpus Juris, Vol. 5, p. 413, Cook v. Nethercote, 6 C. P. 741 and other cases cited. See Corpus Juris, Vol. 5, p. 413, Cook v. Nethercote, 6 C. P. 741 and other cases cited.​
    In the case of Carlos the Neighbor, the breach of the peace was the accident. Once the other vehicle left the scene, the power of a citizen to arrest (detain) without warrant evaporated. At least that's what the precedential case law holds.
     

    cycleguy2300

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Mar 19, 2010
    4,059
    96
    Austin, Texas
    Ironically, Woods v. State, 213 S.W.2d 685 (Tex. Crim. App. 1948) is precedential and very clearly limits the citizen's right of pursuit and is drawn from another precedential case, Satterwhite.

    Very clearly, the Woods court held:
    The rule of law established by the Satterwhite* case, then, appears to be that the right of a private individual to arrest without warrant for a breach of the peace, committed in his presence or view, is limited to the time the offense is committed or while there is continuing danger of its renewal, and does not include the right to pursue and arrest for the purpose of insuring the apprehension or future trial of the offender.​
    *Satterwhite v. State,112 Tex. Crim. 574, 17 S.W.2d 823
    Appellant was not a peace officer in the sense that his right to effect arrests was governed by the statutes defining the duties of peace officers. However under the terms of Art. 212, C. C. P., Appellant was not a peace officer in the sense that his right to effect arrests was governed by the statutes defining the duties of peace officers. However under the terms of Art. 212, C. C. P., if a breach of the peace was committed by deceased in his presence or view, appellant had the right at the time of the commission of the offense to arrest deceased without a warrant. This right however would not continue, after the breach of the peace had ceased. It has been held that the right to make all arrest in cases of breach of the peace is confined to the time of the commission of the offense. See Corpus Juris, Vol. 5, p. 413, Cook v. Nethercote, 6 C. P. 741 and other cases cited. See Corpus Juris, Vol. 5, p. 413, Cook v. Nethercote, 6 C. P. 741 and other cases cited.​
    In the case of Carlos the Neighbor, the breach of the peace was the accident. Once the other vehicle left the scene, the power of a citizen to arrest (detain) without warrant evaporated. At least that's what the precedential case law holds.
    I think he was within his rights to pursue and follow the crash was caused by driving, they continued to drive creating a continuous danger of re-occurrence. (This would be my argument to the judge anyway)

    At the very least, pursuing is fraught with danger and is a fine line to tread.

    I am interested to see what a court and jury decide on this case.

    Надіслано з дому вашої мами за допомогою Tapatalk
     

    DoubleDuty

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Feb 9, 2019
    2,885
    96
    DFW
    The prudent thing would be to get the vehicle plate number and give it to the police. Then notify your insurance company. The woman would continue on home and her husband could chew her ass out and you would not be arrested and would not be out any money.
     

    cycleguy2300

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Mar 19, 2010
    4,059
    96
    Austin, Texas
    The prudent thing would be to get the vehicle plate number and give it to the police. Then notify your insurance company. The woman would continue on home and her husband could chew her ass out and you would not be arrested and would not be out any money.
    And a GOOD driver description with a photo if at all possible. Without a good witness able to place a driver behind the wheel, there cannot realistically be a prosecution.

    Надіслано з дому вашої мами за допомогою Tapatalk
     

    Support

    Sponsors

    silencers
    DK Firearms
    Every Day Man
    Shroud
    Weapon displays
    Ammo
    Defender Tactical
    Ammo
    Orion Cooker
    Firearms Legal
    Target Sports USA

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    108,628
    Messages
    2,646,505
    Members
    33,219
    Latest member
    Twobravo
    Top Bottom