Warrant issued after convicted rapist attacks woman in wheelchair

[Umka36 781]

The legal system failed the victim in so many ways.

 

https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/warrant-issued-after-convicted-rapist-attacks-woman-in-wheelchair/959345961

 

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

54 minutes ago, Umka36 said:

The legal system failed the victim in so many ways.

 

https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/warrant-issued-after-convicted-rapist-attacks-woman-in-wheelchair/959345961

 

Agreed it has, but a lot of this type abusestems from a liberal leaning group of people undermining our laws. I hope he resists arrest when caught..

[Dashinka 24,974]

So sanctuary cities/counties are good?  Maybe if they had cooperated with ICE.....

 

A rapist was released from jail on the promise he’d return to Mexico

[Umka36 781]

6 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

So sanctuary cities/counties are good?  Maybe if they had cooperated with ICE.....

 

A rapist was released from jail on the promise he’d return to Mexico

What makes it worse is that he's homeless, so they really expect him to report back on the June 25th deadline.

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

I'd be fine with shoot on sight, death is a great deterrant

 

[Dashinka 24,974]

3 hours ago, Randyandyuni said:

I'd be fine with shoot on sight, death is a great deterrant

 

If he is homeless, probably heading to San Fran, or LA.

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

13 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

If he is homeless, probably heading to San Fran, or LA.

Shoot him with a California compliant gun, problem solved

[Umka36 781]

He did end up going to Mexico, and the victim is in protective custody. The judge is a moron, and it's going to cost the public more in $$$$$.

[Falcon Cara 378]

1 hour ago, Umka36 said:

He did end up going to Mexico, and the victim is in protective custody. The judge is a moron, and it's going to cost the public more in $$$$$.

This is pretty common for Mexican National.  They know they can run back to Mexico and escape justice in the USA or get a greatly reduced sentence if sent back to USA or if they serve time in Mexico the sentence seems to be very light.

 

In Texas we have death penalty for more serious crimes like Capital Murder, etc, If a Mexican national can make it back to Mexico Texas will agree not to seek death penalty if the person is extradited back to Texas for a trail. 

[Falcon Cara 378]

On ‎6‎/‎19‎/‎2019 at 2:50 PM, Randyandyuni said:

I'd be fine with shoot on sight, death is a great deterrant

 

People like him need to  be eliminated from society asap.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

On 6/20/2019 at 6:48 AM, Randyandyuni said:

I'd be fine with shoot on sight, death is a great deterrant

 

Shoot him with a California compliant gun, problem solved

 

3 hours ago, Falcon Cara said:

People like him need to  be eliminated from society asap.

It is indeed heartening to see such respect for the rule of law and due process in this subforum with full-throated support for summary execution for a non-capital offense. Keep doing you, boos. 💖🌈 

 

Edited June 21, 2019 by elmcitymaven
Forgot to include an earlier amazingly 'Murican quote, sorry.

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

8 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

 

It is indeed heartening to see such respect for the rule of law and due process in this subforum with full-throated support for summary execution for a non-capital offense. Keep doing you, boos. 💖🌈 

 

Feel what you may about me, I am not a lawyer,  and feel entitled to my non-professional view. 

 

The judge failed the victim and society as a whole in throwing this trash back on the street to reterrorize the victim. As long as you have bleeding hearts making legal albeit ludicrous decisions this will continue. My sympathy lies with the victim not this inhumane POS.

 

[Falcon Cara 378]

19 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

 

It is indeed heartening to see such respect for the rule of law and due process in this subforum with full-throated support for summary execution for a non-capital offense. Keep doing you, boos. 💖🌈 

 

In my state of Texas an person is allowed legally to use deadly force to stop a : Sexual Assault , Kidnapping, Robbery or Murder victim if they witness it in process. I am sure it's the same in many other states in the USA.

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

1 hour ago, elmcitymaven said:

 

It is indeed heartening to see such respect for the rule of law and due process in this subforum with full-throated support for summary execution for a non-capital offense. Keep doing you, boos. 💖🌈 

 

Nice to see you try to  prove a point by denigrating others, is that an amazingly GB  thing to do? Curious 'murican here

 

Too bad edit comments don't get picked up in quotes

Edited June 22, 2019 by Randyandyuni

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

1 hour ago, Falcon Cara said:

In my state of Texas an person is allowed legally to use deadly force to stop a : Sexual Assault , Kidnapping, Robbery or Murder victim if they witness it in process. I am sure it's the same in many other states in the USA.

Interesting movement of goalposts! While use of deadly force to prevent others is a defense (sometimes partial, sometimes complete, depending on jurisdiction) to murder, that clearly did not occur in the incident at issue. It's important to actually examine the statute, to tease out what is meant here.

 

TX Penal Code  § 9.32

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31 [NB: this is the self-defense statute] ;  and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force;  or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;  or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used;  and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

 

(https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-32.html)

 

Anywhozle, what does this all mean? There must be a justification, the actor must reasonably believe there is an immediate need for deadly force, and cannot be the aggressor (with some more stuff, to be sure). The statute spells out clearly under which circumstances such a belief will be reasonable. Cool, that's very much in line with even libturd places like California.

 

So in law school, whenever you approach a hypothetical, generally you apply a version of "IRAC" -- Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion. (There are other permutations; IRAC is the most common.) 

 

ISSUE: IS THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE REASONABLE PURSUANT TO TPC § 9.32 UPON A SUSPECT AFTER THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME ENUMERATED UNDER THAT STATUTE?

 

RULE: TPC  § 9.32 provides that deadly force is reasonable to protect another from the commission of sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault if the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary in the circumstances.

 

APPLICATION: Here, Francisco Carranza-Ramirez stands charged with sexually assaulting a victim. It does not appear from the limited facts available that a third party was present at the time the assault took place. TPC § 9.32 provides protection for a third party seeking to prevent a sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault by the use of deadly force; it does not provide protection for those who use deadly force after the commission of the enumerated crime, because the force must be "immediately necessary" in order to prevent the commission of the offense. It is not reasonable under the statute for a person to use deadly force after the crime is complete. Therefore, if a person sought protection for a post-assault use of deadly force to "eliminate" the defendant or "shoot [him] on sight" as a "deterrent," TPC § 9.32 would not provide a defense, and potentially the third party could be charged with murder.

 

CONCLUSION: The use of deadly force is reasonable only where the commission of a crime enumerated in TPC § 9.32 is imminent and the deadly force is immediately necessary, and is not protected after the crime is complete.

 

This has been Law School with maven, happy Friday to you all. 😘