This is a quick note to the biker being chased by a red pickup truck on 59 around 2:30am this morning. You're welcome buddy.

It looked like that truck driver was going to kill you. I don't know why but I got between you and him after you turned onto North Park and I kept him from catching up to you. Hope you made it home safe.

To the truck driver: You're lucky I didn't pull my gun on you when you started trying to trash talk me after he got away. He was on a freaking bike and you were in a full size pickup. Not cool dude. Is it really worth going to jail for vehicular manslaughter? Learn to control your temper before you kill someone.

To anyone else who reads this: the truck driver may have been on something. After he passed me, he turned into Elm Grove, but only after missing his turn and driving 100 ft down North Park in reverse. If you live in Elm Grove, own a red pickup, and had a family member get home around 2:45 this morning... You might know who the driver is and you might want to get him some help. 

Thanks,I was getting ready to cap that guy. 

All three of y'all are idiots. The motorcyclist should be a red line of the ground and the truck and speedymom should be wrapped around a tree with your guns up your arse. 

****Troll Alert***** 

2 things come to mind:

1-The castle doctrine ends when you exit your vehicle
2-Whover calls 911 is the victim

Hard to remember when your adrenaline is going. To Speeddymon, good job. To diahrrhea, If you are incompetent with a gun, don't carry one. No need for insults for competent CHL's who pass extensive background tests to buy a gun, and another one to obtain a CHL. 

1-The castle doctrine ends when you exit your vehicle

Wouldn't have exited my vehicle. I'd have just shot a tire because he was riding alongside me while trash talking.


2-Whover calls 911 is the victim

Yep, that's true. But it would've been a vandalism charge I'd be willing to take to have saved that biker's life. 

I have an idea. Drive safely and be courteous. Obey the law.

Everyone. Quit trying to make life a movie.

Shooting a tire out, right. "Cap that guy", gangsta!

Video or it didn't happen. 

Never said cap. Lol 

OLDBIKER did. Different quotes, apologies. I was addressing all parties. 

No need for insults for competent CHL's who pass extensive background tests to buy a gun, and another one to obtain a CHL.?

Oh, where do I begin with this genius reply?! This is what Speedy DERP said "You're lucky I didn't pull my gun on you when you started trying to trash talk me after he got away. ".

And this is what OldLameBiker said " Thanks,I was getting ready to cap that guy. "

Now let's revisit what you said especially the COMPETENT CHL HOLDER part. A competent handgun license holder would know that you only pull your gun when you are ready discharge it. A competent handgun license holder would know that the castle doctrine only applies in your home and in and immediately around your vehicle. It does not apply when you are using your vehicle as a means to blockade someone and then shoot them for trash talking.

Looks to me that these two are incompetent and possibly you too, especially if you support this lunacy. 

Never said cap. Lol

If you unlawfully display your gun, you deserve anything and everything coming to you. You aren't Dirty Harry 

The castle doctrine ends when you exit your vehicle

Uh, no. In and around your vehicle is correct. Also the 'stand your ground' rule would apply, which Texas has. 

Looks to me that these two are incompetent and possibly you too, especially if you support this lunacy.
Using lawful deadly force to prevent your own murder is lunacy? Heres lunacy:Obama gave some mideastern leaders with a 3rd grade education enough plutonium to make four nuclear bombs, which will eventually make their way to society somewhere. I guess they passed his background check? 

If you unlawfully display your gun, you deserve anything and everything coming to you. You aren't Dirty Harry
There are many instances where you can legally display a gun. Texas Law Shield explains all of this. 

Yep, that's true. But it would've been a vandalism charge I'd be willing to take to have saved that biker's life.
I wasn't bad-mouthing you, I was just reminding CHL's. 

I was going to ask Old Biker how it all started, but regardless of how it played out, trying to kill someone with a 6,000 pound truck is a felony. 

It does not apply when you are using your vehicle as a means to blockade someone and then shoot them for trash talking

Once again, no. As has been ruled many times, a 'road rage' driver's vehicle is considered a dangerous weapon, and any witnessing such incident(s) may use deadly force to stop the assailant. 

"trying to kill someone with a 6,000 pound truck is a felony. "

Chasing someone is not trying to kill them. This sounds like a troll post to me. A motorcycle should be able to easily out maneuver a pickup truck at 2:30 AM 

BTW Barnstormer, you sound like a walking liability. Keep paying for Lawshield, you are going to need it. Stand your ground is very limited in Texas, you have the duty to retreat in most instances. If this whole thing is true, you aren't looking at it objectively. You don't know the entire details. 

"As has been ruled many times, a 'road rage' driver's vehicle is considered a dangerous weapon, and any witnessing such incident(s) may use deadly force to stop the assailant. "

Go ahead and post those rulings (be sure they are similar to the above scenario) and I'll post the law where it says that deadly force is justified only if it's immediately necessary to protect one's life. If you can still drive away, you aren't in immediate danger. If you run out of gas or get stuck in traffic and the vehicle is still trying to ram your motorcycle, yes, I would say that is immediate danger. 

"Yep, that's true. But it would've been a vandalism charge I'd be willing to take to have saved that biker's life. "

Shooting in the direction of a person or vehicle is deadly conduct and is a felony. 

Chasing someone is not trying to kill them. This sounds like a troll post to me. A motorcycle should be able to easily out maneuver a pickup truck at 2:30 AM?

I would love to know what you call it then. Yes the biker did get some distance, but then he had to slow down at the light at 59 and North Park. Then there's the light at 494 and North Park that he would have had to run if it was red meaning he had to slow down again pretty much right away. He was lucky enough that it was green so maybe he would've gotten away anyway, but there's also the fact that HPD patrols North Park once you pass the fireworks stand and he would have had to prove to the officer that he was in fear of his life when he was doing 100+ if he got pulled over, which he wouldn't have been able to do if he had gotten far enough away.

@sleightofhand Sounds like a troll post, huh? You're entitled to think whatever you want, but everything that happened, I'm just happy he made it home alive. 

"I'm just happy he made it home alive"

I'm happy you didn't play DPS trooper and try shooting out someone's tires. 

SleightOfHand --- 6 hours ago - quote - hide comments

"trying to kill someone with a 6,000 pound truck is a felony. "

What if one could shave the weight down a couple of hundred pounds? 

What if one could shave the weight down a couple of hundred pounds?
Why, do you plan on killing someone with a 5,9000 pound truck? 

Chasing someone is not trying to kill them. This sounds like a troll post to me. A motorcycle should be able to easily out maneuver a pickup truck at 2:30 AM
That seems to suggest that if the biker gets caught and hit, then it's his fault. If he hits a patch of gravel, an oil spot on the road, was the bike an 800 pound Harley, a 300 pound rocket bike, etc. This whole discussion spun out of control. We need to know what the guy on the bike did. He might have knocked a mirror off someones car, who knows. 

BTW Barnstormer, you sound like a walking liability
All I did was list my first 2 thoughts, and they were presented in a road rage discussion by the attorneys a Texas Law Shield seminar. Probably didn't apply in this situation. They also discussed both good choices and mistakes that members have made, because a responsible CHL holder ideally wants to have all that worked out before an incident. 

Go ahead and post those rulings (be sure they are similar to the above scenario) and I'll post the law where it says that deadly force is justified only if it's immediately necessary to protect one's life

It's called stand your ground.

A stand-your-ground law (sometimes called "line in the sand" or "no duty to retreat" law) is a justification in a criminal case, whereby defendants can "stand their ground" and use force without retreating, in order to protect and defend themselves or others against threats or perceived threats.
And, that's just from a simple Wikipedia search. "Without retreating" is the key here. 

Okay, post the codified "Stand your Ground" laws for Texas..... hint, there are NONE. It is IMPLIED that while you are in your home "castle" you don't have the duty to retreat. Anywhere else, or if you provoke the original breach of peace, you must attempt retreat before you can use deadly force. 

you must attempt retreat before you can use deadly force.
Castle doctrine extends your protections also to your place of work and your vehicle. That's where a lot of CHL's get into trouble. They get out and display the weapon, etc. As for a riot, you wouldn't want to get out obviously. My point was you have more legal protections from the vehicle. Of course on a motorcycle, I don't know probably when you dismount and are no longer touching it. Like Sleight of Hand said, provoking a person, flipping the bird, etc changes the whole story. When I get cut off, etc I always go over a mental list to try to de-escalate the situation, let them through, what I might say if forced to verbally communicate. Anything you say in front of your kids or other people prior to a shooting can make or break you. 

http://blog.uslawshield.com/last-to-call-first-to-jail/Last to call, first to jail. 

Texas Penal Code ? 9.31. Self-Defense

Clearly defines the rules of use of force. 

In 2007, the Texas Legislature made significant changes to the existing castle doctrine. Under Texas law, there is no duty to retreat if the actor can show:

He or she had a right to be present at the location where deadly force is used
Did not provoke the person against whom force was used and
Was not engaged in criminal activity at the time deadly force is used.
Even if a person can show that they did not have a duty to retreat, the actor must also be able to establish that the use of deadly force was justified under the circumstances to avoid criminal liability.

Under Texas Penal Code Section 9.32(a), a person is justified in using deadly force against another when the actor reasonably believe that the force is immediately necessary if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31 and

when and to the degree that the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against another person?s use or attempted use of unlawful force or
to prevent another person?s imminent commission of violent crimes such as aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
In Texas, an actor?s belief that deadly force was immediately necessary is presumed to be reasonable in certain circumstances. Under Section 9.32(b), the presumption applies if the actor can establish he or she knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

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

still does not apply to the above scenario. 

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;
IANAL, but since a vehicle is a deadly weapon, I believe a lawyer could justify that the use of a vehicle to knock a motorcyclist off of his bike could be considered unlawfully attempting to enter another person's vehicle (the bike) with force. Therefore, if that could be argued, then the person using force to prevent the above scenario would be justified as long as he didn't leave his own vehicle. 

"I believe a lawyer could justify that the use of a vehicle to knock a motorcyclist off of his bike could be considered unlawfully attempting to enter another person's vehicle (the bike) with force. Therefore, if that could be argued, then the person using force to prevent the above scenario would be justified as long as he didn't leave his own vehicle. "

 

I really hope you don't carry a gun in real life 

So, how about them Astros? 

To the truck driver: You're lucky I didn't pull my gun on you when you started trying to trash talk me after he got away



People like you shouldn't be carrying. 

To the truck driver: You're lucky I didn't pull my gun on you when you started trying to trash talk me after he got away



Im sure most of KU remembers me saying CHL would increase gun violence. Some may even remember me saying "I don't need no steeenkeeng CHL".

No one needs a CHL