WWTBAM Bored

Is the William Stradley in this article Bixby's husband? In any case, the client sounds like a first class idiot. Oh yeah, also a murderer.
http://news.yahoo.com/houston-trial-foc ... 04863.html

TheConfessor wrote:Is the William Stradley in this article Bixby's husband? In any case, the client sounds like a first class idiot. Oh yeah, also a murderer.
http://news.yahoo.com/houston-trial-foc ... 04863.html

I think most people if you hold a gun on them for 22 minutes and tell them you're scared of them might do something that could be interpreted as a "threat."

I couldn't find a digital copy to post, but the scenario sounds like the Far Side cartoon where some cowboys are sitting around a campfire, one if them keeled over backwards and another one holding a smoking revolver saying "You guys are my witnesses! He laughed when my marshmallow caught on fire!" The Old West is the New West.

Bixby confirmed that it's her husband's case, but she can't talk about it except to say that the media rarely get all the details and nuances right when they report on courtroom matters.

TheConfessor wrote:Bixby confirmed that it's her husband's case, but she can't talk about it except to say that the media rarely get all the details and nuances right when they report on courtroom matters.

I realize Bixby can't talk about her husband's case, but today, both prosecution and defense are playing a constant spin game in high profile criminal cases. If a lawyer says "the media rarely gets all the details right," what he usually means is that the other side is doing a better job of playing the spin game.

Can a tresspasser use "stand your ground" as a defense when the owner of the property attempts to apply the Castle Doctrine?

This guy was wrong. Period. I don't know the legalities, but you don't knowingly go into a situation that will put you in fear for your life. Which he did (evidenced by bringing the gun and video camera). Bringing the video camera is evidence that he was expecting problems.

He should have called th police first. The noise, while annoying, did not threaten him or his family. Had he stayed home, no one would have been shot. Had he not brought a gun. No one would have been shot.

BackInTex wrote:Can a tresspasser use "stand your ground" as a defense when the owner of the property attempts to apply the Castle Doctrine?

This guy was wrong. Period. I don't know the legalities, but you don't knowingly go into a situation that will put you in fear for your life. Which he did (evidenced by bringing the gun and video camera). Bringing the video camera is evidence that he was expecting problems.

He should have called the police first. The noise, while annoying, did not threaten him or his family. Had he stayed home, no one would have been shot. Had he not brought a gun. No one would have been shot.

I agree totally.

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:{Doesn't really matter what.}

I agree totally.

Damn. I'm not ready for the end of the world just yet. Would someone mind postponing it? --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:{Doesn't really matter what.}

I agree totally.

Damn. I'm not ready for the end of the world just yet. Would someone mind postponing it? --Bob

Will December 21st do?

So how does someone like that get a Bixby's hubby for a lawyer? I have never shot anyone and can't get a lawyer to get a judge to rule against a lawyer that steals.

geoffil wrote:So how does someone like that get a Bixby's hubby for a lawyer? I have never shot anyone and can't get a lawyer to get a judge to rule against a lawyer that steals.

Well at least now you know how to get a good lawyer. Take a gun and a video camera and go visit one of the lawyers that ripped you off.

The defendant was convicted yesterday:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/sto ... 55592380/1

He was sentenced today to 40 years. According to this article, Bixby's husband argued that the killer should receive leniency because he misunderstood the law. I guess the guy thought the law is on your side as long as you bring a gun and a video camera along when you confront your neighbor about a loud birthday party.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/tex ... 31482.html

TheConfessor wrote:He was sentenced today to 40 years. According to this article, Bixby's husband argued that the killer should receive leniency because he misunderstood the law. I guess the guy thought the law is on your side as long as you bring a gun and a video camera along when you confront your neighbor about a loud birthday party.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/tex ... 31482.html

Bixby blogged about the case here. --Bob

TheConfessor wrote: Bixby's husband argued that the killer should receive leniency because he misunderstood the law.

Not sure I could face myself in the mirror if I had to do that for a living. Half your life you work like hell to do the right thing for innocent people and half your life you lie like hell for the guilty.

And lawyers wonder why people don't trust them. Its there job to be untrustworthy, some of the time. But they can't tell you when that is.

Snakes, all of them.

But them again, snakes eat mice and other vermin, so they are good to have around...sometimes.

The biggest question I have about this and the Zimmerman case is why did it have to be deadly force? Shooting someone in the kneecap or upper arm, etc would take them down but they would be likely to survive.

It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

In both cases I think these are people who should not have lost their lives for what was going on.

JMHO

christie1111 wrote:The biggest question I have about this and the Zimmerman case is why did it have to be deadly force? Shooting someone in the kneecap or upper arm, etc would take them down but they would be likely to survive.

It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

In both cases I think these are people who should not have lost their lives for what was going on.

JMHO

In firearms classes you are taught to shoot to kill, not to shoot to wound.

BackInTex wrote:

TheConfessor wrote: Bixby's husband argued that the killer should receive leniency because he misunderstood the law.

Not sure I could face myself in the mirror if I had to do that for a living. Half your life you work like hell to do the right thing for innocent people and half your life you lie like hell for the guilty.

And lawyers wonder why people don't trust them. Its there job to be untrustworthy, some of the time. But they can't tell you when that is.

Snakes, all of them.

But them again, snakes eat mice and other vermin, so they are good to have around...sometimes.

Speak for yourself....

lb13

christie1111 wrote:The biggest question I have about this and the Zimmerman case is why did it have to be deadly force? Shooting someone in the kneecap or upper arm, etc would take them down but they would be likely to survive.

It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

In both cases I think these are people who should not have lost their lives for what was going on.

JMHO

I don't really know the particulars of either case since I like to remain blissfully ignorant, and they may not apply here..... but if I feel my life is being imminently threatended, I am going for the kill, nothing less. It is instinct, and if you felt that you (or your children) were in immediate danger, you would do so as well regardless of what you may think outside of the situation....

lb13

littlebeast13 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

TheConfessor wrote: Bixby's husband argued that the killer should receive leniency because he misunderstood the law.

Not sure I could face myself in the mirror if I had to do that for a living. Half your life you work like hell to do the right thing for innocent people and half your life you lie like hell for the guilty.

And lawyers wonder why people don't trust them. Its there job to be untrustworthy, some of the time. But they can't tell you when that is.

Snakes, all of them.

But them again, snakes eat mice and other vermin, so they are good to have around...sometimes.

Speak for yourself....

lb13

Found it!


Someone SAVE THAT SQUORREL~~~

a1mamacat wrote:

littlebeast13 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:
Not sure I could face myself in the mirror if I had to do that for a living. Half your life you work like hell to do the right thing for innocent people and half your life you lie like hell for the guilty.

And lawyers wonder why people don't trust them. Its there job to be untrustworthy, some of the time. But they can't tell you when that is.

Snakes, all of them.

But them again, snakes eat mice and other vermin, so they are good to have around...sometimes.

Speak for yourself....

lb13

Found it!


Someone SAVE THAT SQUORREL~~~

Anyone know the serpentine Heimlich maneuver?

lb13

BackInTex wrote:

TheConfessor wrote: Bixby's husband argued that the killer should receive leniency because he misunderstood the law.

Not sure I could face myself in the mirror if I had to do that for a living. Half your life you work like hell to do the right thing for innocent people and half your life you lie like hell for the guilty.

And lawyers wonder why people don't trust them. Its there job to be untrustworthy, some of the time. But they can't tell you when that is.

Snakes, all of them.

But them again, snakes eat mice and other vermin, so they are good to have around...sometimes.

Love both the Constitution and the New Testament.

Usually it is working your * off for the innocent, and for the guilty, making sure they have your day in court, represented zealously, although usually for the guilty it is more about mitigating damages before trial. You don't lie. You can't lie to the court.

I truly believe that under the strict application of Texas law, Rodriguez should have been found not guilty. At the moment of the shooting, the person who died was not being provoked, and that is part of what is required. Rodriguez at the precise moment of the shooting was on the phone with police and was charged my multiple people and shot.

That's not to say that just about everybody's actions that night were not smart--but not smart is different than murder.

I wrote about it: http://www.stradleylaw.com/rodriguez-st ... f-defense/ because I hope to prevent a moment of poor judgment resulting in any more deaths or people spending the rest of their lives in jail. Don't ever think such weird facts will happen again, but there is a ton of Texas self-defense/provocation case law that involves drunk people and neighbors dating back to the early 1900s.

Oh, and hi y'all.

Things are all good.

Family is good, though spouse is very tired.

I'm winning a Houston Web Award tomorrow night for a blog post I wrote for the Houston Chronicle. A Texans blog post and nothing as unfortunate as this.

Boy, my post was full of gramtical errors.

Its vs it's.
There vs their.
Them vs then.
Again vs agin.

littlebeast13 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

TheConfessor wrote: Bixby's husband argued that the killer should receive leniency because he misunderstood the law.

Not sure I could face myself in the mirror if I had to do that for a living. Half your life you work like hell to do the right thing for innocent people and half your life you lie like hell for the guilty.

And lawyers wonder why people don't trust them. Its there job to be untrustworthy, some of the time. But they can't tell you when that is.

Snakes, all of them.

But them again, snakes eat mice and other vermin, so they are good to have around...sometimes.

Speak for yourself....

lb13

That is an absolutely fabulous avatar. It will win the #3 slot. The standings are now:

1. Sunchine
2. Mini-Doughnut
3. Mangy rodent and other vermin eating snake
4. Gladys MBRS and the Pips