And he wanted to do this instead of whatever his original errand was that was so urgent he had to park in the wrong spot to do it.
I say gen-pop for that motherfucker.
Those two incidents occurred in 2013 and he was promoted to investigator in 2015, so they don’t seem to have stalled his career in any way.
Thank you for the update, I’m glad this was straightened out, though she did spend a fair amount of time locked up for what is basically nonsense.
Summary: Man was robbed at an ATM and the robber flees the scene. Man goes to his car to get a gun and shoots at a car thinking that it was the robber’s car. Shoots and kills a 9 year old girl. Grand jury in Texas cleared the man because of self-defense.
Can I state that I hope that the shooter winds up paying in civil court, although it would still not be enough to compensate for the death of a child.
In Texas, someone getting away with $20 is justification to kill little girls.
Sounds about right.
I don’t see how it was self defense, as the thief was running away at the time. But I suppose that if he had managed to shoot him in the back, rather than shoot at a car that had nothing to do with it, he would have gotten a ticker tape parade.
To be fair? Also his car keys.
But yeah.
" But Judge, he needed killin’. And I prevented an abortion."
Hey, to be fair, the girl was unarmed, and unarmed people are really scary. After all, one of them might steal your gun and shoot you! Anyone with a gun is obviously always justified in shooting anyone without a gun.
“Shoot 'em in The Back!” - It’s just the Texas Way…
“Mr. Earls did what we believe anyone in that situation would have done. We are relieved that, despite the emotion and tough decisions that had to be made in dealing with this case, justice was served for Mr. Earls,” his attorneys, Myrecia Donaldson and Brennen Dunn, said in a statement.
Um, no. “Anyone in that situation” wouldn’t have opened fire on a truck when they can’t see who’s in the truck just because they think that someone who stole $20 might have jumped in there.
Rick Ramos, the attorney for the Alvarez family, said Wednesday that Earls’ actions were reckless and he questioned whether Earls was capable of carrying a weapon as his lawyers had indicated in court records that he had suffered from mental illness before the shooting.
But Thompson said issues of mental illness would not have made a difference in this case as Texas does not have red flag laws that would allow law enforcement or family members to ask a judge to order the seizure or surrender of guns from someone who is deemed dangerous, often because of mental health concerns or threats of violence. Last year, Texas lawmakers expanded gun rights by letting people carry handguns without first getting a background check and training.
I know that the State Department issues travel warnings and bans to try to protect American travelers and keep them out of danger. When will they do the same for Texas? Because it seems like a lawless hellhole where you have few civil rights and human life means little to nothing.
So if ya get robbed, you can shoot the first person that moves without consequences?
These guys are not happy you are trying to associate them with TX.
I don’t think they even have to move. I you open your wallet and figure you might be missing a $20, it is self defence to just start shooting randomly into a crowd.
At least one of them is dead; maybe two.
And I’ve got an alibi for each and any of those days.
None of the original four are alive. CJ and Marky, both longer term members are still alive.
This asinine meme needs to disappear.
As long as you are not a member of a minority, apparently there’s no problem.
What meme are you talking about?
I swear to God that I had nothing to do with any of that.
( Hey, Nelson & Murdock… I need an attorney quick! I swear I’m getting framed here…! )