Posted on 09/21/2012 5:54:57 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
Houston area investigators are looking into a stand-your-ground case where after a minor fender-bender, a 22-year-old white male was shot and killed by a 23-year-old black woman. During a morning commute, Crystal Scott and Jonathan Ables were in an accident and pulled into a Shell gasoline station to survey the damage.
According to Scott, Ables exited his truck and ran toward her driver-side door. Scott said he yelled and then hit her door and tried to open it. Fearing for her life, Scott pulled her pistol and shot Ables once through the driver’s window and struck him in the chest. Ables died at the scene.
A Harris County Sheriff’s spokesman, Sgt. Felipe Rivera said “From what we understand it was maybe just a minor accident,” while adding, “The information we’re getting is that it appeared to be a minor accident that turned into road rage.”
>snip<
An eyewitness, who appeared on camera but has requested anonymity, said that he did not hear any threat in the seconds before Scott killed Ables. The witness was pumping gas and standing 15 feet away from Ables when a bullet ricocheted past him and struck his car. The bullet left a noticeable impression on the witness’s car.
As for Scott’s version of events, the witness said that if Ables had shouted or banged on the car, he would have heard it. “What drew my attention was the gunshot,” said the witness. “I just want to be sure that I do everything in my power that everything is fair. I care about it being fair,” he said. The Harris County sheriff’s department has not yet responded to Spero News’ request for any security footage of the shooting.
(Excerpt) Read more at speroforum.com ...
Texas Statutes - Subchapter B: DUTIES FOLLOWING ACCIDENT
(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), the operator of a vehicle involved in an accident resulting only in damage to a vehicle that is driven or attended by a person shall:
(1) immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the accident or as close as possible to the scene of the accident without obstructing traffic more than is necessary;
(2) immediately return to the scene of the accident if the vehicle is not stopped at the scene of the accident; and
(3) remain at the scene of the accident until the operator complies with the requirements of Section 550.023.
(b) If an accident occurs on a main lane, ramp, shoulder, median, or adjacent area of a freeway in a metropolitan area and each vehicle involved can be normally and safely driven, each operator shall move the operator’s vehicle as soon as possible to a designated accident investigation site, if available, a location on the frontage road, the nearest suitable cross street, or other suitable location to complete the requirements of Section 550.023 and minimize interference with freeway traffic.
(c) A person commits an offense if the person does not stop or does not comply with the requirements of Subsection (a). An offense under this subsection is:
(1) a Class C misdemeanor, if the damage to all vehicles is less than $200; or
(2) a Class B misdemeanor, if the damage to all vehicles is $200 or more.
(c-1) A person commits an offense if the person does not comply with the requirements of Subsection (b). An offense under this subsection is a Class C misdemeanor.
(d) In this section, a vehicle can be normally and safely driven only if the vehicle:
(1) does not require towing; and
(2) can be operated under its own power and in its usual manner, without additional damage or hazard to the vehicle, other traffic, or the roadway.
Pretty standard stuff. Remain at the scene unless it’s not feasible, otherwise pull over as close to the scene as possible and remain there until you comply with “the requirements of Section 550.023”, which are:
The operator of a vehicle involved in an accident resulting in the injury or death of a person or damage to a vehicle that is driven or attended by a person shall:
(1) give the operator’s name and address, the registration number of the vehicle the operator was driving, and the name of the operator’s motor vehicle liability insurer to any person injured or the operator or occupant of or person attending a vehicle involved in the collision;
(2) if requested and available, show the operator’s driver’s license to a person described by Subdivision (1); and
(3) provide any person injured in the accident reasonable assistance, including transporting or making arrangements for transporting the person to a physician or hospital for medical treatment if it is apparent that treatment is necessary, or if the injured person requests the transportation.
Nowhere in those instructions do I see it says “Stay in your vehicle and shoot anyone who approaches”.
You could be right because the bullet did hit another car according to reports.
She is a small woman, he's a big guy. So long as he walked up to her car and placed his hand on her door then that may cause her to believe he was trying to illegally enter her car and that justified her use of force to protect herself. Is that right? I don't know but it's the way the law is written. It's a sad situation but under the way she shouldn't be liable for prosecution.
Or self-defense under the provisions outlined by SB 378: "An act relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person." passed by the Texas legislature in 2007.
Thank you. That's what I said in Post #94.
Witness #3 said Jonathan was acting aggressively. The co-worker may - may - not be as reliable on that point as Witness #3 if Witness #3 is not related to either of the parties to the altercation.
That's why I prefer to wait for the video and more facts to jump to a conclusion.
I'm disturbed by how many people appear to have made up their minds based up the shooter's race.
Wrong.
Under Texas Law after a car accident, the operator is required to:
Section 550.023:
The operator of a vehicle involved in an accident resulting in the injury or death of a person or damage to a vehicle that is driven or attended by a person shall:
(1) give the operator’s name and address, the registration number of the vehicle the operator was driving, and the name of the operator’s motor vehicle liability insurer to any person injured or the operator or occupant of or person attending a vehicle involved in the collision;
(2) if requested and available, show the operator’s driver’s license to a person described by Subdivision (1); and
(3) provide any person injured in the accident reasonable assistance, including transporting or making arrangements for transporting the person to a physician or hospital for medical treatment if it is apparent that treatment is necessary, or if the injured person requests the transportation.
Nowhere does it say that you get to shoot the other person in an accident who is requesting your insurance information that you are required by law to present.
He may have been upset that she wouldn't roll down her window and give him her insurance information which she is required to do by Texas Law.
If Romney had a son, he would look like Jonathan
Wrong law. The one you need to reference is the 'Stand Your Ground' law, AKA SB 378: "An act relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.". Specifically the part where it says "...The actor's belief...that the deadly force was immediately necessary...is presumed to be reasonable if the actor knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used: (1) unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment..."
When there's a dead body around then maybe somebody will look into it deeper ~ maybe not. Don't Texas cops accept these 'SYG' on nothing more than the claims of the shooters anyway? Maybe nobody will look any further ~
She may have been prescient but we’ll never know will we.
Hmmmm, the plot thickens.
A question ~ since the original article didn’t say who bumped who, did you find something about who bumped who somewhere ~ maybe give us a URL to go there.
Or maybe he got upset because he saw she had a backseat full of kidnapped babies.
I'll wait for the video and more details, thanks, before I acquit or hang her, or start organizing marches for Saint Johathan.
They had just had a car accident that she admitted to. So by law they were obligated to share information.
He was lawfully permitted to be at her side window requesting insurance information and she knew it.
If in fact he did pull on the handle, it wasn't to enter the vehicle but to get the insurance information from her -- and she knew that.
Even if he was pulling on the handle, was he really "attempting to enter unlawfully" or attempting to get from her what the law requires.
She pulled over ~ he pulled over ~ but it may not have been an accident. We just don’t know. With no accident none of that matters anyway ~ besides, now that there’s a dead guy, none of it matters because he cannot be interviewed.
One article has a photo of a male, apparently Hispanic, and identifies him as Jonathan's coworker and "Witness #1," who says Jonathan was going to exchange insurance information. Another article mentions his girlfriend and says she found out about Jonathan's death by 'social media.'
I think they're two different people and I don't think the girlfriend was at the scene of the shooting.
She was packing that day ~ must be a tough commute for her ~ I’d guess the bank is a high risk area.
You can pull over and wait for the cops too. The other driver in approaching her car wasn't just waiting ~ probably anxious to get to work, and now this.... be quite interesting to see what the cell phone records show ~ not that they're out there duking it out in road rage while on the phone but stuff happens doesn't it.
If the deceased is shown to have been behaving aggressively that would be somewhat mitigating, but the fact remains that even if he was, it was tantamount to vandalization of a car, not any assault upon the driver herself. There was thick glass and steel between herself and him. None of the statements indicate he was able to gain entrance, so either he didn’t even try or the door was locked, neither of which supports the use of deadly force. This does not appear to rise to the standard of the use of deadly force under any stand your ground or castle doctrine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.