Enter your username and password below to sign in to your PewterReport account.
x close
Folks:Let's get the FACTS of the story straight - his SISTER is getting ASSAULTED by her BOYFRIEND 'Billings' who has two outstanding records for violence against Talib's SISTER.She CALLS Talib and he rushes over there. He shows a weapon and during the altercation tries to pistol whip Billings (the attacker) INSTEAD of SHOOTING him.Billings wrestles away the gun from Talib and then in POSSESSION of Talib's gun starts running. Talib's Mother then fires 3 shots at Billings who STILL has the weapon, at which point Talib (allegedly) took the gun and fired two more shots.Here is the thing:To add:On March 27, 2007, Governor Rick Perry signed Senate Bill 378 into law, making Texas a “Castle Doctrine” state which came into effect September 1, 2007.[290] Residents lawfully occupying a dwelling may shoot a person who “unlawfully, and with force, enters or attempts to enter the dwelling”, or who removes or attempts to remove someone from that dwelling, or who commits or attempts to commit a “qualifying” felony such as burglary, arson, rape, aggravated assault, robbery or murder. In addition, a shooter who has a legal right to be wherever he/she is at the time of a defensive shooting has no “duty to retreat” before being justified in shooting; the “trier of fact” may not consider whether the person retreated when deciding whether the person was justified in shooting.Billings satisfied the requirements: he committed an aggravated assault on his sister, and he was in possession of Talib's gun. At this point he has the right to defend his property and does NOT have to retreat.Notice that Billings was arrested, NOT Talib.However, since the discharging of a firearm is illegal without proper cause (you can't just shoot the mailboxes across the street) the cops and prosecutor have to investigate. That is what is happening now.He is a person of INTEREST and NOT a SUSPECT. Big difference...Everyone needs to take a BIG breath... So far - according to the police report we have some thug attacking Talib's sister and him defending her.
Quote from: Scholty on March 29, 2011, 01:18:06 AM He shows a weapon and during the altercation tries to pistol whip Billings (the attacker) INSTEAD of SHOOTING him. Haha I love it....Give Talib a break he wasn't going to shoot the guy just pistol whip the **CENSORED** out of him! haha.I'm making fun but it was actually a very informed and knowledgable post, if what you say is true.On another note something tells me that Aqib did not know about the law that was passed in 2007, but it may work in his favor.I wonder if Gerald McCoy is pistoling whipping people? Talib is just not a good decision maker.
He shows a weapon and during the altercation tries to pistol whip Billings (the attacker) INSTEAD of SHOOTING him.
Well regardless he needs to think before he does anything. When you are in the public eye you need to think before you act. I like him, best cb I have seen in a long time but this stuff is out of hand.
Talib was well within his legal rights to defend himself and his family - especially after the BF wrestled away the weapon.
Quote from: Scholty on March 29, 2011, 01:18:06 AMFolks:Let's get the FACTS of the story straight - his SISTER is getting ASSAULTED by her BOYFRIEND 'Billings' who has two outstanding records for violence against Talib's SISTER.She CALLS Talib and he rushes over there. He shows a weapon and during the altercation tries to pistol whip Billings (the attacker) INSTEAD of SHOOTING him.Billings wrestles away the gun from Talib and then in POSSESSION of Talib's gun starts running. Talib's Mother then fires 3 shots at Billings who STILL has the weapon, at which point Talib (allegedly) took the gun and fired two more shots.Here is the thing:To add:On March 27, 2007, Governor Rick Perry signed Senate Bill 378 into law, making Texas a “Castle Doctrine” state which came into effect September 1, 2007.[290] Residents lawfully occupying a dwelling may shoot a person who “unlawfully, and with force, enters or attempts to enter the dwelling”, or who removes or attempts to remove someone from that dwelling, or who commits or attempts to commit a “qualifying” felony such as burglary, arson, rape, aggravated assault, robbery or murder. In addition, a shooter who has a legal right to be wherever he/she is at the time of a defensive shooting has no “duty to retreat” before being justified in shooting; the “trier of fact” may not consider whether the person retreated when deciding whether the person was justified in shooting.Billings satisfied the requirements: he committed an aggravated assault on his sister, and he was in possession of Talib's gun. At this point he has the right to defend his property and does NOT have to retreat.Notice that Billings was arrested, NOT Talib.However, since the discharging of a firearm is illegal without proper cause (you can't just shoot the mailboxes across the street) the cops and prosecutor have to investigate. That is what is happening now.He is a person of INTEREST and NOT a SUSPECT. Big difference...Everyone needs to take a BIG breath... So far - according to the police report we have some thug attacking Talib's sister and him defending her. Excellent points, Scholty. I was not aware of the Castle doctrine. That certainly changes things. Talib was well within his legal rights to defend himself and his family - especially after the BF wrestled away the weapon.The question I ask any of these holier-than-thou posters is - if someone was attacking your sister and threatening your mother - would you not defend them with every means at your disposal?
Quote from: JasonOfthetower on March 29, 2011, 10:55:39 AMTalib was well within his legal rights to defend himself and his family - especially after the BF wrestled away the weapon.I'd say the dude had the right to wrestle that gun away from Talib since Talib was pistol whipping him with it. LOL!
Could not have picked a better state to try to pistol whip and shoot at a home invader. His sister's first call should have been 911, not to Talib IMO.
Quote from: SunnyD on March 29, 2011, 08:32:35 AMCould not have picked a better state to try to pistol whip and shoot at a home invader. His sister's first call should have been 911, not to Talib IMO.Judging by the whole general mentality and intelligence of that family, do you honestly think that they want to involve the police? It might have incriminated them instead of him for all we know. That whole family provides why players are thugs in the league. Its kind of sad that Pacman Jones has finally quieted down but Talib just can't stay out of bad situations. Its more then enough of a headache and hes pissing away his career for stupid thuggish choices.Say what you want, I know a bunch of people are trying to defend him for whatever reason (this isnt the first time for him in the least) but I have had enough of his BS. Its not worth the hassle and aggravation of dealing with a problem on the team. Because it lingers in the lockerroom and it needs to be effectively taken care of (Severe punishment like 4 games suspended or drastic like trading or cutting him for the good of the team). Talib is NOT a team player. Ronde Barber, DB55, Alstott, Lynch, all never had anywhere near the problems this guy has. Either shape up or ship out. Thats my feeling on all of this.
- It's not exactly clear to me that you can continue to shoot at the fleeing guy - this language from your post - "the “trier of fact” may not consider whether the person retreated when deciding whether the person was justified in shooting," is not what the statute says. The statute says: "...in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) {that would be Talib, in this case] reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor [again, Talib] failed to retreat." In other words, Talib isn't required to attempt to retreat before resorting to deadly force. There may be other parts of Texas law that cover the fleeing guy, but this statute appears to be silent on the issue.I'm not convicting him, but I don't think he's coming out of this smelling like a rose either. The problem for me is that Talib has a way of finding himself in situations like this repeatedly, and even if he's legally clear, is he clear of the NFL. I know that there is one view that says that the NFL can't touch him because of the lockout. I wouldn't bet on that yet - it's still an issue to be bargained and I can't imagine a union spending a ton of effort to bail out the handful of guys like Talib who keep screwing up.
Scholty, i think you make some decent points, but....You are also making some assertions, and confusing them with facts:- We don't know that he was committing "aggravated assault" on the sister (under the statute, I think Talib just has to believe that an assault is imminent though, but those are matters yet to be determined, not facts). We just know that they were arguing. The word "imminent" also has meaning. How have Texas courts interpreted "imminent" in the past? These are all areas of uncertainty. - We don't know that he entered unlawfully, which is a key element in the statute. - We don't know whether Billings had the gun or not at the time he was fired upon.- Do we know if Talib provoked the guy prior to the use of deadly force? That's also an element of the Texas statute (I'm looking at the actual statute, not the blurb above) that must be met to make the use of force lawful (i.e., he can't have provoked Billings first). - It's not exactly clear to me that you can continue to shoot at the fleeing guy - this language from your post - "the “trier of fact” may not consider whether the person retreated when deciding whether the person was justified in shooting," is not what the statute says. The statute says: "...in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) {that would be Talib, in this case] reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor [again, Talib] failed to retreat." In other words, Talib isn't required to attempt to retreat before resorting to deadly force. There may be other parts of Texas law that cover the fleeing guy, but this statute appears to be silent on the issue.- The article isn't crystal clear, but Billings appears to have been arrested because he was a suspect in prior assaults, not because of his activity on that day. There's a lot of moving parts to this one. I'm not a lawyer either, but I have had some law school (no criminal law), and know my way around a statute a little bit. I'm not convicting him, but I don't think he's coming out of this smelling like a rose either. The problem for me is that Talib has a way of finding himself in situations like this repeatedly, and even if he's legally clear, is he clear of the NFL. I know that there is one view that says that the NFL can't touch him because of the lockout. I wouldn't bet on that yet - it's still an issue to be bargained and I can't imagine a union spending a ton of effort to bail out the handful of guys like Talib who keep screwing up.