TexasCHLforum.com

Keep in mind in many parts of the world this kind of panhandling is not a once in a lifetime or once a month occurrence
But in some neighborhoods its closer to nearly every intersection nearly every day. Its easy to say give the guy a $20 and the blessings of the lord when its not going to happen again in 2 blocks...

juggernaut wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I don't think that the car's owner deserves a prison sentence, but he did cause a man's death in retaliation for a very minor offense, even if the result was unintentional.

Consider a similar situation.

A woman is walking and a man starts to approach her. She tells him to stop. He keeps coming.
Moore told Davis to get away from his car. He didn't.

She tells him again to stay away from her. He keeps coming.
"Davis ignored requests to stop"

She displays a gun and repeats her request to stop. (force but not deadly force)
"Moore pushed Davis away" (force but not deadly force)

The man takes a step back, trips, falls, hits his head on the pavement and dies.
"Davis fell, hit his head on the pavement and died."

Do any of you think she should be charged in his death in this situation?

Totally different Like comparing apples to oranges.

seniorshooteress wrote:

juggernaut wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I don't think that the car's owner deserves a prison sentence, but he did cause a man's death in retaliation for a very minor offense, even if the result was unintentional.

Consider a similar situation.

A woman is walking and a man starts to approach her. She tells him to stop. He keeps coming.
Moore told Davis to get away from his car. He didn't.

She tells him again to stay away from her. He keeps coming.
"Davis ignored requests to stop"

She displays a gun and repeats her request to stop. (force but not deadly force)
"Moore pushed Davis away" (force but not deadly force)

The man takes a step back, trips, falls, hits his head on the pavement and dies.
"Davis fell, hit his head on the pavement and died."

Do any of you think she should be charged in his death in this situation?

Totally different Like comparing apples to oranges.

People have a right to walk on public streets. They have no right to mess with private property.

seniorshooteress wrote:

juggernaut wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I don't think that the car's owner deserves a prison sentence, but he did cause a man's death in retaliation for a very minor offense, even if the result was unintentional.

Consider a similar situation.

A woman is walking and a man starts to approach her. She tells him to stop. He keeps coming.
Moore told Davis to get away from his car. He didn't.

She tells him again to stay away from her. He keeps coming.
"Davis ignored requests to stop"

She displays a gun and repeats her request to stop. (force but not deadly force)
"Moore pushed Davis away" (force but not deadly force)

The man takes a step back, trips, falls, hits his head on the pavement and dies.


"Davis fell, hit his head on the pavement and died."

Do any of you think she should be charged in his death in this situation?

Totally different Like comparing apples to oranges.

Somebody said that, "It ain't over until it's over". Once it is over, everyone will know what the final score was.

It seems that there is a lot of after the fact Monday Morning Quarterbacking going on here about something that happened in Kalifornia, the brokest and most liberal state in the Union.

Granted, the panhandler may not have deserved an accidental death; however, our lives are replete with various warning signs. As has eloquently been pointed out in a recent thread, our actions have consequences. Apparently, the deceased did not heed the warning signs given off by the person who could not foresee the final score in this unfortunate event.

Sometimes, life just ain't fair; however, "we all pays our fare and we takes our chances". (somebody said that, too)

Oldgringo wrote:Somebody said that, "It ain't over until it's over". Once it is over, everyone will know what the final score was. Sometimes, life just ain't fair; however, "we all pays our fare and we takes our chances". (somebody said that, too)

It is "over" and we know the final score. One man is dead and the other is serving probation.

WildBill wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Somebody said that, "It ain't over until it's over". Once it is over, everyone will know what the final score was. Sometimes, life just ain't fair; however, "we all pays our fare and we takes our chances". (somebody said that, too)

It is "over" and we know the final score. One man is dead and the other is serving probation.

The point that I apparently failed to make was that the car owner, now on probation, could not have known where the game was going nor what the final score would be when he was first accosted. Yes,I did use the word accosted because, IMO, the driver was accosted by a person of the street after he failed to heed various warnings.

It could happen here and it could happen to any of us. Bon Voyage!

Oldgringo wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Somebody said that, "It ain't over until it's over". Once it is over, everyone will know what the final score was. Sometimes, life just ain't fair; however, "we all pays our fare and we takes our chances". (somebody said that, too)

It is "over" and we know the final score. One man is dead and the other is serving probation.

The point that I apparently failed to make was that the car owner, now on probation, could not have known where the game was going nor what the final score would be when he was first accosted. Yes,I did use the word accosted because, IMO, the driver was accosted by a person of the street after he failed to heed various warnings.

It could happen here and it could happen to any of us. Bon Voyage!

You did make your point. That was one of the reasons that I started this thread.

juggernaut wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I don't think that the car's owner deserves a prison sentence, but he did cause a man's death in retaliation for a very minor offense, even if the result was unintentional.

Consider a similar situation.

A woman is walking and a man starts to approach her. She tells him to stop. He keeps coming.
Moore told Davis to get away from his car. He didn't.

She tells him again to stay away from her. He keeps coming.
"Davis ignored requests to stop"

She displays a gun and repeats her request to stop. (force but not deadly force)
"Moore pushed Davis away" (force but not deadly force)

The man takes a step back, trips, falls, hits his head on the pavement and dies.
"Davis fell, hit his head on the pavement and died."

Do any of you think she should be charged in his death in this situation?

Well, besides being apples and oranges as seniorshooteress pointed out, If your blue text were the case, then certainly it would have been appropriate to push the person away. But the problem with I have with regard to the actual story in the OP is that the car's owner was not being assaulted, or even threatened with assault, when the incident happened.

Again... HERE IS THE LINK TO THE STORY. Try actually reading it.

And I quote...

Police say the 31-year-old Moore pushed [64-year-old] Davis away from his BMW in December 2008 after Davis ignored requests to stop washing the car in exchange for money. Davis fell, hit his head on the pavement and died.

You get that? Davis, the dead man, was washing Moore's windshield and would not stop. He wasn't assaulting Moore. He wasn't trying to steal Moore's car. He was probably just desperate not to stop washing the window because he desperately wanted whatever money he thought Moore would pay him if he could just finish washing that windshield.

Moore assaulted Davis by pushing him away from the car. Davis fell, hitting his head, and dying. Moore is at fault. He did not intend to cause Davis's death, but he did. He initiated physical contact, in a one-sided "fight," and the other guy died because of his contact. Moore pleaded no contest because he didn't really have a valid defense, and he feels remorse according to the article because he himself realizes that Davis did not deserve to pay with his life for the enormous (at least in the perception of some members here ) offense of trying to wash Moore's windshield for a couple of bucks.

With all due respect, may I suggest that a little bit of perspective might be in order?

Oldgringo makes the very valid point that we need to be aware of what is going on around us because we never know how things are going to turn out. He's absolutely right. And part of that awareness is to A) actually understand what is happening; and B) react appropriately to it. But for the life of me, I just can't see how an old wino trying to make a buck washing my windshield is an immediate threat to my life. Moore didn't repeatedly tell Davis to stop advancing toward him. What he did was repeatedly tell Davis to stop trying to wash his windshield.... two very different things. And that is why Moore is on probation for assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury. He struck first, and the other guy died.

Lord, please grant me the awareness of what is happening around me, and the wisdom to understand and react appropriately to it, whatever that may require.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Again... HERE IS THE LINK TO THE STORY. Try actually reading it.

As people who actually read that article know, it says Moore pushed Davis away from his car.

A push. It doesn't say he punched or kicked him. He pushed him. More importantly, Moore pushed Davis away from Moore's car.

He tried words first. More than once. His words didn't stop Davis from interfering with his property. Here in Texas, a reasonable man could believe pushing him away from the property was the force immediately necessary to make him stop.

The Texas Penal Code says

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

However, this happened in California, so all bets are off.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Lord, please grant me the awareness of what is happening around me, and the wisdom to understand and react appropriately to it, whatever that may require.

Amen!

There are a number of situations on this board where I see people say they don't think force is justified and I read it thinking to myself that if it were me in that exact situation, I would say deadly force was not only justified but my only safe option. Frail young thing that I am with kids in tow, there's no way I would consider an elderly guy obstinately washing my window cause for anything more than patience and frustration (and a code orange).

I would probably wait there for him to finish and move aside for fear of moving forward with the car and harming him and if it got to be a ridiculously long time, I'd call the police if I had my cell or creep forward with the car angling away from him if I didn't have my cell and pray to God that I not run over him in the process. Rolling down the window and shoving him is not only an unnecessary escalation but also opened the driver up to all sorts of unknowns in response. I don't see how it could be justified in any way.

Edited to say that upon re-reading, it isn't clear if the driver was in the vehicle or outside of it. It says they were at a gas station, so it is possible the driver was outside the car. If he was, that seems even more imprudent when the elderly man showed no sign of aggression or ill intent. Further, the younger man's shove would have his full force behind him if it was done while he was standing outside the car, which would quickly overwhelm the elderly man. In this instance, the elderly man would have been justified in responding with deadly force after the shove had he not died from it, the shove being the first use of force in the situation. So very sad.

When we take action whatever it may be we also take responsibility for that action. no matter if it be to wash a window full well knowing it is not wanted or pushing a man to stop him from washing the window each man choose his path. In either case they paid for their actions, one with his life and the other for the rest of his life.

Courtesy of another member of this board:
http://www.kionrightnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=12774028

Posted: Jul 08, 2010 11:06 AM
Updated: Jul 08, 2010 11:06 AM
Santa Clara resident Orion Moore, age 31, was sentenced to 400 hours of community service and 3 years probation after he pled gulity to felony assault that resultesd in the death of a transient.

On December 26, 2008, Harish Dinesh Davis, a 64-year-old transient, asked Moore if he could wash his windshield at the Pilot Travel Center at 951 Work Street. Moore said no. When Davis later approached the car, Moore charged a distance of approximately 60 feet and at a full run and collided with Davis sending him sprawling, fracturing his skull on the concrete and killing him.

The motion to reduce the matter from a felony charge to a misdemeanor was granted by Judge Hayes over the objection of the District Attorney's Office and on the recommendation of the Monterey County Probation Department.

The court, after hearing argument from both sides and viewing the video tape of the incident, cited the Moore's lack of prior criminal history as a primary factor in reducing the matter to a misdemeanor. The court ordered that Moore serve 400 hours of community service for the homeless or the "extremely disadvantaged."

I rest my case, and I hope the rest of you are all satisfied. I also pray you all have an ounce more of humanity in you than did Mr. Moore.

Maybe Mr. Moore may have made the 60 foot run because he thought the homeless man might injure his female companion.

Sheriff seeks help in ID of Salinas transient killed at gas station

Man died in fight the day after Christmas
STAFF REPORT • February 3, 2009

The Monterey County Sheriff's Office is turning to the public for help in identifying a homeless man who died from head injuries sustained in a fight with a motorist at a Salinas gas station the day after Christmas.

The Sheriff's Coroner's Unit said Monday a fingerprint search revealed the transient, believed to be in his sixties, had numerous names and Social Security numbers. Some of the names the man has used include Dennis Davis, Dean Els, Dimple Elen, Dona Elvis, Dennis Syonney, Dan Moore, Neelam Singh, Ben Ellis, Deniese Dulares and Danny Presley.
Officials said the man may be of Asian, Indian or Fijian descent.

Authorities said he also has a history of mental illness and may have two sisters residing in the Palo Alto area. He also may have children, the coroner's unit said, but their location is unknown.

The man has a tattoo on his upper right arm of an eagle, and one on his right forearm of a shield with "007" above it, and a star pierced by an arrow.

Authorities say that on Dec. 26 the man hit his head on the pavement after being pushed to the ground during a confrontation with Orion Christopher Moore, of Santa Clara, and his female passenger. Moore had stopped to get gas at the Pilot Travel Center, 951 Work St. The man was panhandling, offering to wash windshields for money. Moore declined the offer and later confronted the transient who Moore thought was threatening his friend, he told officials.

Moore was arrested at the scene but released Dec. 30 after the District Attorney's Office asked for more information.

Moore's lawyer, Paul Meltzer, is expected to meet with prosecutors today to present findings from his own investigation into the case.

http://unsolveditn.blogspot.com/2009_02_03_archive.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Authorities say that on Dec. 26 the man hit his head on the pavement after being pushed to the ground during a confrontation with Orion Christopher Moore, of Santa Clara, and his female passenger. Moore had stopped to get gas at the Pilot Travel Center, 951 Work St. The man was panhandling, offering to wash windshields for money. Moore declined the offer and later confronted the transient who Moore thought was threatening his friend, he told officials.

If that was actually the case, then I'll retract part of what I said. Even so, the response of some, based on previously quoted articles, is disappointing to me. I would have hoped that the milk of human kindness flowed a little more freely.

TAM wrote:

I would have hoped that the milk of human kindness flowed a little more freely.

, a pint of Mogen David might have prevented this most unfortunate incident.