Texas Man Invokes “Stand Your Ground” Law After Being Charged For Shooting Man In Parked Car

Terry Turner

We have previously discussed “Castle Doctrine” and “Stand Your Ground” laws. The latest such case comes from Martindale, Texas where Terry Duane Turner, 65, is charged with the first-degree murder of Adil Dghoughi, 31. Dghoughi was sitting in his car in the driveway of Turner’s home before the confrontation leading to his death.

Turner says that he went to the bathroom around 3:40 am on October 11 when he noticed a car was parked in his driveway with its lights off. He ran back to his bedroom, grabbed his handgun, and ran outside. However, the car then immediately began to back out of his driveway. Turner chased the car and “struck the front driver’s side door window twice with his handgun.”

While on the phone with CCSO 911, Turner reportedly told the dispatcher “I just killed a guy,” saying that the driver allegedly “tried to pull a gun on me.” “He started racing away and I ran after him,” Turner reportedly said. “He pointed a gun at me and I shot.”

However, no gun was found in the vehicle.

Dghoughi came to this country from Morocco and obtained a master’s degree in financial analysis from Rhode Island’s Johnson & Wales University.

What is notable is that Turner is relying on the SYG law rather than the Castle Doctrine. The Castle Doctrine has been extended to include the curtilage surrounding a home.  We have previously discussed such shootings in driveways, including a Texas case with similar defense claims. The laws have been criticized for creating perverse results as in the controversial case of Joe Horn in Texas. Yet, the popularity of these laws have spawned “Make My Day Better” laws that extend the privilege of lethal force to businesses and cars.

The decision to rely on the SYG law may be due to the chase, which might have taken both men beyond the driveway and any claim of curtilage. The SYG law states in part:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

Of course, this turns on a “reasonable belief” on the part of Turner, who claims that he saw or thought he saw a gun. The problem is that Dghoughi did not have a gun and never even lowered his window. He was trying to leave the scene.

Dghoughi’s family can also sue in torts. Turner is clearly making a self-defense claim as opposed to a defense of property claim.

There is an allowance in torts for mistaken self-defense. In the case of Courvoisier v. Raymond, 23 Colo. 113 (1896), a man chased a group out of his home only to fire when a man approached him outside his home from the stone-throwing mob. It turned out to be a deputy sheriff but the court found that Courvoisier could rely on reasonable mistaken self-defense. The common law has long offered ample protections even for reasonable mistakes.

Of course, the difference is that, in Courvoisier, the victim was in fact armed and that was a violent confrontation occurring at the scene.

It is a case reminiscent of the most notorious case involving the shooting of a Japanese student in Baton Rouge. The 16-year-old Japanese exchange student, Yoshihiro Hattori, was looking for a Halloween party and scared the wife of Rodney Peairs when he spoke a strange language and approached the house. Peairs shot him in the chest with a .44 Magnum handgun and was later cleared under a Make My Day law as mistaken defense of his home and self. We also saw a tragic such case involving the killing of a law student.

The defense will face a tough time in the criminal trial given the pursuit by Turner and the absence of a handgun.  Dghoughi’s girlfriend said that he often would drive around listening to music to relax and she believed that he simply got lost and pulled into the driveway to check directions.  Even if Turner were able to get a hung jury or an acquittal on the criminal charges, this would seem a strong case for a wrongful death lawsuit under torts.

 

 

175 thoughts on “Texas Man Invokes “Stand Your Ground” Law After Being Charged For Shooting Man In Parked Car”

  1. I went through conceal carry training last year. I recommend this 15 hour training even if a person does not carry. I don’t. There were a number attorneys in class. We spent the biggest majority of class time reviewing legal cases and scenarios. You walk away with this understanding. Only use or intend to use lethal force in defense of life. Nothing more. Even if you are justified in that instance, there is a good chance the shooter will face civil litigation. We also had to demonstrate proficiency with only one class of weapon. If a person has others, they must submit documentation of proficiency with each type.

    It was sobering and it is a heavy responsibility to pick up a loaded weapon that may be used on another human being.

  2. The man was a probable last line of defense. The trespasser was aborted with plausible cause. A novel act of self-defense with precedent. A veritable “hero” of democracy.

  3. Sorry, boss: Texas may or may not have “no duty to retreat” protection, but I can’t imagine they have an explicit duty to chase.

    Sure, caught up in the moment and all, but sill indefensible.

  4. Turner may be in legal trouble on this one. He’s certainly in moral trouble.

    He would only be justified in firing if the man had pulled a weapon or physically assaulted him. But he was in his car backing up, trying to leave. Even if he was a burglar scoping out the place, he was trying to leave. Deadly force would not be warranted, in my opinion as a lay person.

    It was 3 AM. Maybe he saw some kind of movement inside, but unless the interior lights were on, he wouldn’t have been able to make out much. Even if there was a full moon, it would be doubtful.

    He went outside to confront a stranger, and things went sideways quickly.

    There are a lot of thefts in my area. I have had shady cars pull into my driveway and hang out, eventually turning around when I start walking down there. You can’t shoot someone for parking in your driveway.

    I’ve gotten lost many times in my life, and have had to pull into someone’s driveway when there’s no shoulder to look at a map or make a phone call. I changed a tire as a teenager right in front of someone’s house.

    Considering how many people have been friendly and helpful to me when I have traveled to other countries, it breaks my heart to think of an exchange student killed just for walking up to someone’s house speaking Japanese. There are so many unmarked dirt roads out by me that I travel with a map and keep one by the door for all the people and delivery drivers who come to my door hopelessly lost, with no cell service.

    1. While it is reasonable for the victim to have pulled into a driveway,
      He remained there long enough for the defendant to go and get his gun,
      that is more suspicious than simply getting lost and turning arround.

      I do not think that the defendant has the necescary facts to pursue the victim off his property and then shoot him.
      But there is plenty of reason to be suspicious of the conduct of the victim.

      I would further note that the victim need not actually be guilty of anything to justify SOME of the conduct of the defendant.

      All suspicious conduct is not criminal. This is not binary.

      Reasonable suspicion justifies SOME of the conduct of the defendant – even if there turns out to be an innocent explanation for the suspicious conduct.

      There are essentially 3 possible outcomes here.

      The defendants conduct could be determined to be criminal.
      The defendent could be found civily but not criminally culpable
      The defendant could be found completely justified

      1. A car parked in your driveway at 3:40am with it’s lights off would certainly qualify as suspicious. It would also be reasonable for Turner to grab his firearm to investigate. It might be reasonable for Turner to run out to the “fleeing” vehicle to get the license plate. But Turner claimed he shot at the vehicle because the victim tried to pull a gun on him. The victim didn’t have a gun. Without some other evidence, nothing about this shooting is justifiable.

      2. Good points.

        There was certainly reason to be concerned, alarmed, and suspicious. Unless more facts come out, however, the part where he fired at a retreating car, with the windows rolled up, is where he lost me.

        There are a lot of thefts in my neighborhood. We’ll sometimes call each other about a suspicious vehicle that seems to be scoping the neighborhood out. I’ve had vehicles park in my driveway for a long time, only to hurriedly drive away when I go down. And I’ve had a lady roll her window down to say she was letting her kids see our horses, or a delivery driver say he’s lost and can’t find an address on his map.

        You never know with strangers.

        Parking in a stranger’s driveway at 3 in the morning is shady. It could very well have been a burger. But you can’t shoot a fleeing burglar.

        We’ll have to see how this turns out.

      3. “ While it is reasonable for the victim to have pulled into a driveway,
        He remained there long enough for the defendant to go and get his gun,
        that is more suspicious than simply getting lost and turning arround.”

        It was 3 am. The defendant had no reason to believe anyone would be out looking at their driveway at that hour. If the homeowner wasn’t awake he would have never known someone was in his driveway.

        From the available information it seems the defendant was intent on shooting the guy. What is suspicious is the claim he made that he was threatened with a gun. Clearly he wasn’t. It can be assumed that the defendant realized the stupidity of his actions and decided to claim he was threatened in order to justify killing the man. So far it doesn’t look very good for the defendant.

    2. We call it a Truck Horn out here. a couple Toot, Toots. AKA: Hi, I’m here!

      If no one comes out you should leave.

      Prof Turley has Civility Rules here, break them you may be banned.

      In the Real World if one makes a mistake in less then 1 or 2 Seconds anyone might end up as a TransHuman, AKA Wormfood.

      I just attempt not to take those chances.

      Keep in mind of Biden’s/Dims/Rinos/Austin Area’s American Blue Commie Marxist Illegals flooding us all Right Now.

      So lets not Red Queen Mr Turner just yet.

  5. There has been an uproar about Fauci and the puppies, but not very much information.

    Beagles. It’s always beagles…I can’t even look at a beagle now without thinking of animal research. They do often have “debarking” surgery because Beagles are barkers. A lab can get deafening with frightened dogs objecting.

    Where was the dog research done? In the US? In another country? In China? There are laws that govern animal research in the US, due to some infamous abuses, but lab animals don’t have those protections in most parts of the world.

    What was the exact research? One experiment was mentioned in which the puppies were deliberately given parasites. Why? To test a dog dewormer? Was the research really necessary?

    There is already a lot of waste and unnecessary animal cruelty going on with the NIH. For example, the NIH threw tax dollars away to study the effects of cocaine on the sexual habits of quail. They gave little birds cocaine. There are so many examples like this. Ludicrous and needlessly cruel.

    There is animal research that helps save burn victims, cancer patients, and seriously ill children. And then there’s giving cocaine to quail and torturing puppies.

    1. It is my understanding this research was done in Indonesia.

      Many reports are asserting that it was unecescary research – meaning research had previously been done and the results were already known.

      There is video of this and it is horrible.

      I personally find research on dogs extremely disturbing. Humans domesticated dogs 50,000 years ago. The next most recently domesticated animal was only 10,000 years ago. the relationship between dogs and humans is closer than any other animal.
      Dogs are the only animal that can abstract to where a human is looking.

      There is an emotional bond between dogs and humans that does not exist with other animals.

      Some of those critiquing this are comparing the research tot hat of the Nazi’s or Japanese during WWII.

      In the grand scheme of things this is not the most evil thing Faucci is a part of, but it may prove to be his downfall.

      Further it targets a major source of Faucci’s power – and his weakness.
      Faucci controls billions of dollars of federal research grants.

      That power is part of what allowed him to supress information regarding the funding of Bat Corona Virus Gain of Function Research at Wuhan Institute of Virology.

      But it is also a vulnerability because – it is easy to hold him personally accountable for funded research – such as this.
      And because every bit of research he has authorized can be judged ethically, with respect to necescity, and with respect to whether there is a government interest.

      This dog research seems to fail ALL criteria. It was unethical, unecescary and not the domain of government regardless.
      This was very close to product research – and that is not the business of government.

      I am personally on the fence as to whether Gain of Function research can be justified.
      Regardless it can be incredibly dangerous – as we are seeing potentially more dangerous than the development of nuclear weapons,

      But I would note that the Vaccines are all a form of Gain of Function. They are forms of a mostly harmless virus that we engineer to perform some useful task in the body – in this instance they reproduce large numbers of spike protein which the body then develops immunity to.

      One of the silver linings to C19 is that we have broken down the barriers to this as a medical process.
      While the safety record of these vaccines is significantly worse than normal vaccines,
      It is demonstrably safe enough for far more limited purposes.

      We will likely in the future engineer the same virus to produce proteins that attack cancer as one example.

      1. I am personally on the fence as to whether Gain of Function research can be justified.
        Regardless it can be incredibly dangerous – as we are seeing potentially more dangerous than the development of nuclear weapons [sic], — John B Say (@johnbsay)

        The other name for “gain of function” research is “biological warfare” research. It’s a rebranding thingy that politically obscures the real reason for the research in the first place.

      2. John B Say, funding animal research in other countries is problematic in many cases, because they don’t have the same protections we do. It reminds me of the articles written about China’s humanizing the brains of monkey medical research animals. The direction they’re going is the stuff of Stephen King horror novels.

        More red flags would be if the research was unnecessary, or unnecessarily cruel.

        I hope we learn from our country’s mistakes. We share part of the blame for this pandemic for our foolishness and negligence in funding gain of function research in China, especially in light of their internal documents detailing plans for weaponizing coronaviruses. They might as well have called the Wuhan Institute of Virology the American Funded Institute of Bioweapons of Mass Destruction. Even if our contribution was comparatively small, there is a trend for the US participating in its own demise at the hands of China, from the trade and climate change deals we’ve agreed to in the past, to the infamous coronavirus research.

        We should have learned our lesson from the Africanized bees. Don’t make something dangerous unless you’d bet your life it cannot escape your safety protocols. Because you might be doing just that.

        There are very, very few labs that I would trust to conduct the research of dangerous viruses, especially gain of function. The risk is just too great. When those labs are outside our country, they are outside our control. Financially helping China, our adversary, develop more dangerous coronaviruses was so negligent that people should be charged with a crime. Fauci should be charged for lying before Congress, multiple times.

        Where I disagree is with vaccines, which do not qualify as gain of function. Gain of function research engineers viruses to become either more virulent, or more contagious. The mRNA vaccine is not a virus at all, let alone an engineered one. It is messenger RNA that directs our own cells to produce spike protein. If we were infected with SARS-CoV2, then the virus would invade our cells, and direct them to manufacture new viruses, not just the spike protein.

        Where I agree is that genome editing technology, such as CRISPR Cas9, can heal illnesses, or it could be used to create a weapon of mass destruction of global proportions. In microbio class years ago, we used to study global pandemic models. With the ease of global travel, a pandemic could spread before countries were aware there was a problem. This would cause famines, food shortages, and the collapse of first world countries. I could remark on how to make such a genetic bomb the most deadly in its design and detonation schedule, but I’m not going to give anyone any ideas.

  6. So an American, half asleep, at his home, deep in the middle of Texas with the time going on 4:00 am, has a guy from an Islamic Nation sitting a car with the lights turned off in his driveway & then the likely Islamic nut job starts the car, in itself a 4-5000 pound Weapon, ……….

    IE: What if? None of us were there.

    Sounds like a walk to me.

    1. You call Dghoughi a “likely Islamic nut job” for no reason other than his being from Morocco.

      That makes you an Islamophobic bigot.

      1. I agree. My attorney who represents me in an Estate matter is from Lebanon. Guess what? He’s a Catholic. So is his entire family, which has always been Catholic for generations. There have always been Christians living in predominately-Muslim countries, so just because someone is from the Middle East, and looks Middle-Eastern, this does not mean they are Muslim.

        1. More to the point: even if he were Muslim, that doesn’t imply that he was a “likely Islamic nut job.” Most Muslims are not nut jobs.

          1. Most Muslims are not nut jobs. — Anon

            Just like the vast majority of white Americans are not racist, domestic terrorists.

        2. Natacha,

          There used to be a much larger Christian population in Lebanon. Many were driven out by IsIamic extremism and terror. That happened to Bridgette Gabriel, a Christian whose family was in Lebanon. See, ‘Because They Hate…” her story of Islamic terror.

          1. Young – yep, I’ve known Christians who fought in the war in Lebanon. They suffered from the atrocities they witnessed. One of them told me about how the Muslims captured a young Christian girl who lived in his town. The army was told to stand down rather than go on the offensive, due to the Muslims’ entrenched position. They listened to the girl be gang raped to death. Her bloody, torn, dead body was thrown over the wall to them in the morning. The kind of animosity that generates does not dissipate.

            There is no disputing that Muslim majority countries engage in human rights abuses, especially against women.

            1. Karen,

              That’s a horrific story. What a horrible thing to happen to anyone.

              One thing that was disturbing about Bridgette’s story was that her family and other Christians had lived amicably with Muslim neighbors for years only to see them turn violent and horrible fairly quickly. It made me wonder, whom can we trust?

              And I agree that it is beyond dispute that Muslim countries are atrocious with human rights, particularly with women.

            2. And, there’s no dispute that your hero not only grabs women by their genitals, he brags about it. He has been credibly accused of rape by E Jeanne Carroll, too. She has the clothes she was wearing with DNA on them. Just one of several lawsuits Trump has failed to get dismissed.

        3. “There have always been Christians living in predominately-Muslim countries, “

          Wasn’t Lebanon predominantly Christian years ago? I wonder what happened to the Christians to make Lebanon predominantly Muslim.

          1. “I wonder what happened to the Christians to make Lebanon predominantly Muslim?”
            +++
            Killed and driven out.

          2. Anonymous:

            The Christian Armenians fled to Lebanon to escape the genocide by the Turks. Then the Muslims in Lebanon rose up against them in a bloody war until most Christians fled that country. Par for the course.

            Christians do live in Muslim majority countries, but they are not safe.

      2. I found a small bit of time to get back to this section of comments:

        “That makes you an Islamophobic bigot.”

        I don’t like anything about Islam, but I’m not a Bigot!

        Look up the definition for yourself so you’ll know what a Bigot is.

    2. Yes, because every Islamic nut job immigrates to the United States, gets their master’s degree in finance and works successfully as a financial analyst. They always have barbeque with their American girlfriend just prior to committing a terrorist act while sitting in their car in a nowhere town in the heart of Texas.

      You have an Adam Schiff-like imagination.

      1. Oky1’s imagination is nothing like Adam Schiff’s. Oky1 follow’s conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones.

      2. Olly,

        “in a nowhere town in the heart of Texas.”

        Of course we’ll have to wait to see if there’s more facts to this story.

        I hope you realize this is still American & that even if it had been a Green Alien from Planet Pop Tart it was still Mr Turner’s Property @ 3-4 AM in the morning.

        Maybe that gent would still be alive if he’d kept his butt in the big sandbox as not to offend the local native’s culture.

        BTW: You can believe what you wish & I the same. I’ve seen/read nothing redeeming about Islam, a govt structure, Sharia Law cloaked pretending to be a religion, diametrically opposed to this country’s Judeo/Christian based, Constitutional Republic structure.

        AKA: They claim to believe, Everything in Islam is the House Of Peace, Everything outside Islam is the House Of War!

        AKA: The rest of us are their Targets!

        An irredeemable group of Islamist following the work of an admitted Pedophile thus making a reformation impossible.

        Yes & most of us Americans are Pissed Biden/Pelosi/Rinos dropping off 100’s of Thousands of those Afgan Islamic Pedo Creeps in our states a few months back.

    3. We are early in fact collection – but it appears the victim was fleeing, and was no longer on the defendants property when killed.

      While you point out a number of suspicious factors, and it would not take alot to justify this shooting,
      given the facts as they are currently offered – this shooting is not justified.

      I would prosecute the officer who Shot Alishi at the capital – this is similar – with the more egregious factor that the victim was fleeing.

      Even if you establish that the victim was a criminal or terrorist with evil intent – they were not armed and fleeing.

      1. Other than things that are common to all killings with a gun, this is nothing like the shooting of Ashli Babbitt.

      2. John B. Say,

        “I would prosecute the officer who Shot Alishi at the capital – this is similar – with the more egregious factor that the victim was fleeing.”

        Both incidents are nowhere close to being similar. The Ashli Babbitt incident involved a violent mob, police officers getting beaten up, illegal trespassing, and forced entry.

        The Texas incident involved no violence, no forced entry, and no threats other than the alleged threat from the fleeing man. There’s absolutely nothing similar in those two incidents.

  7. Perhaps reckless or negligent homicide is an appropriate finding here, but I’d want to know much more. What is the immediate area’s history of criminal activity? What is the homeowner’s specific history with criminal activity at the property? Is the property isolated, remote, or generally more vulnerable to a crime and distant to law enforcement? The article is too lacking in detail at this point to pass judgment on state of mind and reasonableness.

    1. FriscoDB wrote, “…I’d want to know much more. What is the immediate area’s history of criminal activity? What is the homeowner’s specific history with criminal activity at the property? Is the property isolated, remote, or generally more vulnerable to a crime and distant to law enforcement?”

      With the details I’ve read about this shooting, Mr. Turner’s pursuit and subsequent use of deadly force was unlawful regardless of any of those irrelevant details you would like to know. So far all indications are that Mr. Turner was the violent aggressor not the victim; extrapolating that thought, if Mr. Dghoughi had actually shot Mr. Turner when the pursuing Mr. Turner pointed his gun at him to shoot him it would likely have been a justified shooting based on Stand Your Ground. There could very well me more actual facts in this case that would change my opinion but that’s my opinion based on what I currently know.

      FriscoDB wrote, The article is too lacking in detail at this point to pass judgment on state of mind and reasonableness.”

      I do agree that we need more of the facts.

      1. Lets not overplay our hand here.

        Turner had plenty of justification for MOST of his actions.

        The key problems with Turner’s conduct are that the victim was fleeing and was no longer on his property.

        At the same time SYG would not apply to Dghoughi – his presence on Turner’s property was NOT justified.

        You can not stand your ground when you have no right to be where you are in the first place.

        1. At the same time SYG would not apply to Dghoughi – his presence on Turner’s property was NOT justified.

          Without questioning the victim, you have no idea whether it was justified or not. I’m a strong support of SYG and the 2nd amendment. The evidence available at this point does not look favorable for Turner.

        2. John B. Say,

          “ At the same time SYG would not apply to Dghoughi – his presence on Turner’s property was NOT justified.

          You can not stand your ground when you have no right to be where you are in the first place.”

          John. The stand your ground law isn’t being applied to Dghoughi. It’s Turner, the defendant who is claiming the SYG justification for shooting him.

          Dghoughi is dead, how is he claiming SYG as a defense?

          I think you may have mistakenly thought the SYG law is being applied to Dghougi.

        3. John B Say,
          In my opinion; the point I think you missed is that after Turner pursed Dghoughi into the street and Turner pointed his gun at Dghoughi, Turner was the threat and Dghoughi had every right to protect himself from that threat. Dghoughi did have the right to be in the public street and not be physically pursued and threatened by Turner, stand your ground would have applied.

  8. I agree that the homeowner will probably lose this case. However, it reminds me of Georg Buechner’s “Woyzeck” in the sense that there are extenuating circumstances which may help to explain the homeowner’s actions even if they do not justify them. Texas is under siege by illegal immigrants, a crisis that has been entirely manufactured by the Biden administration. Therefore Texans probably feel like they are in a constant state of emergency. I fail to believe that someone sitting in the driveway of a private individual at 3 am had his lights off out of courtesy. If he were really that courteous he would have found another place to turn around. I would like to see pictures of the home and the neighborhood. Even if the guy in the car had no nefarious intent, it would be a reasonable assumption for a homeowner to think that he did. At the same time, a reasonable assumption is not grounds for homicide, even in Texas. To me, both men are casualties of the evil administration currently destroying our country at lightning speed.

  9. I say Turner is toast. Unless one has reasonable evidence that a fleeing perp is a threat to others in the immediate area, there is virtually no reason to shoot.

    1. Weren’t you just telling everyone to wait for the facts to come in before concluding guilt?

      But it’s different with Baldwin I suppose.

      1. Young wrote, “Weren’t you just telling everyone to wait for the facts to come in before concluding guilt?”

        I think it’s reasonable to read into what this particular Anonymous wrote, “Unless one has reasonable evidence that a fleeing perp is a threat to others in the immediate area” that is literally stating that if there is evidence to counter what’s been presented so far that Anonymous will take that new evidence into account.

        You two are in violent agreement.

        1. ATS on Baldwin: “Like I said, there’s a lot here still awaiting fact finding.

          Those of you ready to convict should never be on a jury.”

          +++

          He virtue signals and insults when leftist Baldwin kills a woman working on his movie but is willing to hurry to judgment with this guy.

          1. Congratulations on joining your pal S. Meyer in referring to any anonymous commenter you disagree with as “Anonymous the Stupid” and believing that several different commenters are a single person.

            1. “on joining your pal S. Meyer”

              Based on your reply, you are Anonymous the Stupid trying to blame another or your pretend friends.

              What Young was pointing out is that you are a hypocrite. You draw your conclusions based on your ideology. Then you fill in the details of what happened with your junk while lying by omission and committing lies as well.

              1. I didn’t post any comments at all to the column Yes, Alec Baldwin Could Be Charged Criminally in the “Rust” Shooting But, and in this column, Young referred to at least two anonymous commenters with very different views as ATS.

                1. If you sound like Anonymous the Stupid, you are Anonymous the Stupid. If someone mistakes you for Anonymous the Stupid and you aren’t, you are Stupid for dressing up as a deer during deer season and wondering in the game forest pretending to be one. Things like that occasionally happen but are rare. Anonymous the Stupid wants to remain anonymous so he can blame others. He does that constantly.

                  1. You post lots of stupid anonymous comments yourself.

                    “Things like that occasionally happen but are rare.”

                    Actually, they’re common, and you like to pretend that they are rare.

                    1. When I deal with Stupid people I descend down to their level and deal with their repetitious or stupid ideas. For that I use an anonymous label. It saves other people time. When they see an anonymous posting they should delete it without reading, mine included.

                      Anonymous the Stupid likes to set up smoke screens and uses a lot of pretend friends.

            2. There is no means to know whether anonymous posts are from a single or multiple people.

              When you post anonymously – you assume the risk of being conflated with other anonymous posters.

              It is NOT the duty of the rest of us to sort our confusion that you know or should know that you create.

              That is YOUR problem.

              You have the right to post anonymously.

              But you do not have the right to impose duties onto others as a consequence of your anonymous posting.

              I think that the ATS appelation is overused.

              Regardless it is litterally impossible to defame an anonymous poster – so you have nothing to complain about.

              If S. Meyer has actually conflated multiple posters into one and then mis-applied an insult to some of those – there is no harm

              It is bad enough that left wing nuts elevate their fears to equivalence with actual acts of violence,
              that you take personally insults against an anonymous post is STUPID.

              If you do not want to be called Anonymous the STUPID – do not make STUPID arguments.

              By posting anonymously you have broken all connections between you as an identifiable person and your posts.

              That was a deliberate choice – it is the purpose of posting anonymously.

              You can not then take PERSONAL offense at being insulted or attacked – because you have abandoned any link between anonymous posts and your self.

              You keep trying to make this STUPID argument that you can own all the benefits of posting anonymously while at the same time demanding that everyone else must somehow sort out the actual identity of all anonymous posters so as to avoid defaming them.

              You can not defame anonymous. PERIOD.

              1. John, you’ve read an awful lot into a single “congrats” sentence. You have an overactive imagination.

            3. One of the Anonymous commenters wrote, “Congratulations on joining your pal S. Meyer in referring to any anonymous commenter you disagree with as “Anonymous the Stupid” and believing that several different commenters are a single person.”

              ^^^THIS^^^ is exactly why I chose the following personal policy. Here’s a fact; none of the commenters here know how many individuals are behind the Anonymous commenters. Conversing with commenters using the Anonymous moniker is like conversing with someone that has multiple personalities and you have no idea which personality you are addressing.

              It’s a bad blog policy to allow multiple individuals to use the exact same moniker, everyone should have a unique moniker and they should be able to choose a moniker that allows the individual to remain “anonymous” as in their real personal identity remains confidential. I choose to share my real name.

              My personal policy is…

              Due to the claims that there are multiple commenters using the Anonymous moniker and the problems that causes, I will no longer converse with anyone using the Anonymous moniker. If you want to converse with me then get yourself a unique moniker that no one else has, otherwise don’t waste your time.

              Thanks
              Steve

  10. You sit on high, talking about curtilage and castles,
    when it was your son,
    your lilly white valedictorian son,
    who pulled over in the night, to check a message, to smoke a cigarette, to clean his glasses,
    only to be shot to death.

    1. If the victim had a criminal record and Turley brought it up would you feel the same way? The ‘superfluous” goes to character and supports the view he was likely not up to anything nefarious.

  11. Is it just me, or would getting the license plate number and calling the police be a better and more viable solution in this circumstance? Society is on perpetual high alert these days. So much for uniting the nation. Let’s Go Brandon!!!

  12. I guarantee that everyone here has used a stranger’s driveway to turn their car around. Do it at 3am and have the courtesy to turn off your headlights before lighting up the house.

    1. Olly, though one needs to look at the street, driveway and surrounding areas, if I were turning around in someone’s driveway I wouldn’t turn my lights off. If I were going to sit there at 3AM I would have my car ‘parked’ in the roadway with my blinkers on. I don’t want anyone to be suddenly surprised.

      If the area was dangerous or frequently robbed I would be suspicious of anyone hiding themselves under the dark of night.

        1. Olly, I wouldn’t comment on the use of deadly force because I think too many details are lacking. I do believe that strangers to an area should be cognizant that in some areas there is significant justified fear, so that one shouldn’t park a car with its lights off on someone’s driveway at 3AM in the morning.

          1. I wouldn’t comment on the use of deadly force because I think too many details are lacking.

            Sure you would. You have critical-thinking skills. What possible detail(s) could be discovered to justify shooting at a vehicle, no longer on your property, windows up and leaving the scene?

            1. You asked what could be discovered? Almost anything, and that includes finding out that some of the information previously provided was wrong. I can think of many things that make one afraid and do something that people wouldn’t normally do. Some of those things might show up as entertainment where people laugh at it, but if we have learned one thing from what we have seen in recent times, we have learned that things we knew could never happen actually can happen.

              1. Agreed to the extent that we don’t know the entire case yet. It took them 2 weeks to make the arrest and perhaps they were crossing T’s and dotting I’s.

                1. Many years ago we were at a dinner party and one of the guests noted he had been born in Oklahoma which seemed odd based on what was known about him and his family. The question was asked, what brought the family to Oklahoma? His answer, witness protection. One never knows strange details until one digs deeper.

                  Just so you understand, there is no way I would have brought the gun outdoors much less shot at the guy. A gun is to kill unless you are trained to do otherwise. I would take a defensive position within the home with a sawn-off shotgun at my side and called the police. I would want easy mobility and wouldn’t want to injure the neighbor in the line of sight.

    2. Agreed, but it appears that the victim was in the driveway for sufficient time for Turner to go and get his gun.

      When I turn arround in someone else’s driveway, I do not dwaddle esp. at 4am.

      That alone does not justify the shooting, but given the facts we have thus far, there is justification for Turner to be suspicious,
      but not to pursue off his property and then kill Dghoughi.

      But further facts might change that.

  13. 0330 in the dark of night….parked in a stranger’s driveway….lights off….now what could possibly go wrong with that idea?

    I am ok with everything up to the pursuit aspect of this.

    Had there been some sort of physical confrontation, display of a weapon by the driver, or even a reasonable belief there was a weapon being at hand to the driver…..I would side with the homeowner.

    Upon the Driver attempting to flee/leave/depart without rolling down the window….and not trying to drive over the Homeowner….while the Homeowner was on the phone with 911….then the Home Owner lost all protections in my view.

    He should. have called 911, secured his weapon (meaning hold his weapon), remained in the house and waited for the Police to arrive.

    If someone attempted to forcibly enter his dwelling….then he is fully protected under Law to defend his property, his family, and himself using whatever force is necessary.

    There is far more to this story than is being told….one does not drive around to some strangers driveway, park, and listen to music to de-stress.

    It would appear the deceased had mental issues and could that have been a catalyst during the confrontation in the dark of night between the Home Owner and the Deceased?

    Was the Driver agitated, aggressive, making verbal threats, and acting in a manner that gave rise to the Home Owner being threatened by the Driver?

    At the minimum….the Driver was playing a stupid game…and won the kind of prize that causes.

    I am sure there was a Walmart Parking Lot somewhere he could have parked in to listen to his music….where he would have been safe (as safe as a Walmart Parking Lot or other public place in Martindale can be anyway).

    How much liability does the deceased have in his own demise at the hands of the Home Owner?

    Had he not invaded the privacy of the Home Owner none of this would have happened.

    Are we not responsible for our own actions?

    1. It’s entirely reasonable to assume the guy was just lost or just thought he was at the right place.

      He had no mental issues. He was a foreigner still not used to the area.

      Pulling into a driveway is not invasion of privacy. It’s trespassing. But even that alone is not enough to justify what the homeowner did. Not after chasing the guy who did leave the property and shot him after breaking the window. He was intent on killing the guy.

      1. “He had no mental issues. He was a foreigner still not used to the area.”
        **************************
        Debatable. Ain’t diversity grand? It’s our strength, ya know.

      2. Trespassing is a patent violation of one’s privacy.

        If the unlawful entering upon another’s property is not a violation of privacy….then what is it?

        Add in the time of day, darkness, and the manner of that Trespassing….and it becomes very much a dangerous thing to do.

        No matter your Race, Gender Identity, Sexual Orientation, Employment status, Nationality, or political leanings….staying off other’s property until invited to enter is a commonsense thing to do.

        But then commonsense amongst trolls is very scarce….as your post demonstrates.

        1. Ralph Chappell,

          There is zero expectation of privacy in a driveway open to the street. You can’t keep anything private in front of your house unless you have a solid wall enclosing your property.

          It’s trespassing. There is nothing private about a driveway. It IS private property, but not a zone of privacy. There’s a difference.

      3. I don’t even think it is trespassing. It is not trespassing to walk up to someone’s front door to ring the doorbell, nor is it trespassing to park in a driveway, unless it is posted or you are asked to leave and then refuse. You literally have a driveway so that people who are visiting you can park. It really does not matter if the driver was in fact visiting or just was checking on directions or turning around. Unless there is much more to this story, I cannot see a way that the homeowner was acting reasonably.

        1. It is a cause for suspicion.

          Given the facts so far – the homeowners actions become unreasonable when he pursues Dghoughi as he is fleeing, and worse when he kills him AFTER he has left his property.

  14. Interesting case. Just worth noting, that it is not sufficient to claim, that he had subjective belief that he had ground for self defense according to the law. The law specifies that such subjective belief, must be reasonable. Reasonable, means objective standards also.

    For example, I quote:

    Sec. 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:

    (1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;

    (2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct;

    Thanks

  15. Based on the information in this post, if they can’t convict Mr. Turner of 1st degree murder they will likely convict him of 2nd degree murder. Mr. Turner’s pursuit and subsequent use of deadly force was unlawful.

    1. When that someone is a foreigner, lost, confused or just plain turning around shouldn’t be strange.

      What IS strange is Turner’s claim that he was threatened with a gun. This was at 3am. It’s dark, the car was driving away with the windows rolled up and the headlights were on. You can’t see anything inside any vehicle under those conditions. Even using the stand your ground defense won’t help him. He was chasing a fleeing individual in a car. What was the threat to his life?

      Sounds like Turner was too eager to confront the guy instead and ended up doing something monumentally stupid.

            1. I did make up S(tupid) Meyer, aka Allan the Abusive, long after he’d made up names for several other people. Beyond that, not sure what you have in mind.

              1. You copied another’s idea and continue to do so over and over again. You mistake the ability to copy genius as genius. It isn’t. You copy because you lack the brain power to be original.

        1. Mespo, aircraft ramps are lighted. No need to have lights on the ramp. It’s common courtesy to have them off on the ramp since most taxi lights are quite bright. In fact you can land without them too. It’s common to practice landing at night without landing lights in case they do go out.

            1. Mespo,

              Svelaz is thinking of the landing light which is bright. I would expect that he would not move the plane at night without having the navigation lights, red and green, on the wingtips illuminated as well as the strobe.

              1. For those uninvolved in flying think of two boats traveling at night in opposite directions in the channel while neither has any lights.

              2. Young, the strobes would only be lit just prior to takeoff. It’s considered rude to have your strobes on while taxiing. Tail beacon, always on.

          1. Svelaz– “It’s common to practice landing at night without landing lights in case they do go out.”

            +++

            I did it in Tonopah many years ago but it wasn’t practice. My light had gone out. Very, very dark in that part of the desert and it turned out only one side of the runway lights were working. I had to call down to the FBO to find out which side of the runway the single string of lights should be on for the direction I was landing. Turning for final was hairy because my artificial horizon went out in severe turbulence a few days before. . Once down my passenger got out and she led me to parking with a flashlight. We tied down, grabbed our sleeping bags, and slept under the wing.

            1. Young, only one side was lit?! That’s dicey. You didn’t think of heading to an alternate?

              That was a very risky move.

              1. I was exhausted after coming north at night on partial panel. I was confusing stars with the few lights on the ground and vice versa. Not instrument rated yet and I was flying in a black sack with partial panel, every move gentle. One interesting thing, lots of military in the region and Area 51 off to my right somewhere. My transponder light didn’t blink; it was on solidly so I was swept with lots of radar. I couldn’t see the ground or the runway and I knew there were mountains around. I called the field and asked about the mountains and they said the field was in a dry lake bed and if I stayed near I wouldn’t hit the mountains. I flew straight to the rotating beacon– I was west of it– and then saw only one side of the runway lights were on and asked which side. Then I flew out into the dark and made a 180 to line up with the beacon and the lights. I was not sure where the ground was and I came in too high and had to go around again, lower. Still too high and around again. In my last turn I imagined my wingtip being only a few feet above the ground but I was low enough when I leveled to land. Still couldn’t see the runway, no landing light, so I felt for it easing down slowly keeping the runway lights to my right. Suddenly there was a bright flash and I gasped, surprised and startled, and then made a smooth landing. The bright flash was the navigation lights reflecting off the tarmac. It was very, very dark. Glad to finally go to sleep on the ground under the wing. Sometimes you just have to take what’s available and do it. Losing the artificial horizon in turbulence was worse. I flew through Crow’s Nest Pass in the Canadian Rockies. If you go that way you have a plane that will take you over the top. Do that. Flying through the pass is like flying through a narrow alley. You will go up a lot and down a lot, rate of climb pegging both ways, and fly sideways, knife edge, probably and will be fighting against going inverted. One moment the engine will scream and the tach will race up and in the next you will be hit from behind and the stall warning will go off, then engine screaming again…and it lasts a long time. When you finally try to let go of the yoke you won’t be able to straighten your fingers, holding too tight too long. Go above the mountains and they say mornings are better. Two days later I returned the same way and it was wretched, maybe worse.

      1. Of course it is strange – do people turn pull into your driveway at 4am with their lights off daily ?

        If not is it strange.

        Dghoughi’s conduct might be reasonable given facts neither we not Turner could have known.
        But it is still suspicious.

        Nor is it strange for Turner to beleive he was threatened by a gun – even though none was found.

        You claim Turner could not see – that is all the more reason for Turner to be confused – to misperceive.

        While given current facts this shooting does not appear to be justified – that hinges on Turner pursuing beyond his property.

    2. mespo727272 wrote, “Very strange that someone would be parked in your driveway at night with the lights off. I’d be checking for burglary tools in the car.”

      Yes it’s kind of strange to park in the driveway of someone you don’t know with your lights off and yes it does raise red flag suspicion; however, that is absolutely no excuse for the home owner doing what he did. Stand your ground and Castle Doctrine does not give individuals unlimited card blanche.

      1. Steve:
        What exactly did he do wrong? Look in the dimly lit car after trying to get to stop? See what he thought was a gun? Fire in self-defense? Exactly what?

        1. mespo727272 asked, “What exactly [Turner] do wrong?”

          Pursuit of a suspect is not, I repeat NOT part of Stand Your Ground or the Castle Doctrine! Turner became the aggressor when he actively pursued Dghoughi beyond the confines of his property and criminally liable when he squeezed the trigger. Yes Dghoughi is the victim and Turner is the one who is criminally liable. Turner went well beyond what is reasonable for self defense when he pursued someone that was retreating and not a threat. I think he should seek some kind of defense that shows that he temporary freaked out.

          Does that answer your question?

    3. So you think a burglar is going to pull up in the driveway of the house he’s going to burglarize? lol.

    1. JH

      Stupid man kills someone and silly man writes a stupid post about it.

      There is no law that you describe and we will see what the courts decide.

      Until then, your post is just emotion speaking.

      1. Monumentcolorado,

        JH does have a point. It’s the law and Texas reputation for being a trigger happy state. While that may be an over generalization it is a well earned stereotype.

        It reminds me of an old South Park episode that made fun of such laws where all you had to do to justify killing anything was to yell “look it’s coming right for me!”

        Since Texas has done away with any licensing requirements or any training whatsoever in order to get a weapon these kinds of incidents may become more common.

        1. Svelaz wrote, “Since Texas has done away with any licensing requirements or any training whatsoever in order to get a weapon these kinds of incidents may become more common.”

          This statement shows a lack of understanding of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

          1. Justice Scalia (majority opinion, DC v. Heller): “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

          2. Witherspoon,

            Part of being able to enjoy the right afforded to you by the 2nd amendment is the ability to be responsible with your weapons. It’s accepting the responsibility of understanding exactly what you can and can’t do with your weapon.

            Just like free speech. You have the responsibility to understand that everything you can say is not protected. You can’t state you want to kill the President without consequences. Every right has limits.

            1. Svelaz wrote, “Part of being able to enjoy the right afforded to you by the 2nd amendment is the ability to be responsible with your weapons. It’s accepting the responsibility of understanding exactly what you can and can’t do with your weapon.”

              You’ll get no disagreement from me on individual responsibility points, I’m right with you there; however, none of those points support your previous argument that “Since Texas has done away with any licensing requirements or any training whatsoever in order to get a weapon…”; there literally are no “licensing requirements or any training” requirements associated with the 2nd Amendment and getting a weapon, period, end of discussion. There are licensing requirements for fully automatic firearms, that is the current limitations on firearms; are you implying that there should be licensing requirements for non-fully-automatic firearms, if so you and I are on opposite ends of our understanding of the 2nd Amendment.

              There are laws to punish those that are irresponsibly use firearms or use firearms in criminal activity just like there are laws to punish those that are irresponsible with lots of other deadly things and serious consequences for those that use their right to free speech to threaten others. Individual responsibility is very important.

              What you actually wrote in your initial argument is what I commented on and your statement that I quoted showed a lack of understanding of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

              1. Witherspoon,

                I’m saying there should always be mandatory training. Not just a three hour course and do a short multiple choice quiz. It should be a full blown review of what exactly you can and cannot do with a gun. If there are going to be responsible gun owners all should go thru a thorough training course with yearly refreshers.

                1. Apparently you know nothing of the intent of the 2nd, the rest of the USC & Fed Govt’s limits of their power vs their Bosses, the people.

                  You show here you’re against US citizen’s freedom & trust govt to be your daddy. You’re not completely wrong you’re just another pushing power/authority the wrong direction. How has that worked out in history other then just more Slaves?

                  You’re not a serious person.

                2. Svelaz wrote, “I’m saying there should always be mandatory training.”

                  It’s obvious that you really don’t understand the 2nd Amendment.

                  Government imposed mandatory training to keep and bear arms is literally the government infringing upon an existing Constitutional right and exactly why the 2nd Amendment exists! The 2nd Amendment is specifically there to limit the ability of the government to infringe upon the individuals right to keep and bear arms. What you are suggesting would be a rough equivalent to requiring training to exercise your right to free speech; even stupid people, irresponsible people and people you disagree with have the right to free speech OR requiring an individual to be trained to vote. Infringing on individual rights is a very slippery slope.

                  Personally I think it is a civic duty to obtain appropriate firearm training that is specific to the type of firearm the individual has and specific to their intended use. There is a HUGE difference between a civic duty and a government mandated unconstitutional law to obtain firearm training before an individual can keep and bear arms.

        2. Svelaz– “Texas reputation for being a trigger happy state”
          +++

          And yet more people are shot on a weekend in blue Chicago than are shot in ‘trigger happy’ Great State of Texas in a week [or month]. But Teas has the ‘reputation ‘ for you.

        3. Please Google to your hearts content and then share all the cases concerning “trigger happy” Texans getting away with murder that would establish a stereotype you claim. I’ll be waiting…

            1. Young, the Anonymous at 11:26 AM was responding to Svelaz and asking for evidence of the “stereotype” that “Texas [has a] reputation for being a trigger happy state”. Good to know that you lump that Anonymous in with the other people you think of as “ATS.” Methinks that the S applies to you, Young, better than it applies to those you call “ATS.”

      1. Meanwhile, Turley is silent about all of the recent actions on Texas’s unconstitutional SB 8, even though SCOTUS granted cert to hear oral arguments about whether the US can sue “the State, state court judges, state court clerks, other state officials, or all private parties to prohibit S.B. 8 from being enforced” and those arguments are scheduled for Nov. 1, before the arguments in Dobbs.

        As Steve Vladeck noted, “this is #SCOTUS moving *stunningly* fast. The last time I can recall so little time (here, 10 days) between the Court agreeing to take up a case and the oral argument was in December 2000, in Bush v. Gore.”

        1. SB 8 is un-Constitutional….gee…there I was thinking the SCOTUS had only agreed to hear the Case but had not done so yet!

          Are you clairvoyant or have some sort of crystal ball you gaze into?

          1. Have you **read** SB 8?

            If SB 8 is constitutional, then any state can get around the Constitution in the same way. For example, New York could allow citizens to sue any gun owner for $10,000 despite the owner having a constitutional right to gun ownership.

            SCOTUS hasn’t agreed to rule on the constitutionality of SB 8.

            In US v. Texas, they agreed to hear “Whether the United States may bring suit in federal court and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against the state, state court judges, state court clerks, other state officials, or all private parties to prohibit Texas Senate Bill 8 from being enforced,” which is a different question than whether the underlying law is or isn’t constitutional.

            In a separate case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, that will be heard at the same time, they will rule on “Whether a state can insulate from federal-court review a law that prohibits the exercise of a constitutional right by delegating to the general public the authority to enforce that prohibition through civil actions.”

            You had better worry if their answer is “yes.”

            1. There is no mystery in sex and conception. A woman and man have four choices and still six weeks. Even with social progress, in the interest of medical progress, and climate mitigation, too, the rite to sacrifice… abort a human life is limited to the arbitrary age of viability. The acutely phobic reaction and apology peddled by abortionists is a strawclown dressed as a strawman. The Constitution, less the Twilight Amendment (“penumbras and emanations”), does not tolerate slavery, diversity [dogma] (e.g. racism, sexism), or [elective] abortion without borders.

          2. Given the current state of the law the initial SCOTUS SB 8 ruling was correct, those challenging the law had no standing, there was no controversy or case.

            The same appears to continue to be true.

            So long as the current standing regimine holds SB 8 can not be challenged until it is used.

            I am not much interested in crockodile tears fromt he left over being denied standing – after all the reason that claims of election fraud were not investigated by the courts rested on the same standing arguments.

            Personally I think the current caselaw on standing is clearly wrong.

            Standing should not be necessary to challenge the constitutionality or lawfulness of a government action.

            SB 8 is bad law and unconstitutional for reasons that have nothing to do with abortion, and it is a tactic that can just as easily be abused by the left as the right.

            The worst outcome for all of us is for the courts to duck the constitutionality of laws because of lack of standing.

            1. At least one doctor has already been sued under SB 8. It has already been used.

              You are also wrong that a law cannot be challenged until it is used. Not only have laws been challenged prior to taking effect, SCOTUS has stayed implementation of laws prior to their taking effect, and has struck down laws as unconstitutional prior to their taking effect.

        2. I do not care if they move fast or slow.

          The standing doctrine as it was applied shielding SB8 and the assorted election challenges should be trashed.

          At the same time – I can not see any reason that the US AG should ever have standing to challenge a state law.

          The original challenge to the TX law should have proceeded to the merits.
          The challenges tot he 2020 election should have all proceeded to discovery and hearings on the merits.

          But the DOJ challenge to the TX law should fail for lack of standing.

          1. John say,

            You say we should get rid of standing. But doing so it would allow the US AG to challenge state law.

Leave a Reply