TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 5:10 pm

crazy2medic wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 3:06 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 2:41 pm

RoyGBiv wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 5:24 pm

philip964 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 2:58 pm https://www.dallasnews.com/news/courts/ ... e-charges/

Grand jury decides not to indict volunteer who shot church shooter dead with some of the best under stress marksmanship we have seen.

DA said they made the right decision.

I’m sort of surprised that this was sent to a grand jury. Is it required?

Legally this invokes Double Jeopardy.
It's a good thing, but costly.

Unfortunately, jeopardy does not attach. Some cases are submitted to successive grand juries trying to an indictment.

Chas.

Big Question, Could that be something that can be passed into Texas Law? Where by if a Grand jury fails to indict or no bills an individual they are no longer in jeopardy?

I haven't researched to see if there is a constitutional issue involved, but I think the answer is yes. I think it should be a one-shot for the state. I also think jeopardy should attach when a case is tried to a hung jury. The state should get one attempt to convict someone. If they can't convince 12 jurors the defendant is guilty then, in my view, they have failed to meet the burden of proof.

Chas.

I am not sure that jeopardy attaching at a grand jury is a good thing. The grand jury is to determine probable cause for a trial and if it isn't there, the police may be able to develop it and bring the case back later. Just think about the cold cases where new science shows something and helps make the case. A suspect in an older case might have been no-billed at the time and now DNA proves it up. I am not saying it shouldn't be looked into because I have seen the current system abused (one case where the DA took an off-duty officer involved in a shooting to four grand juries in a row before he got an indictment). I am just saying I have doubts about it and it should be thoroughly checked.

But I am 100% in agreement with the hung jury idea. I have never understood how that concept came about. I understand why they need to convince all 12 to convict, but why does a not guilty verdict have to be unanimous also. I agree with Charles, if they cannot convince all 12, they did not meet the burden and the accused should be found not guilty and the case is over.

Sounds to me like the shooter picked the wrong church and this one was prepared with an armed security team.

From the article:

A church leader starts telling people to quiet down and be seated.

"Everything is under control. Our security team did everything they needed to do," the person said.

There is a second line in the article that can be taken two ways:

A new Texas law allowing worshippers to carry guns in religious locations went in to effect just months before the shooting.

I am not sure if they are blaming the law for the shooting or giving it credit for the security team being able to help.