TexasCHLforum.com

TexasComputerDude wrote:

Purplehood wrote:So he is a liar that shot an armed-robber in self-defense.

Not guilty.

Next~!

I believe he shouldn't be guilty of murder, but he should at least get a reprimand or some small charge for lying. He gave a false statement to the police I believe, I need to reread everything.

From what I gather, he is not the brightest light in the room. Perhaps he was just spouting off nervously to the police and got carried-away with his "statements". He may not even remember just what he did say in the first place. In any event, the fact that he misrepresented his Military history has no bearing on the facts of the shooting itself.

So he is a liar that shot an armed-robber in self-defense.

Not guilty.

Next~!

Pete92FS wrote:

Purplehood wrote:

dicion wrote:IMO It's not all it's cracked up to be. Especially for SD Carry.

Read this review to see what I mean

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot41.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

However, if you want to shoot clays or snakes with it, you're gold :)

Well that was a dose of cold water on that idea.

From reading the article it looks like if you keep it loaded with the .45 long you'd be OK for SD.

Might as well buy a .45 SA in that case.

dicion wrote:IMO It's not all it's cracked up to be. Especially for SD Carry.

Read this review to see what I mean

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot41.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

However, if you want to shoot clays or snakes with it, you're gold :)

Well that was a dose of cold water on that idea.

I have been seriously considering the acquisition of a Taurus Judge.

WildBill wrote:

Purplehood wrote:"Self, did this guy/gal fire the first shot in legitimate self-defense"? If the answer is yes, everything, and I mean everything afterwards is immaterial and I would vote to acquit.

What if the pharmacist doused the BG with gasoline and set him on fire? Still not guilty?

Doesn't that seem a tad out of context and a bit of a stretch?

I wanted to think this one over before replying, as it seems to have ramifications beyond the simple "was it self-defense" and could apply to cases where perpetrators end up filing against the victim.

In a nutshell, if I were sitting on a jury I think I would ignore jury instructions and say to myself,

"Self, did this guy/gal fire the first shot in legitimate self-defense"? If the answer is yes, everything, and I mean everything afterwards is immaterial and I would vote to acquit.

This is my opinion. I am not a lawyer, bet you couldn't tell, could you?