TexasCHLforum.com

TxRVer wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:45 pmI heard on the news this morning that the truck driver could have taken a breakdown lane, but didn't.

I heard this also and was told it was the basis for the charges and convictions. The driver supposedly had the brakes fail and still went past the runaway truck lane that would have stopped him. This made his behavior reckless enough to support the charges.

I am lucky and never had a truck runaway on me like that, though I have had a few scares at times. Having said that, I still have trouble believing that this was provable and reckless enough to support that many charges. My other problem with it is the DA put that many counts of each on to try to force a plea bargain. If the DA knew the law required consecutive instead of concurrent sentencing, he should have known this result would come about. I believe the DA was not looking for justice or fairness, but wanted a conviction at any cost. Now most of Colorado is asking the governor for clemency and the legislature to change this law.

Rafe wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:24 pmFor the life of me, I can't in recent memory recall an actual debate with someone who leans more than about -10% left. There seems to seldom be any rationality, any applied logic or critical thinking. All emotions and perceptions. It must have been how Eratosthenes felt trying to convince people that the world wasn't flat. "Poppycock! Your evidence means nothing! It's one of your radical science-conservative tricks! It's all Trump's doing!"

I have had some debates with a liberal acquaintance (co-worker) who is at least somewhat honest about it. He will half-way agree to the facts and logic they imply, but his fallback argument is that he just can't get past the feelings involved. I find it humorous that he basically admits that he knows the facts and ignores them to react on an emotional basis.

Of course, he is a UT grad, so that might help explain it.

rtschl wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 12:02 pmAndrew Branca's website for drafting "Kyle's Law":
https://losd.ubpages.com/kyleslaw/

As a general rule, I agree with the concept of this proposed Kyle's law. But I have a couple minor problems with it. The first is in asking the jury to decide if he failed to prove the case by a little or a large amount. I am not sure I trust the jury to make that decision, especially since they are selected from the public which supported the DA in making the charges. This can be worked out but I would need to see the specific wording of the proposed instruction before I could agree with this.

The second problem is defining which prosecutor is liable. Is it the actual lawyer at the trial or the elected DA? What happens when the DA orders the ADA to prosecute the case? Does it make a difference if the ADA does a poor job because he disagrees with the case? The DA is responsible for everything in his office, so I propose it always be the elected DA who is liable.

The third is his example of the charging officer alleging something to make the probable cause and then it not being introduced at trial. The officer may have had that belief and some evidence but has no say in what is presented at the trial. I am not opposed to holding the officer liable if he lies, but the suggested method of showing he did not have probable cause is way off. The probable cause statement was reviewed by at least a DA to decide to accept charges (immediately in big cities and within a day or two in all cases) and a judge when it was reviewed for bail. This is true in Texas at least. Do we hold all of them equally liable? What about the police supervisor who approved the case and report (again, this is done in Texas on every case but I cannot say every state does it)?

J.R.@A&M wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 11:26 am Post-trial, I am mostly agreeing with this perspective: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... el/620715/ . Easy for me to say since I had no property at risk from rioting arsonists. But that is one more reason I wouldn't want an armed teenager there, either.

I disagree for several reasons, some of which have been mentioned by others and at least one of which has not. I do agree that Rittenhouse should not have gone to Kenosha that night. But that is what comes of age and experience. I have done some stupid things, especially back when I was 17. That includes going to places which are not safe. But going there does not make him a vigilante, as the article slipped in. If it did, every bank guard who carried a gun would also be a vigilante.

I could almost agree that none of this should make Rittenhouse a folk hero. Even knowing our history of making folk heroes out of criminals like Billy the Kid, Jesse James, Al Capone, and Bonnie and Clyde, I think this makes Rittenhouse much more of a folk hero than anything George Floyd did. And if the left can build monuments to him, the right can certainly elevate Rittenhouse's stature somewhat.

Paladin wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:07 am The Real Reason the Left Hates Kyle Rittenhouse

That right there is why they hate Kyle. They hate Kyle, because he showed the world, exactly why someone might need an AR-15.

I had not thought of this part of it before, but they are right that this is pretty damaging to the left's arguments against "assault rifles".

TxRVer wrote: ↑Sun Nov 14, 2021 3:37 pm Will the national guard be using hollow points?

They have other exploding bullets, like the ones the judge referenced.

AndyC1911 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 12, 2021 12:34 pm It's annoying watching these lawyers spar over the fact that, when Kyle shot people, he didn't intend to kill them. The prosecutors are trying to hem the fences in towards a false dichotomy of either he meant to kill or he didn't.

Where's the whole middle ground of "I shot to stop the attack"?

The difference between shot with the intent to kill and shot with the intent to stop the threat is the difference (in Texas) between murder and manslaughter. I would be very surprised if it was not the difference in Wisconsin between first and second degree homicide. That is why the prosecutors and defense argue so much on this.

That is why Amber Guyger, the female Dallas officer, was convicted of murder. She testified she intended to kill when she pulled the trigger.

Paladin wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 3:57 pmlink

If the article at this link is correct, Grosskreutz just completely blew the prosecutions case. Not only did he admit his hand held a gun, but he testified that he was headed over to try to "protect" Rittenhouse because Huber was attacking him. Grosskreutz said he was afraid Rittenhouse was going to be badly beat up and injured. He justified self-defense against two of the three attackers.

He also just convinced any fence sitters that the ACLU should be abolished. He was at the protests working for them. The ACLU is a lot like the FBI to me. A long time ago, I thought they were in general doing a decent and important job and were just getting it wrong in a few rare cases. Then I became more irritated at their refusal to recognize all rights of everyone and they were taking a much more liberal political slant. Now I am convinced they have gone completely corrupt and need to be abolished. We need someone to do that job of making sure the government does not infringe on people's rights, but it must be done evenly and fighting for all rights.

Of course, there is Grosskreutz's credibility problem. I have trouble believing any thing he says.

Jose_in_Dallas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 5:53 pmPardon my ignorance but does nothing become of him regarding the straw purchase on the AR? I know in the bigger picture, he gets acquitted of some bigger charges but I don't think he's getting off scot-free.

That one is a separate issue and I don't know if the feds are going to go after him for it or not. So far, I am not sure if there really was a straw purchase or it is just the way the kids talk about things. That one could get interesting to prove. Of course, knowing the ATF and how honest and fair they are, I feel confident that they will go after him and the friend for it if he does walk on the trial now.

rtschl wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 4:27 pm More FBI malfeasance. So the prosecution brings FBI agent to testify about drone footage, but FBI denies defense team access to HD footage and does not tell the defense that there is a higher resolution version, which the FBI now claims no longer exists.

However, the FBI allegedly testified, in private, that they were in possession of another version of the video in HD that they did not supply the members of the defense, according to Human Events. When asked for a copy of the tape, the FBI allegedly denied the defense’s request, saying that the video no longer existed, according to the report.

https://dailycaller.com/2021/11/03/fbi- ... use-trial/

If this is true, it gets Rittenhouse off scot-free and lets all sides walk away with no change in the status quo and no decision on if it was self-defense or not. A Brady violation (hiding exculpatory evidence) is a violation of his rights that can cause the judge to set him free as punishment to the prosecution. The prosecutor can claim he did not hide it, the FBI lost it (and has already said in that article that they are not under his control). He can run for re-election based on having tried Rittenhouse and done his "best" for justice. The FBI doesn't care either way about the case or even looking bad by "losing" the video. They don't even care that everyone knows they deliberately destroyed it. And Rittenhouse is set free with no punishment so he and his lawyers are at least satisfied if not outright happy about it.

And the American people, especially Wisconsin residents, are the big losers because there is no clear cut decision on who was right and when self-defense is allowed. And we all get to stay just as divided as we are on believing who was right and wrong in this case.

I believe the appropriate quote is that "something is rotten in Denmark."

Paladin wrote: ↑Tue Nov 02, 2021 9:52 pmThe FBI investigated this shooting at the outset. The only reason I can think of that the FBI would sit on this important evidence would be that they actually support the destructive nationwide rioting and were simultaneously against law abiding citizens protecting themselves and their communities.

A long, long time ago, I used to admire and support the FBI. I even considered applying to them as an agent. Later, when I became a cop I learned that there were some good agents and some bad agents, but that the agency as a rule was too heavily involved in politics. As time progressed, I realized that the FBI was not here to help anybody except themselves.

As I learned some history, I found out about how J. Edgar Hoover ran the agency and used its powers for his own political gain, without regard to right or wrong or the cost to citizens - individually or collectively. As I see what the FBI is doing now, I believe even Hoover would be shocked by their behavior. I just haven't decided if he would be proud of what they have become or jealous of what they have gotten away with.

I am not a supporter of the defund the police movement. I do think there is some reform that is needed in law enforcement, but my experience as a patrolman says that most police officers are good men who are trying to do a hard job because it is what they believe in. Having said that, I firmly believe that the FBI is one of the first police agencies that MUST be done away with if we want our country to survive. And we must be extremely watchful of anything that attempts to replace it.

philip964 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 24, 2021 9:13 pmhttps://news.yahoo.com/starts-fundraise ... 01421.html

Fundraiser for police officer who was fired for donating to Kyle Rittenhouse’s legal defense fund.

From what I have seen, there may be just a little more to this story than just his donating to Rittenhouse's defense fund. From some of the stories in the police forums, it seems like he made the donation using city equipment and his city email address. If true, this is part of how the chief can claim (and make it stick) that he gave the impression the department felt that way also. Was he fired for making the donation (well, for the publicity that surrounded it) of for violating his agency policy on use of city equipment, etc.? I think he was fired for the donation and the publicity it caused, but I also think he might have made the donation in a way that makes the firing legal.

Even if he did it on his own computer and with his own email, if he publicly identified himself as a lieutenant with that department (such as in his Faceboook profile) he probably violated his agency policies and opened himself to this kind of problem. Many police departments (if not all) have very strict social media policies on the members and their personal time. Courts have upheld these policies because of the very reason the chief cited - public trust in the department.

philip964 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 3:45 pmHe avoided out of state charge. But who is committing a crime in the straw purchase. 19 yo or 17 yo? Somewhat surprised with all the high powered attorneys, they permitted a jailhouse interview. Or did they?

The 19 year old was already charged with two counts of giving a minor a deadly weapon resulting in death. That is the state charges. If he really said this during the interview, both the 17 year old and the 19 year old are now facing federal charges for the straw purchase.

This is another example of why you do not talk to the police (or especially to the media) without a lawyer if you are ever involved in a shooting.

eyedoc wrote: ↑Fri Aug 28, 2020 9:18 pm

Oldgringo wrote: ↑Fri Aug 28, 2020 9:17 pm How this plays out is going to be most interesting and will probably depend, in large part, on how the election plays out, you reckon?

Maybe Trump will pardon him if he gets convicted or befor he leaves office if he doesn't win.

Trump cannot issue any pardon for state crimes, only federal ones.

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 28, 2020 12:43 pmThat said, the shooter here likely could not legally carry a handgun, so I can't fault him on this point.

His other mistake was that he could not legally carry a rifle either. In Wisconsin, it is illegal for a minor to be in possession of any loaded weapon.