TexasCHLforum.com

Liberty wrote:

Keith B wrote:Remember that just because the Grand Jury no-billed him, doesn't mean he didn't break the law; it just means they didn't feel there was enough solid evidence to pursue the charges.

and even if he didn't break the law doesn't prove he isn't a jerk! or that he behaved properly.

And nothing we have proves he is or that he didn't.

Liberty is correct, it doesn't prove that he didn't break the law. It simply proves that the Grand Jury did not believe enough evidence exists to pursue charges. This could mean any number of things - that it was clear he was not in the wrong, or that it was not clear enough that he had broken the law to pursue charges. The end result is that he has not been charged, and that he should be getting his CHL back. Perhaps he learned how to better handle himself in tense situations. Perhaps the coach's husband learned that it's a foolish idea to initiate physical violence in response to a verbal disagreement.

Grand Jury proceedings are confidential, so we're not going to learn any specifics. Now, can we please stop speculating?

Yup. There was more to the story than was reported.

I suspected that what we were told by the media was a sensationalized version of the event, which is why i declined to participate in that particular discussion.

In the end, the grand jury did not feel he committed a crime, which speaks volumes more than any of our speculation. Unfortunately, there's likely not going to be a media hooplah about the resolution (or any further reporting at all). If they do mention it, it's more likely going to be in vague generalities and not a proper explanation of any supporting reasoning why he would have been no-billed. People will still widely be left to their already-solidified conclusions and outrage without any solid reasoning to counter it.