TexasCHLforum.com

MasterOfNone wrote: .... The only people who suffer the judgement are the taxpayers of the jurisdiction. ...

While I have no problem with sticking the bill to judges, prosecutors, cops Senators, Representatives, Mayors, and any one else caught abusing their trust and positions, it is the taxpayers who hired these guys. It might be more instructive to send every taxpayer a separate bill for their share of a judgement, instead of burying it in the regular tax bills.

Kythas wrote:One thing that struck me on the Supreme Court's decision was this line:

The State did not produce any evidence to contradict Petitioner's testimony he routinely carried the concealed weapon, and did not deliberately arm himself in anticipation of a conflict that evening.

I read this as follows: If a person does not routinely carry a concealed weapon, but only does so when he believes the probability of its need is high, this may be seen as a provocation. However, if one routinely carries a concealed weapon, the fact that a person is carrying the weapon would not be seen as a provocation.

Very interesting and further reason to carry 24/7.

Yes, that is one of the things that jumped out at me too.

"News" account. Quotes because it appears it was bascially a reprint of a press release by the petitioner's lawyer. Doesn't mean it is wrong or inaccurate, but not straight news (if there is such a thing) account.
http://uspolitics.einnews.com/247pr/249871" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SC Supreme Court Decision here:
http://www.sccourts.org/opinions/HTMLFiles/SC/27047.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Maybe I am cynical/biased, but I can't help but thinking that the prosecutor, judge, maybe the jury, and the appellate court really wanted to put this guy in jail for using a gun...

Synopsis:

After complaints by host, apartment security guard (license, concealed handgun, 30% VA disability, messed up foot) tells loud and inebriated visitor to leave. When visitor refuses, guard calls cops. Visitor decides to go. Guard follows to exit of apartment building and out onto sidewalk where he expects to meet the police and point out visitor's direction of travel. Visitor and buddy turn back towards guard, advance rapidly while trash talking, and visitor reaches under his shirt for what turns out to be a bottle of booze. Guard pulls pistol and fires, killing visitor.

This just prior to SC enacting "Stand your ground" and "Castle Doctrine" law. Prosecutor gets murder indictment from GJ. Trial jury given choice of murder or voluntary manslaughter, convicts on manslaughter. Sixteen year sentence. Appellate court refuses to over turn. All but one Supreme Court member votes to overturn, says should have been a directed verdict for acquittal from the beginning (i.e. there was no evidence of a crime to support prosecution). Guard spent five years in prison.

Interesting comments in decision about interpretation of guard's actions -- language used, manner, how other people percieved his state of mind, etc. Not very long, good reading, things to think about.