TexasCHLforum.com

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.

ELB wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 3:53 pm One thing I keep reading on other forums is that "In Texas all homicides have to be taken to a grand jury."

I thought that sounded fishy, and I can find no such requirement in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedures, nor so far in any other Code. Is there any actual statutory/legal precedent/or other actual rule that says this? All I have found so far is that if the DA wants to prosecute a felony, he has to take it to a grand jury and get an indictment (unlike misdemeanors where he can issue an information and prosecute on his own authority).

Any idea where this notion comes from?

That's not true. Most homicides are presented to a grand jury, but it's not required. When it's a self-defense case, it's to the benefit of the intended victim to get a "no bill."

Chas.

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.

flechero wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 6:10 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:56 pm If anyone wants to start a thread dealing with "best practices" for volunteer church security teams, please do so. However, if you plan to post something attacking Jack Wilson on this thread, don't waste your time. It will be deleted.

Chas.

Thank you for that.

They/he saved countless lives... was it possible to save 1 or 2 more? Possibly, but let's not lose sight of the fact that they aren't the US secret service, they are a volunteer group of parishioners that did the best they could. My hat's off to them.

troglodyte wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 8:48 am

Will we do things differently now, absolutely, but we also have to be very discerning that we don't get in the way of our true responsibility, trying to seek and save the lost.

That's a good and mature way to look at it. Maybe it's one of those things that if you ID someone who is of interest, have a member of the team that can take them to another area to pray with them or more proactively offer them help... and that would also separate them from the rest of the Church.

No easy answers but I applaud you for keeping sight of the Lord's work, in addition to keeping the body safe.

We can learn much from after action reports and the video is invaluable for training purposes. Just as every airline crash makes commercial aviation safer, I hope this event results in volunteer security personnel carrying out their duties in a safer and more effective manner. Whether our experience in doing anything is great or small, we can always learn from others' experience. Analyzing the event so we can learn from it is fine, but attacking a brave man who saved countless lives is not going to happen here on the Forum.

Chas.

If anyone wants to start a thread dealing with "best practices" for volunteer church security teams, please do so. However, if you plan to post something attacking Jack Wilson on this thread, don't waste your time. It will be deleted.

Chas.

Lena wrote: ↑Thu Jan 02, 2020 7:00 pm Blue line said 60' 20 yds, oddly a week ago at our last match we had 2 20 yd headshots, nothing new there.

I agree that a 20 yd head shot against a stationary target in a match is no big deal. Twenty yards against a moving target under extreme stress is an entirely different matter.

Chas.

KC5AV wrote: ↑Wed Jan 01, 2020 2:19 pm Has anyone seen calculations on how far Wilson's shot was?

I read that Wilson said it was about 10 yds, but it looked more like 12 to 15 yds. The angle of the camera makes it hard to estimate.

Chas.

carlson1 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 12:50 am

philip964 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 12:43 am Parishioner hero with a license to carry - Security Guard

Hero defender of the congregation - Gunman

These are not accidents or a rush to get a story out, this is ingrained negative bias.

The murderers sister said it was her other brother’s Birthday. He committed suicide in 2008.

Both brothers were on and off homeless. He came to the church often for help. He apparently could quote the Bible. She was unaware of any hard feelings he had for the church as they had always treated him well.

One shot from Mr. Wilson. Two shotgun blasts, but one was supposedly at the ceiling. Three dead. Did I miss something?

From the Senior Pastor, they had helped home several times with food, but refused to give him money. Could also be part of his reasoning.

Unless LEOs find a final written statement from the murderer, we'll never know his motive for sure. That said, I believe he was there to kill the pastor and as many other people as possible. Immediately after shooting the two men in the rear of the sanctuary, he turned and headed for the front of the church. His shotgun was level and pointed in his direction of travel, as TAM pointed out in his still photos (thanks for those TAM). He had already killed two men and he could have killed more random people on his way to the front, but I believe he wanted to make sure the pastor was killed before he continued his carnage. My opinion is based upon his physical actions, as well as the knowledge that he held a grudge against the church for not giving him money. Whether it was the pastor's decision is not known, but the murderer probably held him responsible for the food-but-no-money policy.

Chas.

Flightmare wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 10:03 pm . . . there WAS a new law passed in 2017 that I believe DOES deserve credit in this event. HB421 by Matt Rinaldi exempted volunteer church security personnel from Section 1702.333, Occupations Code. This allowed LTCs to carry self-defense handguns while volunteering. The heroes at this church (the one who stopped the shooter and the ones who fell while attempting to) were acting as a volunteer security team for the church.

This is exactly right! This much-needed change in the law has made a huge difference in terms of protecting congregations. It's a bill that, by its nature, did not garner media coverage, but it was a sea-change event in church security.

Chas.

Edited to add:
Rep. Rinaldi's HB421 did not pass because it was added to SB2065. Nevertheless, Rep. Rinaldi is the reason the law was changed and it was his effort to get it added to a bill that would pass.