TexasCHLforum.com

Paladin wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 8:50 am
Grosskreutz should be in jail. But a major judgement against him would be the next best thing.

srothstein wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 12:27 pm

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)?

philip964 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 11:49 am https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/v ... s-n1535479

Need for “Kyle’s law” to prevent DA show trials.

rtschl wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 12:44 am I keep going back and forth on my thoughts about whether Rittenhouse should have been there that night. Legal yes. The question I kept asking myself is: was it wise or smart to insert oneself into that situation and I would usually say no. After thinking on it for the past year plus, I think I have somewhat changed my mind. I think Seth Dillon, CEO of The Babylon Bee states it well in the following Twitter thread from earlier today. Tthough I would not be as harsh of critics of Kyle's decision to go that night, I think his conclusion is insightful.

But first, my questions: What if all able men of the community in and around Kenosha had done the same as Kyle and a few others and showed up to protect their community? The rioting, looting, and burning would have stopped. Protests could have happened, and that is fine - that's free speech, not terror. Better yet, what if those in charge had let the Guard and the Police do their jobs so civilians like Kyle and the ones who showed up didn't have a need to do so? But that didn't happen. So is he a hero? For most of our country's history, I believe he would have been regarded as such. Not for defending his life, but for going into harms way for his community.

EDITED: Hit submit before I added this article too from the Federalist about moral obligation of able bodied men to protect Kenosha:

https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/22/ky ... t-kenosha/