TexasCHLforum.com

If you happen to find yourself in a street confrontation with an unarmed drunk at 2:30 a.m. in Philadelphia, maybe it would be handy to have some way to get out of a fistfight other than shooting.



Mr. Ung may not have assets now, but depending upon state law he may earn a lot of money, win the lottery, or come into an inheritance in the future.



- Jim

Big Tuna wrote:I wonder if he learned his lesson or if he still think it's OK to follow people and attack them.

Only time will tell. As they say, ignorance is curable but stupid is forever.

I have pointed out cases of criminals who were shot, paralyzed, convicted of crimes, imprisoned, released, and never quit.

viewtopic.php?f=83&t=23793" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

ELB wrote:I understand the sentiment, but if you are ever faced with a violent situation, I hope you base your actions on what will save your physical hide, not what looks good to the 1-ball. Better judged by 12 1-balls than killed by one 8-ball and all that.

Thank you for your concern.

This situation, people leaving a bar at 2 a.m. and playing the "Who you lookin' at?" "Yo mama," game can and ought to be avoided. If people want to play that game, they should be prepared to deal with the consequences. These simply are not the actions of mature civilized people.

As I said, in 20 or 30 years Mr. Ung will be able to shug it off. Probably not so much for Mr. DiDonato.

- Jim

chasfm11 wrote:The 4 jurors were simply people who were affected by the story of suffering that had been dragged out for days in court. They were not stupid people, from a pure intelligence standpoint. My point in telling this is that I believe that juries can and do render verdicts based on emotion, ...

I am too quick to disparage people as stupid when they are merely thoughtless or biased. I ought to get out of that habit.

However, as you point out, jurors can be swayed by emotional presentations that should not be relevant to the law. We see this all the time when the police shoot someone, and the relatives of the deceased are weeping that "they didn't need to be shooting my baby" (the baby being 19 or 25 years old, 6 feet tall, 300 pounds, and a previously convicted felon).

- Jim

Beiruty wrote:I guess, the defense attorney would have to show that the shooter was acquitted in court of law, not my word or your word, but is real court of law. The Jury found the defended not guilty and justifed.

Well, as the dead horse would say if dead horses could talk any better than live horses, there is no legal proof of innocence.

When a grand jury no-bills an accused suspect, it means that grand jury that week did not find probable cause that the suspect committed an offense. Prosecutors have returned to grand juries many times with additional evidence until they obtained an indictment.

Similarly, when a petit trial jury finds a defendant not guilty in a criminal case, it means that the jury did not find proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offense.

The concept of double jeopardy means that a defendant cannot be tried twice for the same offense, but it still is possible for a defendant who is found not guilty in a criminal trial to be sued for civil damages or federal civil-rights violations.

The bottom line for me is that any use of deadly force had better be obviously justified according to natural law that even the yellow 1-ball can understand.

- Jim

It has been years now (4?) since the civil immunity provision went into effect in Texas. As far as I know, in that time, it never has been exercised or tested in court.

Texas also protects certain assets of individuals from seizure, including the person's homestead, means of livelihood such as tools, two horses, mules, or donkeys, and household pets. It isn't worth suing a person who does not have significant other assets.

That said, I think the notion that "you can't be sued" is dangerous. You can be sued, and the situation is full of legal gray areas and the possibility of getting a jury with the collective IQ of a rack of pool balls.

- Jim

I'm sure these gentlemen are proud of their displays of mature adult behavior at 2:30 a.m., and probably Mr. Ung will pay off his legal bills some time around 2025.

- Jim