TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.change.org/petitions/release ... BmWrNmqjhV" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He was convicted in CA of possession of a concealed weapon, but he was innocent. Now that a federal court has found him innocent and ordered his release, CA is fighting to keep him in prison. This is how the anti-gunners feel about people who carry weapons.

He might have been not guilty, but not sure he was that innocent. Looks like this was not his first dance.

28-years-to-life under California's Three Strikes Law

JJVP wrote:He might have been not guilty, but not sure he was that innocent. Looks like this was not his first dance.

28-years-to-life under California's Three Strikes Law

In July 2008, the California Innocence Project filed a habeas petition in the Federal District Court for the Central District of California. One year later, the court held an evidentiary hearing in which three witnesses testified as to Daniel's innocence. Among the witnesses were the Chief of Police and his wife. After a hearing on the matter, the federal court found not only that Daniel was innocent but also that his trial attorney's representation was constitutionally deficient in failing to call these witnesses at the time of his trial.

I'd say he was innocent.

baldeagle wrote:

JJVP wrote:He might have been not guilty, but not sure he was that innocent. Looks like this was not his first dance.

28-years-to-life under California's Three Strikes Law

In July 2008, the California Innocence Project filed a habeas petition in the Federal District Court for the Central District of California. One year later, the court held an evidentiary hearing in which three witnesses testified as to Daniel's innocence. Among the witnesses were the Chief of Police and his wife. After a hearing on the matter, the federal court found not only that Daniel was innocent but also that his trial attorney's representation was constitutionally deficient in failing to call these witnesses at the time of his trial.

I'd say he was innocent.

He may not be innocent, but he was not guilty of this crime. That is what counts.

WildBill wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

JJVP wrote:He might have been not guilty, but not sure he was that innocent. Looks like this was not his first dance.

28-years-to-life under California's Three Strikes Law

In July 2008, the California Innocence Project filed a habeas petition in the Federal District Court for the Central District of California. One year later, the court held an evidentiary hearing in which three witnesses testified as to Daniel's innocence. Among the witnesses were the Chief of Police and his wife. After a hearing on the matter, the federal court found not only that Daniel was innocent but also that his trial attorney's representation was constitutionally deficient in failing to call these witnesses at the time of his trial.

I'd say he was innocent.

He may not be innocent, but he was not guilty of this crime. That is what counts.

Maybe, but depending on his two previous strikes, maybe he should have been in jail to begin with. Too many criminals are let go with a slap on the wrist, just so they can go back into crime. Not knowing the specific details of his previous record is hard to judge one way or another.

But, it seems, he was not guilty of this crime and therefore, not subject to "3 Strikes" sentencing.
To keep him in prison as further penalty for his previous two convictions is..... wrong.

When the current AG of the State of California, Kamala Harris, was running for that office, she was endorsed by both Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi. That tells me all I need to know about her...if you take a quick read through her Wikipedia page, it reads like a leftist's dream...that poor guy doesn't have much of a chance. Much like our current POTUS, she seems to not care what the LAW says, but how SHE interprets what she WANTS it to say to serve things HER way. Yep, not sorry I left that state in the very least...so often I find things that make me glad to be home in Texas.

JJVP wrote:

WildBill wrote:He may not be innocent, but he was not guilty of this crime. That is what counts.

Maybe, but depending on his two previous strikes, maybe he should have been in jail to begin with. Too many criminals are let go with a slap on the wrist, just so they can go back into crime. Not knowing the specific details of his previous record is hard to judge one way or another.

Wow. So once you commit one crime you're just automatically guilty of any other you are charged with? I don't want to live in your world.

baldeagle wrote:

JJVP wrote:

WildBill wrote:He may not be innocent, but he was not guilty of this crime. That is what counts.

Maybe, but depending on his two previous strikes, maybe he should have been in jail to begin with. Too many criminals are let go with a slap on the wrist, just so they can go back into crime. Not knowing the specific details of his previous record is hard to judge one way or another.

Wow. So once you commit one crime you're just automatically guilty of any other you are charged with? I don't want to live in your world.

I never said such a thing. I said "Not knowing the specific details of his previous record is hard to judge one way or another."

There is a huge difference between "innocent" and not being able to prove "guilty beyond reasonable doubt".

It will take a judicial "finding of innocence" to entitle him to any serious money, unless CA has specific statutes.