TexasCHLforum.com

https://www.cbs19news.com/content/news/ ... 02561.html

Judge erred by not telling jury about self defense as attorney asked.

The rest of the US is not like Texas.

So you have a DA, a judge, 4 appeal court members and a jury not doing the right thing.

Story says he broke through the dead bolted door after being told he was not welcome in the house.

philip964 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 2:09 pm https://www.cbs19news.com/content/news/ ... 02561.html

Judge erred by not telling jury about self defense as attorney asked.

The rest of the US is not like Texas.

Not so quick! Have we already forgot the authorities attempted posthumous persecution of Dennis Tuttle and Rhogena Nicholas?

And still no action by the Texas Attorney General or the Texas Rangers. That looks a lot like tacit approval.

philip964 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 2:09 pm https://www.cbs19news.com/content/news/ ... 02561.html

Judge erred by not telling jury about self defense as attorney asked.

The rest of the US is not like Texas.

So you have a DA, a judge, 4 appeal court members and a jury not doing the right thing.

Story says he broke through the dead bolted door after being told he was not welcome in the house.

Well.

The defendant told the police at least twice that he did not intend to shoot the intruder, that he pointed the rifle at the intruder's legs because he only wanted to scare him, and that he was shaking badly when the rifle discharged.

So basically he told the cops it was not self-defense, it was an accident. He did not testify at his trial.


Also of interest: The rifle he used was his 12th birthday present (he was 53 at time of incident). He kept the rifle unloaded with only two rounds rubber-banded to it. He loaded only one round before confronting the intruder coming down stairs. The bullet he fired went through the intruder's left calf, through his right thigh, and lodged in a stair tread. The intruder died from these wounds.

https://law.justia.com/cases/virginia/c ... 7-4-0.html

The link goes to the decision of the three judge panel that reversed the conviction. It contains a summary of the facts at trial.

Well, I've heard it said here on the forum that if a man breaks into your house in the middle of the night, he's probably not there for a glass of iced tea.

Much as I hate to say it, the three judge panel may have been wrong. The problem, as I see it, is that to claim self-defense you need to admit to knowingly shooting the weapon. When he said he only meant to scare and never meant to fire, but was shaking so badly that the gun went off, he is admitting to the shooting being unintentional and therefore negligent.

I wonder what will be said by the full panel when they rehear the appeal.

I later read about the extenuating circumstances.

That said, if you break down a deadbolted door into someone’s house after you have been told to never come back, I’m sorry I’m not convicting the homeowner regardless of whatever stupid things he told the police.

srothstein wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 6:32 pm
I wonder what will be said by the full panel when they rehear the appeal.

The full court upheld the panel 7-4. The link I provided was to the three-judge panel opinion because that’s the only official document I could find, But the original story is about the forecourt upholding the panel.

I have no problems with the invader being shot, and I don’t See any moral reason he should’ve been prosecuted in the first place, accident or not. But the homeowner made a lot of trouble for himself By talking when he shouldn’t have.

ELB wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:21 am

srothstein wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 6:32 pm
I wonder what will be said by the full panel when they rehear the appeal.

The full court upheld the panel 7-4. The link I provided was to the three-judge panel opinion because that’s the only official document I could find, But the original story is about the forecourt upholding the panel.

I have no problems with the invader being shot, and I don’t See any moral reason he should’ve been prosecuted in the first place, accident or not. But the homeowner made a lot of trouble for himself By talking when he shouldn’t have.

DO NOT TALK TO THE POLICE! Tell them you were in fear of your life and then SHUT UP! communicate through your attorney!

crazy2medic wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:53 am

ELB wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:21 am

srothstein wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 6:32 pm
I wonder what will be said by the full panel when they rehear the appeal.

The full court upheld the panel 7-4. The link I provided was to the three-judge panel opinion because that’s the only official document I could find, But the original story is about the forecourt upholding the panel.

I have no problems with the invader being shot, and I don’t See any moral reason he should’ve been prosecuted in the first place, accident or not. But the homeowner made a lot of trouble for himself By talking when he shouldn’t have.

DO NOT TALK TO THE POLICE! SHUT UP! communicate through your attorney!

There! Fixed it for you!

crazy2medic wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:53 am
DO NOT TALK TO THE POLICE! Tell them you were in fear of your life and then SHUT UP! communicate through your attorney!

He at least got the first part right that you left out: Make sure there is only one side of the story, yours.

🖒