TexasCHLforum.com

https://www.ketv.com/article/officials- ... k/32733160#

I guess helpful that the entire self defense killing was videoed.

DA seems to be walking eggshells to not file charges.

Fired two warning shots. Near as I can tell he was on the ground when he fired. A woman tackled him from behind because he had a gun. She would do it again.

Amazing the out of the way rural places that are seeing this rioting and violence. This seems so much more wide spread and longer than the rioting I remember following the assassination of Martin Luther King.

Why is that woman who tackled the barowner and took him to the ground not under arrest for assault? (At least I have not read anything about her arrest) She gave the police a statement and said she did it.

Oh, maybe charges after all:

Chief: Man who shot Omaha protester could face gun charge

The County Attorney has already decided that the bar owner killed the guy on his back in self-defense and no felony charge is warranted.

But now the Police Chief is saying they can still arrest the bar owner because his carry permit was expired and he was carrying a gun. But then he passes the buck and says filing [misdemeanor] charges would be up to the City prosecutor (note, not the same as the County Attorney).

There's a word from my military days for what the Chief is doing but it is not allowed on this forum.

ELB wrote: ↑Tue Jun 02, 2020 1:02 pm Why is that woman who tackled the barowner and took him to the ground not under arrest for assault? (At least I have not read anything about her arrest) She gave the police a statement and said she did it.

Wouldn’t that be accessory to murder? You commit a crime and in the commission of that crime someone gets killed? Like a home invasion, or robbery?

JakeTheSnake wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 5:20 pm

ELB wrote: ↑Tue Jun 02, 2020 1:02 pm Why is that woman who tackled the barowner and took him to the ground not under arrest for assault? (At least I have not read anything about her arrest) She gave the police a statement and said she did it.

Wouldn’t that be accessory to murder? You commit a crime and in the commission of that crime someone gets killed? Like a home invasion, or robbery?

Dunno what law is in PA, but I suspect the nexus between her attack and Scurlock's is not strong enough to sustain a Law of the Parties or Felony Murder charge. But she definitely looks eligible for assault, and yet the Chief of Police is yammering on about expired carry permit in the middle of a riot.

I don't understand the why there are questions about the decision not to charge Gardner. Here is the part I do not understand:

Gardner, who is white, feared for his life when he shot Scurlock, who jumped on top of Gardner after the bar owner had already fired two shots. Scurlock, a black man, was unarmed.

Gardner shoots Scurlock after Scurlock jumped on Gardner's back and took both of them to the ground. Gardner shoots while Scurlock is still on top of him. How could the DA charge Gardner when Scurlock jumped him and was still on top of him? I sometimes get the impression that certain parts of our community expect a person to be a willing victim and die for someone else's cause.

OneGun wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 5:56 pm I don't understand the why there are questions about the decision not to charge Gardner. Here is the part I do not understand:

Gardner, who is white, feared for his life when he shot Scurlock, who jumped on top of Gardner after the bar owner had already fired two shots. Scurlock, a black man, was unarmed.

Gardner shoots Scurlock after Scurlock jumped on Gardner's back and took both of them to the ground. Gardner shoots while Scurlock is still on top of him. How could the DA charge Gardner when Scurlock jumped him and was still on top of him? I sometimes get the impression that certain parts of our community expect a person to be a willing victim and die for someone else's cause.

You hit the nail on it's head. How dare you protect yourself from the rigeous ones, you peon!

OneGun wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 5:56 pm I don't understand the why there are questions about the decision not to charge Gardner. Here is the part I do not understand:

Gardner, who is white, feared for his life when he shot Scurlock, who jumped on top of Gardner after the bar owner had already fired two shots. Scurlock, a black man, was unarmed.

Gardner shoots Scurlock after Scurlock jumped on Gardner's back and took both of them to the ground. Gardner shoots while Scurlock is still on top of him. How could the DA charge Gardner when Scurlock jumped him and was still on top of him? I sometimes get the impression that certain parts of our community expect a person to be a willing victim and die for someone else's cause.

The COUNTY Attorney, who is apparently the one who prosecute felonies, has already announced that the bar owner acted in self-defense and will not be prosecuted for killing Scurlock.

However, the bar owner's carry permit is expired, and the CITY police chief is making noises suggesting the CITY district attorney, who apparently prosecutes misdemeanors, might prosecute the bar owner for illegally carrying a handgun.

Different potential "crimes," different jurisdictions.