Soccer Dad - Lubbock - Update

[troglodyte]

Here's the rest of the story

Indictment rejected against soccer dad
Lubbock Avalanche-Journal
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Story last updated at 11/25/2008 - 2:02 am

A Lubbock County grand jury on Monday declined to indict a soccer dad who pulled out a gun at a children's game last month.

Tye Aaron Burke, 25, was arrested and charged with aggravated assault on Oct. 18 for aiming a pistol at another man's head during the game.

Burke pulled out the handgun after a man tried to break up an argument between him and his daughter's coach over the child's playing time, a police report indicates.

Another man attending the soccer game at the Berl Huffman Athletic Complex tackled him.


11/24/08
KCBD TV
Grand Jury No Bills Man Who Pulled Gun at Soccer Match
Posted: Nov 24, 2008 07:12 PM CST
Source: Lubbock Co. Sheriff

A Lubbock grand jury chose not to indict a man police say pulled a gun at a children's soccer match.

Officers arrested 25-year-old Tye Burke on October 18th at the Berl Huffman Complex. He was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

Investigators tell NewsChannel 11 Burke argued with his child's coach. The coach's husband then confronted Burke, the police report states that the victim pushed Burke, and then Burke pulled a handgun and pointed it at the victim's head. Police say an off-duty prison guard tackled Burke.

Investigators say Burke does have a concealed handgun permit.

Well, for all our supposing, speculating, head scratching, assuming, and presuming it has come to this.

I guess we can waste a few pages of bandwith supposing, speculating, head scratching, assuming, and presuming why he was no billed.

Let's not.

I said I would update when something came out so I did. If the moderators feel it necessary to lock this thread asap feel free. I see little useful discussion.

[HighVelocity]

Ok, he was no-billed. That means he gets his CHL back, right?

[GrillKing]

Ok, he was no-billed. That means he gets his CHL back, right?

After some serious head scratching, I suppose (based on a few still unknown assumptions and presumptions) that my speculation that he will get his CHL back, is a given.

[LCP_Dogg]

*wow*

[NcongruNt]

Yup. There was more to the story than was reported.

I suspected that what we were told by the media was a sensationalized version of the event, which is why i declined to participate in that particular discussion.

In the end, the grand jury did not feel he committed a crime, which speaks volumes more than any of our speculation. Unfortunately, there's likely not going to be a media hooplah about the resolution (or any further reporting at all). If they do mention it, it's more likely going to be in vague generalities and not a proper explanation of any supporting reasoning why he would have been no-billed. People will still widely be left to their already-solidified conclusions and outrage without any solid reasoning to counter it.

[KBCraig]

Thanks for the update. I do feel somewhat vindicated in my stance that "he might very well have been justified". Apparently he was, at least in the Grand Jury's eyes.

What I'd like to know is how hard the prosecutor pushed for an indictment.

[Keith B]

Remember that just because the Grand Jury no-billed him, doesn't mean he didn't break the law; it just means they didn't feel there was enough solid evidence to pursue the charges.

[Liberty]

Remember that just because the Grand Jury no-billed him, doesn't mean he didn't break the law; it just means they didn't feel there was enough solid evidence to pursue the charges.

and even if he didn't break the law doesn't prove he isn't a jerk! or that he behaved properly.

[NcongruNt]

Remember that just because the Grand Jury no-billed him, doesn't mean he didn't break the law; it just means they didn't feel there was enough solid evidence to pursue the charges.

and even if he didn't break the law doesn't prove he isn't a jerk! or that he behaved properly.

And nothing we have proves he is or that he didn't.

Liberty is correct, it doesn't prove that he didn't break the law. It simply proves that the Grand Jury did not believe enough evidence exists to pursue charges. This could mean any number of things - that it was clear he was not in the wrong, or that it was not clear enough that he had broken the law to pursue charges. The end result is that he has not been charged, and that he should be getting his CHL back. Perhaps he learned how to better handle himself in tense situations. Perhaps the coach's husband learned that it's a foolish idea to initiate physical violence in response to a verbal disagreement.

Grand Jury proceedings are confidential, so we're not going to learn any specifics. Now, can we please stop speculating?

[JoshL]

I know one of the attornies in the DA's office. He told me a couple of details that weren't in the news. Apparently, the coach's husband also took a swing at the dad after he shoved him into the bleachers. That is when he pulled out the gun. While he was being monumentally stupid, I don't think the prosecutor was pushing that hard for an indictment, according to the guy I know in the DA's office. Either way, the situation still could have been avoided completely if cooler heads would have prevailed.

[bdickens]

Ockam's Razor demands that the simplest explanation for something is usually the correct one. The simplest explanation for someone being no-billed by a grand jury is that not enough evidence of a crime exists for an indictment. The incident in question occured in front of witnesses. The simplest explanation, therefore, is that Mr. Burke was no-billed because he didn't commit a crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ockam%27s_Razor

[mr.72]

The simplest explanation, therefore, is that Mr. Burke was no-billed because he didn't commit a crime.

Glad to see the law prevailed.

[asahi1234]

It just goes to show some poeple judegments on use of force.