TexasCHLforum.com

philip964 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 9:14 pm https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/g ... ud-arbery/

Grand Jury indicts DA for obstruction.

They should double her charges to 10 years. I really hope she is convicted and serves every bit of time. Instead of upholding the law she protected these cold blooded killers.

Unbelievable.

So one of the defendants is attempting to get banned evidence of his license plate that shows a confederate flag.

So if this is let in, I’d say the fix is in for these guys.

Generally I feel if your a defendant you should be allowed to defend yourself any way you want. So if they guy you killed has mental issues, you should be able to say that. The woman your accused of raping is a topless dancer, you should be able to say that.

That said how about the other side. Can they present anything they want?
[/quote]

I have a problem with that. If the defendant KNEW that the person had a history of mental issues, it would be fine to have it used as a defense. If it wasn’t known, there is no way it should be used as part of the defense.

And just because a woman happens to be a topless dancer, stripper, whatever, that doesn’t come close to being evidence that she was or wasn’t raped or sexually assaulted. “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this young “lady” (wink wink) is a STRIPPER. She takes her clothes off for money, so it should be obvious that she was just asking for my client to make advances… Why, it’s almost like she got what she deserved.”
[/quote]

Agreee 1000000% with every last word you said. Not sure why the guy above suggested that it should be used. That doesn’t make any sense at all.
[/quote]

BigGuy wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 11:36 pm [quote=03Lightningrocks post_id=<a href="tel:1307908">1307908</a> time=<a href="tel:1620699825">1620699825</a> user_id=3350]
[quote=Soccerdad1995 post_id=<a href="tel:1307892">1307892</a> time=<a href="tel:1620684026">1620684026</a> user_id=19815]
[quote=philip964 post_id=<a href="tel:1307889">1307889</a> time=<a href="tel:1620682859">1620682859</a> user_id=6460]
https://news.yahoo.com/gov-kemp-set-rep ... 29969.html

Citizens arrest law repealed in Georgia.

A citizens arrest is probably a bad idea anyway.

Not something I would want to do.

I agree that it is a bad idea for a casual observer to try to arrest someone they see committing a crime, where the observer is not a victim of the crime.

But I also think the devil is in the details here. The article says that businesses can still detain people, presumably with force, and that licensed security officers can also detain people.

To me, a key question would be whether a regular homeowner could detain an intruder until police arrive, including the use of force to do so. Or would this be unlawful under the revised law?
[/quote]

I don't see Citizens arrest action in the same category as self defense or a a castle doctrine action. In the first situation one is attempting to make an arrest after seeing a crime. In the second situation one is utilizing self defense when the crime is against them. Maybe I am wrong, I am not an attorney and did not sleep at a Holiday Inn last night.
[/quote]

First of all, I am not a lawyer. The great wisdom I'm about to dispense comes from a 3 day class I took a couple of years ago. So, here goes.

I believe the term "Citizen's Arrest" is a misnomer that could lead to some unfortunate decisions. From what I remember from my Level III security class is that citizens (and that's what commissioned Security Officers are) have no arrest powers. Any citizen may detain another citizen for sufficient reason. (I'm still pretty vague on what is a "sufficient" reason) I know that in my case I never get physical or attempt to detain without physical threat to me or those entitled to my protection. If somebody doesn't follow the rules, I ask them to leave. If they refuse, I call the police.

Even in the case of theft, I won't go hands on. I'll try to bluff them into surrendering and take them to a holding room until the police arrive. If they run, I'll be a good witness. I have NO qualified immunity. I'm not an employee of the state. That's not cowardice. In court I'll be judged by a jury that doesn't understand I'm not a cop and will hate me with the same passion reserved for police. They will hear that the boy I took down has severe injuries and was a good boy trying to turn his life around. That black eye proves brain damage because this Rent-a-cop thought he had authority.

Once a citizen detains another citizen, they must immediately notify a constable. (Police Officer) The constable will determine whether or not an arrest is warranted. And if the detaining citizen doesn't have a justifiable reason for the detainment, they may be the one arrested.

And I at least have a license that should provide a reason for my actions. A regular citizen won't even have that. Remember what an angle Travon Martin was. I'm not in hurry to be the next George Zimmerman.
[/quote]

KC5AV wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 11:27 am

philip964 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 05, 2021 2:19 pm https://www.insider.com/man-charged-wit ... al-2021-10

So one of the defendants is attempting to get banned evidence of his license plate that shows a confederate flag.

So if this is let in, I’d say the fix is in for these guys.

Generally I feel if your a defendant you should be allowed to defend yourself any way you want. So if they guy you killed has mental issues, you should be able to say that. The woman your accused of raping is a topless dancer, you should be able to say that.

That said how about the other side. Can they present anything they want?

I have a problem with that. If the defendant KNEW that the person had a history of mental issues, it would be fine to have it used as a defense. If it wasn’t known, there is no way it should be used as part of the defense.

And just because a woman happens to be a topless dancer, stripper, whatever, that doesn’t come close to being evidence that she was or wasn’t raped or sexually assaulted. “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this young “lady” (wink wink) is a STRIPPER. She takes her clothes off for money, so it should be obvious that she was just asking for my client to make advances… Why, it’s almost like she got what she deserved.”

Agreee 1000000% with every last word you said. Not sure why the guy above suggested that it should be used. That doesn’t make any sense at all.

MaduroBU wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 6:50 pm

I would also add that having "consequences" of a legal nature for what you say is NOT free speech.

I strongly disagree; the goal of speech meriting protection by the law is to produce consequences. No law is needed to protect conversation about the color of the sky or what the weather looks like. Controversial speech does require such protections, but that takes the form of prohibiting prior restraint. The government cannot legally prevent you from saying or disseminating your thoughts. Private individuals are more than welcome to refuse to help you amplify your thoughts, a distinction which has new import now that public discourse is online (and thus, due to atrocious planning at all levels of government, private). None of that changes how consequences of speech, legal, illegal, desirable, undesirable, intended and unintended play out.

The standard for prosecution for holding or sharing thoughts, even thoughts which are intensely and widely unpopular, is EXTREMELY high. It's legal to be a racist, a nazi, a communist, or whatever so long as one does not actively incite people to illegal action. Other people may respond very negatively to your public beliefs, but the government cannot prevent you from sharing them or prosecute you for doing so. The fact that one holds such beliefs could legally be used in the investigation or prosecution of criminal activity. If a black family has a cross burned in their yard, locals who are known to publicly espouse racist views are going to merit increased suspicion and, if other evidence suggests involvement, inadvertently aid in their own prosecution. If three white guys run down a black guy and then kill him based upon essentially no evidence of wrongdoing, their prior admissions of gross racial bias are absolutely germane to the prosecution. That's not suppression of free speech.

Agreed! 100% with this.

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 8:01 pm I find it interesting that some folks don't seem to think they could be in Arberys shoes some day. Again, I ask anyone willing to give an answer. You are jogging down the road. Two guys in a truck start pursuing you. You try to evade them. They then pull up and stop blocking your path. One gets out holding a shotgun. You are just going to roll over and find out what he has in store for you? I have read of people on this forum darn near drawing their guns because they were aproached by a "shady" looking character at the gas station. If Arbery did not know why he was being chased, when cornered by a guy holding a shot gun, he did what anyone with a lick of self preservation skills would do. Me? I would have opened fire on them from the corner of that pick up truck rather than go around and try to get the gun. I don't give a good golly darn if open carry is legal. It is laughable for people to act as if they would not have been very alarmed if said open carry person was chasing you down the road.

Agreed. It boggles my mind with some of these post. "Arbery attacked them first etc" If I were jogging down the road and two men accosted me and one jumped out with a shotgun, I would obviously try and get the gun as well if I had no means of protection and was in close proximity. What was he suppose to do? Stop for two strangers with guns to talk to them and ask them what do they want? Have milk and cookies with them? Hopefully none of you who keeps claiming he attacked the guy( with a shotgun out and who just tried to block him on the road) live near the cypress area. I wouldnt want to be chased down by two folks that have firearms becasue they THOUGHT I did something wrong.WOW just WOW

philip964 wrote: ↑Wed May 06, 2020 8:54 pm It made the national network news tonight.

Only story not about Coronavirus.

Showed the video. Clearly he grabs the other man’s shotgun.

Didn’t see him point it at the jogger.

Video guy wasn’t holding video still at all.

Apparently the son who appeared to be riding in the back of the pick up truck, is a former police officer and worked for the local DA who recused himself as well as the next DA.

Better to call 911 and let police do police work, especially when it wasn’t you who may or may not have been burglared.

philip964 wrote: ↑Wed May 06, 2020 8:54 pm It made the national network news tonight.

Only story not about Coronavirus.

Showed the video. Clearly he grabs the other man’s shotgun.

Didn’t see him point it at the jogger.

Video guy wasn’t holding video still at all.

Apparently the son who appeared to be riding in the back of the pick up truck, is a former police officer and worked for the local DA who recused himself as well as the next DA.

Better to call 911 and let police do police work, especially when it wasn’t you who may or may not have been burglared.

If you look at the video, the guy literally runs on the other side of the truck to get away. If I am trying to run away and oops somebody surprised me with a shotgun and I literally had milliseconds to react idk what I would have done. Probably lunged for the gun too. It’s all messed up. Regardless the guy was jogging even if you suspect him of criminal activity(which he wasn’t doing) why chase after him? Why be confrontational when you know you have a loaded weapon? They should have followed closely and call the cops. They did this because they “suspected him of doing something “. Come on now.

Saw the proclaimed video. Jogger looked like he tried to run on other side of truck when it was stopped. And was confronted by these crazies who had a gun and then he tried to hit the gun out the guys hands and they started tussling. They should have called the cops plain and simple and should be charged accordingly for taking the law into their own hands.