This just really irks me........

[Kyle Brown]

Kyle,

Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean that there haven't been, or will be, many cases filed.

Lots of trials simply go un-noticed. For instance: You probably never heard about the trial in which a SantaFe freight train struck a man in North Fort Worth, yet American Airlines was found responsible, have you? Well I was on that jury, and it never even made a headline.

The reason that we don't hear of these cases is: They're not newsworthy to the press and if they are printed it's on page Z99 or something like that... on the page you would always use to line the bird cage with.

Also, another reason that you haven't heard so much of a CHL holder being sued is that we, as a whole, haven't had that many times in which our weapons have been discharged, unlike those of non-CHL'ers.

Now we hear of the rich-and-famous shootings, and we hear of their trials and tribulations, but we just don't hear about the mundane, everyday trials that happen.

Russ

No, I did not...however, if I had a strong and compelling need to know about such suits involving Santa Fe, then I am sure that I or the people I associate with would have been in the know.

I specifiically asked for Texas cases...to my knowledge, there are none and I have been researching this for the last eight or nine years. Again, Texas cases.

Think of it thiis way. I teach CHL classes in Abilene, but my student base is approximately 150 miles in any direction. I have taught hundreds of students in the last 6 years. I believe that I would certainly be in the know if any such suit was filed in this area. If such a suit was filed, then I would post the facts here and in other forums on the web.

In addition, I regularly speak with attorneys across the state that have a need to know such information. Now, I will not pretend that my research is without flaw. So, that is why I have on at least one other occassion, posted on this forum the question as stated originally. If anyone knows of such a case filed in TEXAS, I would like to know about it...wouldn't you?

[Rozier]

Thanks for the link to the Andre Parris site. I should have written sooner but I really need to now. A petition has been filed with the Parole Board for an early hearing for Andre. Other wise he will not be reviewed until April 2009. He has already served 10 years behind bars for using a handgun to defend both himself and his infant son from attack.
The family is requesting your prayers and if you like you can better inform yourself by going to the website and perhaps write the family a word of encouragement.
Compatriotly
Bill Rozier

b]The March issue of Combat Handguns has an article written by Massad Ayoob that recounts (11) cases of wrongful prosecutions/lawsuits.[/b] You can buy it at stores now, or possibly find the article online.

That alone should be plenty.

Also,

I didn't spend any time at all finding these:

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/200402 ... -2302r.htm

http://convictedwrongfully.com/ (read the detailed account).[/quote]

[mcub]

If I had my way any dead bodeis on my property, or beside my car, would self defence unless it was proven other wise.

[LedJedi]

I suppose it all comes down to a choice of whether you feel that there is indeed such a thing a justifiable use of deadly force in defense of self/family/personal property or not.

That is exactly what this whole thing boils down to.

I've had a few sit-downs with folks who just really truly believe there is absolutely no justification at all for taking someone's life. They truly believe it through and through. Rape, Murder, Theft, etc. nomatter what the situation they would rather suffer through it than defend themselves.

At least that was the mentality of the "hardcore anti-gunners" i've sat down with. I know not everyone is that extreme.

Quite simply, i just can't assimilate their logic. It is alien to me. I've been told that I dont value human life as much as I should, perhaps that's true. I will use deadly force if immediately necessary over something as trivial as a cell phone. The point is it's MY cell phone. They dont seem to be able to understand that logic anymore than I can understand theirs.

sorry, i'm just rambling here. What you said just put me off on a mental tangent.

Great job Flint on calling the paper out on this.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Quite simply, i just can't assimilate their logic. It is alien to me. I've been told that I dont value human life as much as I should, perhaps that's true.

Whoever told you that was not thinking clearly.

You obviously DO value human life. It's just that you place a very high value on the lives of YOU and YOUR LOVED ONES compared to the lives of those who would threaten you with harm.

In contrast, the person preaching to you obviously places LESS value on their own life than of that of an attacker.

In essence, you place a high value on INNOCENT life. By contrast, they put a high value on the life of a criminal attacker.

And they don't realize it.

That's why their "logic" is giving you a problem.

[LedJedi]

Quite simply, i just can't assimilate their logic. It is alien to me. I've been told that I dont value human life as much as I should, perhaps that's true.

Whoever told you that was not thinking clearly.

You obviously DO value human life. It's just that you place a very high value on the lives of YOU and YOUR LOVED ONES compared to the lives of those who would threaten you with harm.

In contrast, the person preaching to you obviously places LESS value on their own life than of that of an attacker.

In essence, you place a high value on INNOCENT life. By contrast, they put a high value on the life of a criminal attacker.

And they don't realize it.

That's why their "logic" is giving you a problem.

hmmm, now see, that makes sense :)