TexasCHLforum.com

hey guys I was generalizing, you know. It's a general trend. Never seen Walker Texas Ranger.

I think from the movies mentioned it was more about old fashioned and obsolete guys have wheelguns and modern guys have autos. When I watch TV today, I see CSI and Law and order most of the good guys have autos and the bad guys have revolvers.

When I purchase a gun, I select a handgun for CC or purchase personal protection ammo, I don't look for the Brady Seal of Approval. In fact just the opposite. I want large capacity plastic guns. I want bullets that are destructive. I prefer the military style guns of a warrior. While I know that the chances of a these coming back to hurt me in court are practically non existent. I like to feel that every time I make one of these purchases a Brady breaks into tears and wets themself.

Scary guns good.

That's good stuff!

A "scary" gun is all the better if it scares the BG away so you don't actually have to shoot him.

seamusTX wrote:The irony is that if you use hollowpoints, you can be accused to using "dum-dums," which the military is prohibited from using (according to the Hague Convention). If you use FMJ, you can be accused of using military ammunition. You can use the same ammunition as the local cops, in areas where they have standardized ammunition requirements, and be accused of being a "police wannabe." You can't win this kind of thing.

- Jim

Very well said. Anything can be spun into a negative or positive. It's done every day by the media.

mr.72 wrote:It's a general trend. Never seen Walker Texas Ranger.

I'm not going to be the one that tells Chuck Norris that he has to carry a revolver.

My concern about what a DA would think about a "scary gun" is so low on my list that it didn't even make my list.

Seaumus wrote:

You can't win this kind of thing.

That's at the arrest/charging stage. Better minds can sort the wheat from the judicial chaff in court. Particularly at the appeals court level, where better minds tend to prevail on the bench. A state district court judge is often little more than a political idiot who was failing in private practice before being elected to run a gravy train. Unfortunately, innocence can be a long, expensive row to hoe. I do believe Mr. Fish will prevail in the end. And if he does not, his case will have set a horrendous precedent in this country for defending oneself with a handgun.

casingpoint wrote:A state district court judge is often little more than a political idiot who was failing in private practice before being elected ....

It's worth highlighting that judges often make wrong decisions, as indicated by reversal of their opinions on appeal, and sometimes even conviction for bribery. Sometimes they are found to be drunk on the bench. Some, while not guilty of actual wrongdoing, are prejudiced. As elected officials, they are not deaf to public opinion.

The Fish case indicates that a prosecutor can grandstand to get an emotional response from jurors, and a judge or weak defense attorney can allow it to happen.

We also have to keep in mind that the 2007 castle doctrine has not been tested in court, AFAIK. The next person who defends himself from a carjacker or smash-and-grab thief might be in for a rough ride.

- Jim

Fish has reportedly accumulated over half-a-million dollars in legal defense fees. Should he win his appeal, will he have any recourse for compensation for his onerous prosecution by the State of Arizona?

I have no idea.

If a defendant is knowingly, wrongfully prosecuted (as revenge or something like that), he generally has to sue for damages. A simple reversal of a sentence on appeal is not usually compensated.

Texas has a provision for compensating people who are imprisoned and later found not guilty. It's not a significant amount of money. I don't know the details. I can't find it in the Code of Criminal Procedure.

- Jim