TexasCHLforum.com

Ameer wrote:

function12 wrote:That will not keep the door from being lifted out of the track. Simple easy fix is to drill a small hole through frame and into the door. (do not hit the glass). Then insert a nice 12D nail. This will keep the door in it place.

That will not stop the criminal from breaking the glass.

No but locking devices of any kind are simply to keep honest people honest. A few years back, I installed a pin (like a 20d nail) in the center of my parents' sliding glass door. It came as a kit and provided a nice cover around the opening and a chain and screw to hold the pin when it wasn't in use. Since the one panel in that door was fixed, there was no way you could lift the sliding panel out with the pin in place.

Yeah I'd say the homeowner is in trouble and I'm a CHL holder,own a house, been burgled, like the constitution and own guns.

Ameer wrote:

function12 wrote:That will not keep the door from being lifted out of the track. Simple easy fix is to drill a small hole through frame and into the door. (do not hit the glass). Then insert a nice 12D nail. This will keep the door in it place.

That will not stop the criminal from breaking the glass.

Or using a sawzall to cut through the wall.

Some updates on the trial:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_ ... 048685.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.kens5.com/news/Jurors-examin ... 97573.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.ksat.com/news/27125560/detail.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Prosecution rested its case yesterday.

Granted that these stories are written for dramatic effect, the testimony doesn't sound favorable to the defendant, IMHO, IANAL, etc.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:the testimony doesn't sound favorable to the defendant, IMHO, IANAL, etc.

Yeah, I would tend to agree this particular bit of testimony seems to be very damning:

“He came charging around the brush pile towards me, towards the house,” Lemes said, explaining that the person was yelling something and seemed agitated. “I just remember a shot or two going off and the gun almost jumping out of my hand. ... It was just a reaction. I tensed up, and the gun went off.”

Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_ ... z1G7iMdOy9" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This case happened exactly the same but the intruder was shot 15 times in the kitchen. It turned out he was a drunk A-grade student who entered the wrong house. No charges.

I'll admit I'm a Johnny Come Lately to this thread. Maybe I missed it in reading, but, is there anything that reports the intruder
was shot 5 times in the back? Not just shot in the street, in the back? From the testimony it sounds as if the intruder turned and was coming toward Lemes, not running away. Forensics could prove otherwise. Any reported forensic testimony?
Does anyone here think that getting so drunk you lose control of your actions might have been the major factor in triggering this whole episode?
Does anyone here believe that a 19yo college student could be capable of committing a criminal act?
Does anyone here believe the homeowner got what he deserved becaused the sliding door wasn't secured?
When Leme's wife screamed there was someone in the house..... did Lemes shout "hey, how old are you?", "are you just a drunk college kid?", "maybe you
have mistakenly entered my house?". No. I seriously doubt it. Lemes may have thought his wife was being or had been assaulted etc etc.
I'd like to hear more of the actual trial testimony.
Not sure what others here would do or not do, but, if my wife screams for help in the middle of the night. I will move heaven and earth to do whatever I need to do to protect my family and home. It happens fast folks. Not saying every action Lemes took was correct, but under those circumstances..... I guess
a jury will decide.

I think the defendant will win the case. The DA probably lost the jury when he suggested that Glass (the decease) had not even been inside the defendant's house. That was, to me, a ridiculous stretch that there is no evidence to prove. It shows the DA is stretching and I think the jury will see it that way.

Breaking News - The judge declared a mistrial for misconduct of a juror. A juror was doing some independant legal research on the laws of manslaughter versus murder.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/7465174.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

IMO, this doesn't look good for the defendant. It shows that a least one juror wanted to convict on some charge rather than vote for an aquittal. The DA has stated that he will retry the case.

Attorneys charge something like $400 an hour for courtroom time. The mistrial means the defendant gets to pay all that much more.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:Attorneys charge something like $400 an hour for courtroom time. The mistrial means the defendant gets to pay all that much more. - Jim

I am sure that both the DA and defense attorney will interview the jurors and get a feel about how the case was presented and which direction they were leaning.

Breaking News - The judge declared a mistrial for misconduct of a juror. A juror was doing some independant legal research on the laws of manslaughter versus murder.

I read that. Now ain't that scary..... It's misconduct for me to know exactly what is is I'm about to send someone to jail for for the rest of their lives. I have managed to stay married to the same woman for 25 years of my 51 years of living here in America and I can't tell you which I understand less - her or the American legal system.

esxmarkc wrote:

Breaking News - The judge declared a mistrial for misconduct of a juror. A juror was doing some independant legal research on the laws of manslaughter versus murder.

I read that. Now ain't that scary..... It's misconduct for me to know exactly what is is I'm about to send someone to jail for for the rest of their lives. I have managed to stay married to the same woman for 25 years of my 51 years of living here in America and I can't tell you which I understand less - her or the American legal system.

A juror instructed to consider only the evidence given in court. The judge is the only person in court who can instruct jurors on the law.

I agree that the law is complicated. Whether it is more or less than a spouse, I can't say. Or at least I'll take the 5th on that line of questioning.

They don't want jurors to try to be amateur lawyers.

As we have seen in many discussions on this forum, a literal reading of one part of the statutes is not sufficient to understand the whole body of law. Various statutes interact with one another (such as murder versus justifications and exceptions) and there is a body of case law that is difficult even for a lawyer to understand.

If ever you are on a jury, it's best to avoid even thinking about the case while you're outside of the courtroom, let alone talking about it or doing research about it.

- Jim

They don't want jurors to try to be amateur lawyers.

As we have seen in many discussions on this forum, a literal reading of one part of the statutes is not sufficient to understand the whole body of law. Various statutes interact with one another (such as murder versus justifications and exceptions) and there is a body of case law that is difficult even for a lawyer to understand.

If ever you are on a jury, it's best to avoid even thinking about the case while you're outside of the courtroom, let alone talking about it or doing research about it.

I have no doubt you and WIldBIll are correct on that. I'm afraid that iPads/iPhones are gonna make your average juror a "GoogleLawyer"

Looks like Mr. Lemes get's another chance to rethink his strategy and maybe his legal team. From what I'm reading sounds like his defense team ain't all that great.