TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:But OJ wasn't no-billed. He was actually tried and found innocent. The trial was a sham because of incompetent prosecution, a judge with his head in the clouds (who was a member of my former church), and the defense's use of the race card. Even after it was over, there remained a lot of compelling evidence to support a conclusion of guilt.

While not wanting to open this debate here, I must say I am not convinced of OJ's guilt and find evidence enough to raise a reasonable doubt in my mind. I think the OJ trials are proof that the system works as designed and for justice.

The threshold of proof in California for a civil trial to obtain a guilty verdict is lower than for a criminal trial.

This is true in Texas also, as it is in most states. The level of proof for a civil trial is a preponderance of the evidence while a criminal trial requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Joe Horn was no-billed, meaning that the prosecution did not think they could charge him and make it stick. Since it he was never tried and either acquitted or convicted, it would be fairly difficult for plaintiffs to prove guilt. ...at least that's how it seems to me.

The no bill verdict indicates the grand jury did not believe there was probable cause for a conviction or that they felt the case was justified. It does not indicate anything about what the prosecution wanted. Though there is usually very little difference between what the prosecution asks for and a grand jury result, it is not really a rubber stamp system.

In addition, I think it is fairly easy to prove Mr. Horn's killing of the suspect's/ What the Castle Doctrine would require is his proving, in court, that he met the requirements of Chapter 9 for justification. He has to raise the defense in the civil trial, at least in motions, before the immunity would kick in.

BTW, it is my personal opinion that Horn made a terrible mistake by going outside that day.

I would almost be willing to bet that he agrees with you now too.

Who pays the legal fees and to whom?

Donaldb wrote:Maybe we should all go to their neighborhood and protest

donald

I don't see an "X" behind yer name there...

Besides...We are smarter than that...It would lower us to their level of play...

And I don't think much of us are playing around...

It is a neat idea though...I'm just pulling your leg a little bit...

TacoMalo wrote:

thankGod wrote:I think Joe Horn is in for the long haul. I think he will go to civil court, and then we will see how the Castle Doctrine plays out.

Unfortunately I think that's what will happen.

Like Charles "basically" said, this may be, once again, won...A quick summary ruling will put this to bed finally...

But if the civil suit gets to test and "chip away" (weaken, or at least question) at the intent of the "Castle Doctine" that would be a victory for their side, not only the families (actually I should say the lawyers and other forces of evil behind this) of the two deceased criminals, but for the gun control agenda...

I am not surprised by this at all...

Folk:

It ain't about who's right or wrong or Castle Doctrine, etc. It's about $$ MONEY $$.

Who among us has the 'geetus' to pay lawyers ad nauseum while the civil lawsuits play out? The Oldgringo's don't ...and, that's a fact!

Donaldb wrote:Maybe we should all go to their neighborhood and protest

donald

organize it i will be there]