TexasCHLforum.com

"SAN ANTONIO — Jurors who deliberated for 10 hours Tuesday determined that Adrian Perryman was not guilty of aggravated assault of a public servant for a 2010 shooting that took place inside his home as police were serving a search warrant.

They also found Perryman, 52, not guilty of a lesser charge of deadly conduct for firing four rounds at the group of officers he believed to be intruders...."

http://www.chron.com/news/local/article ... 608077.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jim

Whoa! Is that a first?

I think this violates the updated Rule 9.

Glad to hear he was acquitted. I hope he can recover his life after this.

I didn't notice in the article, has he spent the last year or so in jail waiting for this trial to be over?

Jumping Frog wrote:I think this violates the updated Rule 9.

Technically speaking, possibly, however, if Rule 9 means that news articles, to discuss what factually happened should not be posted, I think Rule 9 needs re-written.

I can see if the OP posted something negative against the officers (ie: bashing), but in this case, the OP did not editorialize.

Jumping Frog wrote:I think this violates the updated Rule 9.

If so, Rule 9 needs to be broadened somewhat...this is in no way "cop bashing"...I didn't read anything at all negative about the police conduct in the story. The article concerns an actual jury verdict, right here in Texas, and that should be of legitimate interest to anyone who carries or keeps a firearm for self defense. This is one of the very few instances where I've heard of a homeowner, firing on officers entering the home at night serving a search warrant, that didn't result in the homeowner being shot, much less aquitted of all charges. I think it demonstrates that juries are beginning to acknowledge the increased risks the "no knock" team style raids places on both the police and the occupants, and in this case, they found that it was not unreasonable for a homeowner, awakened during the night by someone kicking in the door, to believe he was being attacked and attempt to defend his family. I also believe the amount of time the jury devoted to deliberation indicates they didn't arrive at he verdict emotionally, but gave it a lot of thought and discussion.

This is not a rule 9 violation as it is about the individual and not police. Mods will review items and make the decision if it is a violation or not and notify the OP if it is.

This guy may have been acquitted on these charges related to firing at officers, but it sounds like he still has others for drugs and illegal firearms.

Just because he had drugs and drug parifanalia in his home does that make the gun illegal?

MeMelYup wrote:Just because he had drugs and drug parifanalia in his home does that make the gun illegal?

It depends on if they believe he was trafficking the drugs. Or if he had a previous record and was a felon in possession of a firearm.

Keith B wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:Just because he had drugs and drug parifanalia in his home does that make the gun illegal?

It depends on if they believe he was trafficking the drugs. Or if he had a previous record and was a felon in possession of a firearm.

Was it even a legal search? I would think anything found can be tossed.

suthdj wrote:

Keith B wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:Just because he had drugs and drug parifanalia in his home does that make the gun illegal?

It depends on if they believe he was trafficking the drugs. Or if he had a previous record and was a felon in possession of a firearm.

Was it even a legal search? I would think anything found can be tossed.

They had a search warrent for that address, so yes, it was a legal search.

Keith B wrote:

suthdj wrote:

Keith B wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:Just because he had drugs and drug parifanalia in his home does that make the gun illegal?

It depends on if they believe he was trafficking the drugs. Or if he had a previous record and was a felon in possession of a firearm.

Was it even a legal search? I would think anything found can be tossed.

They had a search warrent for that address, so yes, it was a legal search.

Ya, I think I got it mixed up with a different story.

Keith B wrote: ...They had a search warrent for that address, so yes, it was a legal search.

Keith,

A trivial, but neither a simple nor an unimportant question: Does the fact that a search warrant is had in and of itself make a search lawful?

Jim

b322da wrote:

Keith B wrote: ...They had a search warrant for that address, so yes, it was a legal search.

Keith,

A trivial, but neither a simple nor an unimportant question: Does the fact that a search warrant is had in and of itself make a search lawful?

Jim

Without knowing the exact details I will assume it was a properly issued search warrant and as such would make it legal. If it had not been a legal search warrant then I am sure that issue would have been thrown out as part of the defense and it was not mentioned in the article.