TexasCHLforum.com

In another thread the question was brought up whether Check Rosenthal was a persecutor? While it was claimed he could not be a persecutor unless he was doing the following.

Persecution involves harrassing, opressing, or harming people due to their beliefs.

While thaere can be no doubt that he is a prosecuter. He has made his mark by attempting to disarm legal travelers through Harris county, but has used his influence to convince other [CTRL]Wpersecutors prosecutors to do the same.
It is my belief that anyone who attempts to disarms honest law abiding citizens is not only a persecutor , but is deserving of many other names that the 10 year old daughter rule would prevents me from stating. IOW he is either for us or against us!

From the report Above the Law, co-authored by the TSRA and the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas:

Shortly after TDCAA’s “Legislative Update,� some prosecutors (including those overseeing some major urban areas) began to instruct police to ignore the new law, or rather, to continue to enforce the old one. On August 30, 2005, the Houston Chronicle reported that “motorists arrested for carrying pistols in their cars without a concealed handgun license will continue to be prosecuted in Houston, despite a new law that purports to give them a legal defense.� Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal told the reporter, “It is still going to be against the law for (unlicensed) persons to carry handguns in autos,� and that the new legal defense can still be challenged by prosecutors.

Mr. Rosenthal presses charges against people caught with handguns in their cars, contrary to the stated intent of legislators, and knowing that most cases will be dismissed.

For which he wins this year's Judge Roy Bean award.

However, he performed an unintended public service by forcing the legislature to make the law absolutely clear, giving Texans and visitors the right to carry in their vehicles. After Sept. 1, he will have to satisfy himself with prosecuting stoners and actual criminals.

- Jim

We here know his actions roughly 2 years ago. Methinks time will tell how he and those of similar mindset may deal with the "Stand Your Ground" law after Sept. 1 this year ...

Charles, do you a a feel for this that you can express here and/or at the Irving seminar on Aug. 17?

Interesting tactic Liberty. AS of this post, 15 of you either don't understand definitions or just don't care.

There are two kinds of prosecutors: (1) Those who seek to do justice under the law. (2) Those who consider prosecution to be a game that they win by putting people in jail.

The latter do not care whether their targets are really innocent or guilty. They sometimes use intimidation and even falisify or suppress evidence. They sometimes find themselves in the dock, the most recent being Mr. Nifong in North Carolina.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:From the report Above the Law, co-authored by the TSRA and the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas:

Shortly after TDCAA’s “Legislative Update,� some prosecutors (including those overseeing some major urban areas) began to instruct police to ignore the new law, or rather, to continue to enforce the old one. On August 30, 2005, the Houston Chronicle reported that “motorists arrested for carrying pistols in their cars without a concealed handgun license will continue to be prosecuted in Houston, despite a new law that purports to give them a legal defense.� Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal told the reporter, “It is still going to be against the law for (unlicensed) persons to carry handguns in autos,� and that the new legal defense can still be challenged by prosecutors.

Mr. Rosenthal presses charges against people caught with handguns in their cars, contrary to the stated intent of legislators, and knowing that most cases will be dismissed.

For which he wins this year's Judge Roy Bean award.

However, he performed an unintended public service by forcing the legislature to make the law absolutely clear, giving Texans and visitors the right to carry in their vehicles. After Sept. 1, he will have to satisfy himself with prosecuting stoners and actual criminals.

- Jim

Maybe I look at this issue too simply, but I believe for the most part these people are either for us or against us. Any judge cop or Attorny who actively tries to disarm honest law abiding citizen is a renegade gun grabber. If one accepts that the ability to defend ones self is a God given right, anyone who attempts to deny their citizens these rights is by definition a persecuter.

I don't think Chuck is going to stop his gun grabbing ways as long as he continues to be elected, but this one cost him a lot of political capital. His buddies in the legislator turned their back on him this time. Even the press is feeling his vulnerability. The press has been gloating the past 2 weeks over how great Johnny Holmes was (they hated him when he was in office). The one thing an office holder hates to read is how wonderful his predecessor was.

txinvestigator wrote:AS of this post, 15 of you either don't understand definitions or just don't care.

Please explain.

txinvestigator wrote:Interesting tactic Liberty. AS of this post, 15 of you either don't understand definitions or just don't care.

I think this is the first time I've disagreed with ya TXI.

From Webster's definition of persecute:

1 : to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief

By having a stated policy encouraging the police to arrest, and then by bringing false charges against people who are legally armed, he is causing them to suffer serious financial, legal, and emotional injury. He is singling out a specific group based on their beliefs (RKBA) for his crusade.

In my book, that meets the definition.

At the very least, it is a gross misuse of public position to promote a personal ideology.

txinvestigator,
I don't understand why the term applied to said DA offends and/or upsets you so (seriously). As said over and over, it does apply to even your definition of the word persecute.

As I mentioned in a footnote in the other thread where this argument started, if you had read the front page headlines a year or so ago in which he blatantly declared that he was going to have his LEOs in the city of Houston continue to arrest people found with handguns in the cars and he will prosecute them in spite of the new laws and intent of the legislature of the State of Texas, I don't think you would be so quick to come to his defense. Trust me, he made clear in no uncertain terms that he is no friend of the RIGHT to Keep and Bear arms and that he is going to fight ever effort of the legislature and do what HE wants regardless with ever means at his disposal. If that isn't persecution or harrassment of good people, I don't know what is. If you have a different definition then what is it?

Some have said, "well, the problem is that the legislature didn't exactly define what traveling was." Whether this is true or not isn't the point. The point is that it was the clear intent of legislature to allow people to be able to legally carry handguns in their cars for protection. Rosenthal knew this, everyone knew this. Yet he zealously made it his mission to oppose any such attempt by the legislature to allow this.

Greybeard wrote:We here know his actions roughly 2 years ago. Methinks time will tell how he and those of similar mindset may deal with the "Stand Your Ground" law after Sept. 1 this year ...

Charles, do you a a feel for this that you can express here and/or at the Irving seminar on Aug. 17?

I do plan to cover the "Castle Doctrine" bill as it passed in Texas at the seminar. As for interpretation by prosecutors, I don't think there's any wiggle room. Some people have commented on the "with force" and "no provocation" requirements of the presumption (as opposed to "no retreat" duty), but those are non-issues for the reasons we will discuss. A full discussion is far too long for me to put in a post.

Chas.

Over two years ago, Chuck Rosenthal fully understood the intent of the legislature and that law that was passed and signed by the govenor, unintended consequenses aside...

I believe he did a dis-service to the county, and wasted a lot of time, effort and money in the meantime between sessions...

A lot of enforcement and instructions coming from the DA's offices around the state has to come from understanding the intent of the laws they are commissioned to enforce...But of course the letter of the law is just that...But in this case Chuck Rosenthal and those other big county DA's knew exactly what this was all about to begin with back in 2005...

Remember, it was only these big mega counties that were bringing this heavy-handed intolerance to the citizens of this state...An extreme majority of the rest of the counties in this state didn't have a problem with the law...So the disparity and agenda by these big county DA's was readily apparent...

And this particular issue will be one I will always remember, especially when he is up for re-election...And that is unfortunate, because I helped in the effort to get him in there in the first place...

While we're on the subject of unintended consequences, Mr. Rosenthal argued Lawrence and Garner v. Texas before the U.S. Supreme Court. The result was striking down all laws of a type which I'm not sure I can mention.

Whether you think this was the right decision or the wrong one, it was not what Mr. Rosenthal wanted.

Then there was the case of Andrea Yates, ultimately found not guilty by reason of insanity.

But nobody's perfect. A few mistakes in a long career.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:While we're on the subject of unintended consequences, Mr. Rosenthal argued Lawrence and Garner v. Texas before the U.S. Supreme Court. The result was striking down all laws of a type which I'm not sure I can mention.

Whether you think this was the right decision or the wrong one, it was not what Mr. Rosenthal wanted.

Was a disaster for him, and an embarassment for Texas. He should have known better to push that one it was such an obvious loser.

http://tsra.com/docs/abovethelaw.swf

Here is a good (and it's actually the ACLU) link giving a broader picture of what other DAs in Texas are doing not just Rosenthal.

Doug.38PR wrote:http://tsra.com/docs/abovethelaw.swf

Here is a good (and it's actually the ACLU) link giving a broader picture of what other DAs in Texas are doing not just Rosenthal.

Scary! Doesn't do much for giving one faith in our system.