TexasCHLforum.com

bbhack wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2019 10:02 pm

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 2:05 am And, yet again, just something else to make me even more cynical about our so-called "justice" system, which is biased toward violent criminals. DAs and ADAs who consider good people with clean records to be guilty until they can prove they are innocent, while bending over backwards to let violent felons back out on the streets. I bet they all get a good laugh at all the lives of decent people they've ruined.

I might have started to understand this listening to some cops here in SA. I think there is sympathy for a horrible life the perp has lived. They sometimes overlook the psychopath component and go straight for sympathy. If there is something to this, it applies to prosecutors and judges also.

I would never claim to be a saint, I've certainly made my share of mistakes. However, 21 years in the Air Force, which is included in almost 30 years working on aircraft, I am a firm believer in "there's a right way, and a wrong way"...and people who do willful, unprovoked violence to others have chosen the wrong way.

AndyC wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 8:57 pm All well and good - problem is, by pleading SD, you've said that you did shoot the guy; now YOU have to justify it.

I don't go around committing violence against other folks, no matter how upset I may get about some things. The problem is that according to the article, if a decent person defends him or her self against unprovoked violent aggression by what is most likely a repeat criminal, in who knows how many places across this nation, the legal system, as it was pointed out, would rather the decent person just have allowed themselves to be injured or killed. As I've stated before, I'm an aircraft mechanic and electronics technician. I can tell you how very complex systems on aircraft work because I have education and experience in my field. However, I am not a lawyer, and thus I cannot know every trick some prosecutor will use to put a notch in their belt. Besides, from what I gather (because luckily I've never personally been on trial, never even been arrested), you aren't allowed to explain anything. They just ask questions that are worded in such a manner that there is no correct answer (the classic "sir, have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no" comes to mind) and that may well get you put behind bars, where you will be raped, beaten, and/or killed. I find that to be a perversion of justice. I really do not believe that is how the Founding Fathers intended things to work in the USA.

PC 9.32 regarding the use of deadly force states "to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force". However, Mr. MacYoung's scenario would seem to say that since the knife in the assailant's hand didn't make contact prior to the self-defense shooting, that the person who defended himself is now guilty. That would seem to fly in the face of the word "attempted". Again, parsing every little word down to the point where it can put a decent person behind bars for defending him or her self against an unprovoked violent attack is the domain of those who are experts in the law, to the point of seemingly perverting it. Most people, myself included, do not have the ability to counter that. And, if the only way to SUCCESSFULLY defend oneself is to be able to hire a talented lawyer, well, that would seem to make justice something only for the rich. Again, I do not believe the Founding Fathers intended things to be that way.

I wish I were as eloquent as TAM on these matters, but I simply am not. I guess that puts me at a severe disadvantage to criminals, and the legal system. Mores the pity for the future of our nation, and those who will inhabit it.

O.F.Fascist wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 9:42 pm In our legal system the burden of proof is not supposed to be on the accused, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove every element of the crime.

Supposed to be, yes. However, going by what Mr. MacYoung said in that article, it is just the opposite.

And, yet again, just something else to make me even more cynical about our so-called "justice" system, which is biased toward violent criminals. DAs and ADAs who consider good people with clean records to be guilty until they can prove they are innocent, while bending over backwards to let violent felons back out on the streets. I bet they all get a good laugh at all the lives of decent people they've ruined.