TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:

alvins wrote:lol well speculate all you want but when my key is in my wallet how else am i supposed to get in a locked door?

Touché!

It's a little unusual to conduct that maneuver overhead as the other party allegedly reported to responding officers.

It's also a little unusual for somebody who engaged in provocation for a fight to call police and stick around to report an alleged unlawful display of a weapon if it didn't happen EDIT: instead of the allegedly threatened party making the complaint or a simultaneously reported countercomplaint.

Not saying that couldn't be the case here.

Unusual things happen all the time.

I just can't help getting the feeling that this account is a little more unusual than the usual unusual, and more than a little like some other recently posted unusual accounts under a different recently created screen name.

Could just be coincidence...........

As Carry-a-Kimber observed earlier:

Many very new members keep popping up posting bizarrely familiar "out there" themes...

He thinks we can't spot him.

Peek a boo we know you.

How did I miss THIS...

You are very, very fortunate.

Read: State of Ohio v. John Clellan

In my home county (Franklin County, Ohio), we just had a case confirmed on appeal where a CHL also got involved in a dispute over being blocked from getting in his driveway. During the dispute, he said he feared for his life, pulled his gun, was charged with aggravated assault, convicted, and it was upheld on appeal.

This is in spite of the fact that Ohio's Castle Doctrine has the presumption of innocence with the prosecutor bearing the burden of proof if you are inside your home or car. The CHL stood on the running board of his pickup truck, and they ruled he was outside his car. The jury ruled he was not in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm anyway, making the Castle Doctrine issue moot.

The appeals court decision was interesting to read for anyone who has a CHL and ponders these issues.

A couple of lessons learned from this case. First, I am a BIG proponent of carrying a voice recorder with me. There have been too many CHL-LEO interactions that get testy, and without a recording of the interaction it will always be the LEO who is believed in court.

In the above case, a voice recorder who have made it obvious who was lying and who was telling the truth. As is stands, there is no way to know which story to believe. A voice recording of the exchange could very well have saved this CHL from a felony conviction.

The second lesson to be learned is to be careful about what you say to an LEO. Many lawyers tell you to shut up entirely, but I don't want to get diverted into that argument. What is relevant to this case is the Deputy Sheriff testified that the CHL changed his story, which gave the jury reason to discredit defendant's testimony, allowing the jury to reasonably conclude defendant did not believe himself to be in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

Thus his self defense claim was lost.

There are a lot of chilling lessons for all of us in that linked court decision.

Interesting thing is that alvins has posted before - he joined in June - about the same time I did. I remember him posting before ...