TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.click2houston.com/news/homeo ... n/34861330

Best part is the last line.

It's a shame they are even considering charging the homeowner. Of course that was the media talking I think. It sounds like the police have already determined it's a good shoot. Only time will tell.

I would bet he is a long way from being indicted---we don't know enough yet but I doubt it will happen.

The District Attorney is always free to review the facts of the case then decide whether to present it to a grand jury who is free to no-bill or true-bill. Even if a jury returned a true-bill the D.A. could still refuse to prosecute the case and present a "nolle pros" to a judge for an order of dismissal. In the long shot the D.A. actually tried the case to a local jury---again---a probable very long shot on securing a conviction.

dlh

The last line merely indicates ignorance, a not unheard of state for a reporter. Often they won't admit it.

"It is not known if he will face any charges." Without a doubt the reporter's statement is true--from his perspective.

I see it as an expression of hope on the part of the "reporter"....hope that the homeowner will be charged and that people will finally cease to get away with shooting criminal home invaders....like in the UK, or Europe, the closest places to utopias for American liberals.

VMI77 wrote:I see it as an expression of hope on the part of the "reporter"....hope that the homeowner will be charged and that people will finally cease to get away with shooting criminal home invaders....like in the UK, or Europe, the closest places to utopias for American liberals.

I disagree with the "expression if hope". The reporters always state that they don't know if charges will be filed. It's SOP. Now when someone who should have a degree in journalism, which f I remember correctly had some college level English courses..., uses grammar as poorly as what I saw in this article and consistently on web news I lose all respect for them, especially when they are titled as a "producer."

Maxwell wrote:

VMI77 wrote:I see it as an expression of hope on the part of the "reporter"....hope that the homeowner will be charged and that people will finally cease to get away with shooting criminal home invaders....like in the UK, or Europe, the closest places to utopias for American liberals.

I disagree with the "expression if hope". The reporters always state that they don't know if charges will be filed. It's SOP. Now when someone who should have a degree in journalism, which f I remember correctly had some college level English courses..., uses grammar as poorly as what I saw in this article and consistently on web news I lose all respect for them, especially when they are titled as a "producer."

I know, I'm especially cynical....but given the ideology of most reporters it's not exactly unlikely. It's fits their ideological biases nicely so I can't help but be suspicious. Saying you don't know if charges will be filed is sort of a sly way of suggesting what the homeowner did might be criminal while still being able to claim the statement is true. To an informed person like you the statement may be a simple statement of fact, but to the uninformed it suggests that that the homeowner did something wrong, or at least exports doubt about what the law allows, and I think that is the purpose of the formulation.

And it's a bit disingenuous, since there is no excuse for a reporter covering a story like this not to take a few minutes to educate himself about the law. A more honest statement would run along the lines of "homeowners aren't usually charged in incidents like this," or "while home owners may use lethal force to defend themselves in a home invasion, authorities have not yet determined whether the home owner acted within the law." After all, it's no accident that stories like this virtually never become national news, whereas virtually any negative story about the use of a gun is is national news.

Notice the reporter did not mention whether charges, if any, would be filed against the burglars....sigh

dlh wrote:Notice the reporter did not mention whether charges, if any, would be filed against the burglars....sigh

Good point...sorry I didn't think to include it in my comment above as it fits the point I was trying to make.

I have had over the years a number of occasions where I was present at an event that was later written up in the newspaper. I can't recall any of them being recognizable from the article as what I saw or heard at said event. Often, I've wondered if I had really been in attendance.

I have been constantly amused by published accounts of airplane incidents, where it is manifestly clear to an experienced pilot that the reporter has no earthly idea what (s)he is talking about. Same with guns, actually.

Mark Twain put his finger on it. "A man who doesn't read the newspapers is uninformed. A man who does read the newspapers is misinformed."

dlh wrote:I would bet he is a long way from being indicted---we don't know enough yet but I doubt it will happen.

The District Attorney is always free to review the facts of the case then decide whether to present it to a grand jury who is free to no-bill or true-bill. Even if a jury returned a true-bill the D.A. could still refuse to prosecute the case and present a "nolle pros" to a judge for an order of dismissal. In the long shot the D.A. actually tried the case to a local jury---again---a probable very long shot on securing a conviction.

dlh

In Texas, it is "Black Letter" law that this HAS to be presented to a grand jury. The DA doesn't get to make that decision.

OldCurlyWolf wrote: In Texas, it is "Black Letter" law that this HAS to be presented to a grand jury. The DA doesn't get to make that decision.

Ah but the DA decides what gets presented to the grand jury... That's a lot of influence.

cb1000rider wrote:

OldCurlyWolf wrote: In Texas, it is "Black Letter" law that this HAS to be presented to a grand jury. The DA doesn't get to make that decision.

Ah but the DA decides what gets presented to the grand jury... That's a lot of influence.

Very much so. How he/she presents can make Huge difference.

If two people always agree, one of them is superfluous.

A grand jury is not determining guilt or innocence, but merely whether to bring criminal charges against a suspect in a crime. The GJ must rely on the DA but ought to use their own intelligence and experience to determine whether the DA is off base somehow.