quote:

Originally posted by wymple:

quote:

I have a soft spot because this guy could have been my Dad.

Your Dad goes outside & shoots people minor trespassing?

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
“Property Rights” are not sufficient anywhere to justify a homicide.

That is what a killing is that is perfect self-defense. The legal concept is justifiably homicide. The justification comes from the use of lethal self-defense to combat the threat of death or serious physical injury. One must posses the subjective belief and objective belief.

This man was innocent the day he stepped in the courtroom. The state failed to strip him of that legal presumption.

However, we need to purge from our belief system and minds that we can kill in justification over “property rights.” That is not a legal justification.

The Twain certain crime flag as triggering a lethal self-defense is because the nature of the crime is violent by legal definition such as robbery (requires force or threat of force in KY), car jacking, felony assaults, and Burglary 1st (requires a weapon to be used in KY). KY is a hard thou shall not use lethal self defense on a fleeing person regardless of the crime. The threat is removing away from you. This, there is no immediate, objective threat. Maybe, the grand jury has sympathy on the fact pattern and does not indict. Maybe, the jury says tge person got what they deserved.

There is a lot of maybe in a good case. One needs to stack the maybes in their favor.

I his is not a critique of this care. I have not set through the trial, heard the testimony, seen the exhibit la, and read the jury instructions.

It is a critique of this myth of property rights are killing rights I am critiquing. No where in our states does one have that legal justification. Now, the location is a fact used to access the subjective and objective standards.

quote:

Originally posted by zebrazapper:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
If that is accurate, there will not be a retrial.

I read summary of Defense argument attacking the credibility of the police as attributing falsely statements of the man killing people.

Never a good sign when your cops are backed into a corner having fabricated matters. See OJ.

Are you saying some good ole boy cops from nowhere texas stretched the truth a bit? I grew up on a ranch in no where texas and i have to tell you the cops there would help you bury the body. By the way, all my statements aside, these guys get a raw deal in ranch country. Maybe a mistake was made or maybe not but this is a symptom of the bigger border crisis. I have a soft spot because this guy could have been my Dad.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
That is interesting bc in KY a judge cannot dismiss a case w prejudice over the objection of the prosecution.

However, if you are not going to retry, why care? Dismiss it with prejudice. The prosecution’s liability/ immunity is not dependent upon with prejudice. With prejudice despite what the police think will not insulate them from all civil rights violations that maybe at play.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Dismissal with prejudice means the claims or charges cannot be brought again based on the same conduct or occurrence. (My own definition; I don't remember the legal one.)

In civil cases, settlement agreements always call for a dismissal with prejudice...unless counsel is negligent themself.