Copper thief shot dead

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: MadRat
No, you don't get it. The RULING comes from the authority appointed by law. You, me, everyone else doesn't matter jack squat what we think. By circumventing the grand jury process the elected official is committing a crime.

The official is not required to present all cases to the Grand Jury.
They present cases to the Grand Jury that they feel can be won. That decision is based on experience, evidence and gut feeling on how a jury will rule.

The state attorney general has an obligation to carry out his duties. He swore an oath of office to uphold the law. By refusing to present evidence of what happened then he is circumventing the law that required the grand jury in the first place. What he is doing is criminal and is covered under existing federal law if the federal prosecutors had the nads to enforce it.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: rpanic

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: MadRat
No, you don't get it. The RULING comes from the authority appointed by law. You, me, everyone else doesn't matter jack squat what we think. By circumventing the grand jury process the elected official is committing a crime.

The official is not required to present all cases to the Grand Jury.
They present cases to the Grand Jury that they feel can be won. That decision is based on experience, evidence and gut feeling on how a jury will rule.

If this had happened in the middle of a war zone in Iraq or Afghanistan you can bet your arse they would have been charged with it.

now, seriously, isn't it strange that soldiers in a war zone have to abide by stricter laws than civilians in texas?

Texas, home of the brave, shootin' thieves in the back who are runnin' away. Sounds like a country-western song, if you ask me.

Reminds me of something I saw on the news a while back. Reporter was in a morgue in Texas and the asked why a guy was tagged as suicide that had a bullet hole in his back. The Coroner said ?Its suicide running from a Texas Ranger?.

Texas DPS guys are definitely hard dudes. Their academy is one of the most rigorous in the nation. They still end chases by pulling up along side your car and shooting you in the head. You don't want to run from a state trooper.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: MadRat
No, you don't get it. The RULING comes from the authority appointed by law. You, me, everyone else doesn't matter jack squat what we think. By circumventing the grand jury process the elected official is committing a crime.

The official is not required to present all cases to the Grand Jury.
They present cases to the Grand Jury that they feel can be won. That decision is based on experience, evidence and gut feeling on how a jury will rule.

If this had happened in the middle of a war zone in Iraq or Afghanistan you can bet your arse they would have been charged with it.

now, seriously, isn't it strange that soldiers in a war zone have to abide by stricter laws than civilians in texas?

In Texas our laws accurately value the lives of thieves.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: MadRat
No, you don't get it. The RULING comes from the authority appointed by law. You, me, everyone else doesn't matter jack squat what we think. By circumventing the grand jury process the elected official is committing a crime.

The official is not required to present all cases to the Grand Jury.
They present cases to the Grand Jury that they feel can be won. That decision is based on experience, evidence and gut feeling on how a jury will rule.

Actually in Texas all homocides (whether in self defense or otherwise) are required to be presented to a grand jury. It's the law.

But the DA is under no obligation to push for a conviction on a case they don't believe was a crime. In cases less than homocide, they never even go to the grand jury, never get charged, and everyone just goes home. To argue that the DA should have discretion sometimes and not others is irrational.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: MadRat
No, you don't get it. The RULING comes from the authority appointed by law. You, me, everyone else doesn't matter jack squat what we think. By circumventing the grand jury process the elected official is committing a crime.

The official is not required to present all cases to the Grand Jury.
They present cases to the Grand Jury that they feel can be won. That decision is based on experience, evidence and gut feeling on how a jury will rule.

Actually in Texas all homocides (whether in self defense or otherwise) are required to be presented to a grand jury. It's the law.

But the DA is under no obligation to push for a conviction on a case they don't believe was a crime. In cases less than homocide, they never even go to the grand jury, never get charged, and everyone just goes home. To argue that the DA should have discretion sometimes and not others is irrational.

I was a little vague
Not all DA cases are required to go to a Grand Jury - it only those required by statute.
The DA has the option of presenting others to a Grand Jury.