seekinganswers
Member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2009
- Messages
- 15
Can somebody please explain this to me? Here's the latest example I ran across:
http://www.weatherforddemocrat.com/local/local_story_119095415.html
It really baffles my mind. In the cases I'm talking about, like the one I mentioned above, NOBODY thinks or argues it wasn't justified - there is some clear and obvious case under the law where it was justified (in this case, somebody assaulting another inside the home, which in TX would be automatically justified since it's trespass).
I understand going to the grand jury when some facts are in dispute. But when no fact is in dispute and it's crystal clear under the law, why drag them through this and waste time money etc?
Who is bringing these cases? Should there be some law to stop this? It seems like double victimization. Cops don't usually face grand juries when their shootings are clearly justified, they just get some administrative review and time off - talk about a double standard.
http://www.weatherforddemocrat.com/local/local_story_119095415.html
It really baffles my mind. In the cases I'm talking about, like the one I mentioned above, NOBODY thinks or argues it wasn't justified - there is some clear and obvious case under the law where it was justified (in this case, somebody assaulting another inside the home, which in TX would be automatically justified since it's trespass).
I understand going to the grand jury when some facts are in dispute. But when no fact is in dispute and it's crystal clear under the law, why drag them through this and waste time money etc?
Who is bringing these cases? Should there be some law to stop this? It seems like double victimization. Cops don't usually face grand juries when their shootings are clearly justified, they just get some administrative review and time off - talk about a double standard.