myhighplains

[charliebrown1959]

I was sorely disappointed tonight while watching the 10:00 news segment on the use of deadly force in defense of a persons home. Beyond the normal sound bite news reporting we always get, I saw and heard a supposed professional man show himself as a brash, ill mannered and self serving being. It seems Mr. Blackburn decided that the only way he could keep himself in front of the TV cameras was by lowering himself to childish name calling. "Gun Freak" is a highly derogatory remark that he used to describe all of the people in our state that supported this legislation. While there may be people with opinions and values that differ from Mr. Blackburn’s in the group, to portray a block of fellow Texans as all being freaks is very unprofessional and unproductive.

I fully support Mr. Blackburn’s right to publicly display his views and opinions. I just don't think name calling stimulates the discussion on such a timely subject. This behavior shows a significant example as to the decline of our society. If Mr. Blackburn cannot control his outbursts, I suggest he keep himself isolated from the general population. Actions such as his today do not serve our communities interest.

Another example of Mr. Blackburn’s bizarre thought process in this same segment is, "As a criminal defense attorney I guess I'm real happy about it because more people don't get prosecuted." What? I don't claim to be an accountant or an economist but it would seem that without prosecutions, criminal defense attorneys would not have any clients. No clients no revenue. I actually am pleased with that thought if you carry it one step further; no prosecutions, no clients, no revenues thus fewer lawyers.

[Schlepporello1]

You have to take what Blackburn says with a grain of salt. He was dropped on his head (repeatedly) as a child.
_________________
Evolution? Pfffffffffffffft!

[cosburn]

Did anyone else catch Andy's comments after the segment?

After the report, I'm paraphrasing a bit, but Andy said that if this shooting did fall under the Texas Castle Doctrine Law, it wouldn't be the first in Amarillo, then he went on to say that "a couple of years ago" there were two other shootings investigated under the updated Castle Doctrine Law.

The law went into effect on September 1st, 2007 (http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=80R&Bill=SB378), which was only one year and three months ago, making it impossible for any shootings to fall under this law "a couple of years ago".

I realize it's not a huge error, most likely he simply mispoke, I'm not trying to be too terribly critical here, but nonetheless, responsible reporting requires getting the facts straight. From now on, I'll take what Andy Justus says with a grain of salt as well, sometimes even such small mistakes can have a larger impact.

I emailed Andy seeking clarification on the statement, but he has yet to respond, I hope that he will address the question, rather than simply ignore it.

[cosburn]

Andy did reply to my email a few moments ago, he acknowledged the mistake & apologized, and I highly respect him for that.

At the end of the day, the mistake in the comment itself wasn't really significant, but I appreciate that he responded, not everyone would have.

Thanks Andy!

[charliebrown1959]

Cosburn,

I wondered about that statment also; it's good to know that Andy clarified it.

I also wondered about another statement that Andy made at the end of the segment. He said, "Potter county District Attorney, Randall Sims, says the updated Castle Doctrine has caused some problems for law enforcement." How in the world would it cause problems for law enforcement?

[cosburn]

Good question. Seems it would result in less investigations, arrests, etc if a shooting was determined to be lawful under castle doctrine. Law enforcement is stretched pretty thin as it is, how would less work would be a problem?

Maybe he was implying that Texas citizens are more trigger happy than they were before the law went into effect, less fear of the consequences when faced witha situation where they might have to shoot a person to defend themselves or their property.

Personally, I don't think the law would increase shootings, quite the opposite, really. I think those who would rob, steal, or harm others might be more hesitant now that they are aware the law will justify a citizens use of deadly force in such a situation.

Then again, maybe I'm being naive, assuming those who would commit such crimes would actually think about the consequences first.

[charliebrown1959]

[cosburn]

My uncle a police officer (Amarillo), he retired a few years ago, he expressed the same opinion to me.