TX - Saustrop innocent

[Glenn E. Meyer]

http://www.austin360.com/statesman/editions/saturday/news_4.html

Check it out - while the verdict is certainly a good one - remember that most informed observers of the situation, think that Sasutrop was not wise at all to follow the dude. Many CHL instructors view him as quite stupid, in fact.

Think this one out - before just emoting.

Having said - that - it was clearly reasonable doubt and he should have walked. And he did

 

[Allen_Raiford]

from the mouth of the prosecuter:
"This case is certainly not about self-defense," O'Connell said. "The defendant shot a drunk kid in the back two times."


THE "KID" WAS A 20 YEAR OLD GANGBANGER!

[This message has been edited by Allen_Raiford (edited May 27, 2000).]

 

[Gopher a 45]

"You'll be the first to die!"???

I'm glad this turned out as well as it did, all things considered, but the above quote doesn't sound like a way to deescalate the situation. I find it interesting that there was no mention in the story about a physical scuffle between the shooter and the would-be car thief, or the threats the "victim" was making, which might have influenced Saustrup's feeling of danger, given that Smith had Sessums' address and a description of her vehicle. However, the stupid thing was indeed following the guy. I'm sure that, in retrospect, replacing the window was a lot cheaper than what he just had to go through. At least, though, Smith didn't have a chance to make good on his threats at a later date. When you make a threat like that, you'd better expect the person you're threatening to take it seriously. I know I would. Don't know if I'd have taken the same course of action, though.