[Big Ugly Tall Texan]

That gives much to think about.

Shoot, don't shoot can be a very close call and can be a no win situation.

Often a man can be angry or drunk or whatever and be a totally different person than they would be normally. Many times when I was a police officer, I would have to fight a person I knew who was intoxicated or angry or both.

Almost without exception, after they had calmed down, they would look me up and apologize for their behavior - while rubbing the bruises and cuts they got in our altercation. And I could tell they were genuinely sorry for their behavior.

A few times, their actions would have justified the use of deadly force - but I withheld such force - perhaps foolishly - because I knew they were not behaving like they normally would. Those cases all worked out for the better, but they could just have easily gone bad.

One of my sergeants shot and killed a man he had known his entire life. The sarge's back-up was a deputy sheriff who was the man's cousin. But he was high on spray paint and came at them with a butcher knife so hard and so fast they saw no option except to pull their sidearms... and tragically in my sergeant's case, shoot the assailant/friend.

Another point RE: the following from fiddletown:

No! The appellate court absolutely did no such thing. The appellate court found reversible error, defects in law or procedure that warrant a new trial. Such a finding is not by any means a comment on the merits of the case.

It is my understanding that is all an appellate court ever does. They never rule on the merits of the case, simply on the way the trial was conducted. They determine if due process was followed.