Court says it's OK to drive recklessly after being shot

[dwarven1]

There is so much that's bizarre about this that it's not funny.

Thursday, November 29, 2007
Court says it's OK to drive recklessly after being shot
http://www.telegram.com/article/20071129/APN/711290884

The Associated Press

BOSTON— The state Appeals Court says it's o.k. to drive recklessly if you are trying to get to the hospital after being shot.

The court on Thursday overturned the reckless driving conviction of Delano Livington, saying his lawyer should have asked the judge at his trial to instruct the jury on the so-called "necessity defense," which can be used when a crime is committed amid imminent danger and the harm sought to be avoided far exceeds the harm resulting from the crime.

Livington and three of his friends were visiting a community center in Boston in March 2005 when shots rang out. After Livington was hit in the stomach, he sped down the street on the wrong side of the road before he pulled into a gas station and fell out of the car. His erratic driving lasted about 30 seconds.

A loaded handgun was found in Livington's car, but a jury acquitted him of a charge of carrying a firearm with a license and possession of ammunition without a license, while convicting him of the reckless driving charge.

Livington appealed his conviction.

"Here, the risk of harm posed by the gunshot wound to defendant's abdomen outweighed the harm posed by his having briefly driven on the wrong side of the road to reach a location where he could obtain assistance," the court said in its written decision.

 

[Scrivener]

There is so much that's bizarre about this that it's not funny.

Perhaps - especially the gun charges.

However, your heading completely misstates what the court said.

The court on Thursday overturned the reckless driving conviction of Delano Livington, saying his lawyer should have asked the judge at his trial to instruct the jury on the so-called "necessity defense," which can be used when a crime is committed amid imminent danger and the harm sought to be avoided far exceeds the harm resulting from the crime.

The court never said "it's OK to drive recklessly after being shot." What it DID say was that a legitimate defense should have been presented, but was not. That failure of counsel warranted a new trial.

 

[dwarven1]

However, your heading completely misstates what the court said.

It sure does... and that's EXACTLY what the Worcester Telegram & Birdcage Liner Gazette has for a headline for the article. Hence, the header.

 

[P-14]

This is the problem with MA

Liberal frickin' wienies in the defender's offices around the state. And, the judges are just as bad.

Get the scumbags off the streets by enforcing the laws! No LTC should mean automatic jail time. Ammo, too? More jail time. No mercy. No deals.

I predict that Livington will eventually end up dead, but not before killing others. The system is really, really broken.

 

[Scrivener]

It sure does... and that's EXACTLY what the Worcester Telegram & Birdcage Liner Gazette has for a headline for the article. Hence, the header.

THAT explains it - you're not known for doing that sort of stuff.

My mistake and my apologies.

 

[dwarven1]

THAT explains it - you're not known for doing that sort of stuff.

My mistake and my apologies.

I had assumed that people would notice that the thread title and the title of the article were the same... silly me.

Perhaps it's time for another cup of coffee, Scriv?

Just teasing you a bit. Apology accepted. And the coffee's on me.

 

[jdubois]

Liberal frickin' wienies in the defender's offices around the state. And, the judges are just as bad.

Huh? The article says it was the jury the acquitted him. If anything, blame the jury. The defense was just doing their job, and what the heck did the Judge do?

No LTC should mean automatic jail time.

Again, how can you blame the defense or the judge for that? That's a legislative issue. Sounds to me like you're arguing for even more restrictive gun laws.

 

[dwarven1]

Again, how can you blame the defense or the judge for that? That's a legislative issue. Sounds to me like you're arguing for even more restrictive gun laws.

No, he's arguing that the laws should be upheld - or don't you remember the signs on every road coming into the state that mentions the mandatory one year jail term for possessing a gun?

 

[doobie]

but a jury acquitted him of a charge of carrying a firearm with a license and possession of ammunition without a license

I'm with you on this Ross, WTF. How do you have a license for a firearm, but not ammunition?

 

[pdm]

Perhaps the jury did a little nullification by acquitting on the gun charge?

 

[Neptune Cat]

We can just be sending people to jail willy nilly..... We need to save room for the lawful
gun owners. After all they are the ones getting in the way of the social machine.

 

[bazzo7669]

Actually on the books you are supposed to get an automatic year for a f/a without an LTC. Nevermind unlawful poss. of ammo...However, as you mentioned...friggin liberals...."Oh that poor poor man (gangbanger) he was a victim (yea a victim of his own doing because of his prior criminal actions)...we (the idiot liberals who don't even live in the city of Boston but think that we 'understand' the people and what they want) know that this is the fault of a law abiding gun owner somewhere. Let's (the liberals once again) crate MORE anti-gun legislation because gosh darn it this new set of laws will work (Yea..the criminal element will obey THESE new laws). Anyone who feels different is free to meet me at Talbot and BHA anytime after dark (I think after 10pm is a GREAT time to be out in that area) and I will introduce you to the 'poor, misunderstood' people that you (probably a liberal) want to befriend, defend and hug.
Ciao!!

"A liberal is a conservitive that hasn't been mugged yet"

Liberal frickin' wienies in the defender's offices around the state. And, the judges are just as bad.

Get the scumbags off the streets by enforcing the laws! No LTC should mean automatic jail time. Ammo, too? More jail time. No mercy. No deals.

I predict that Livington will eventually end up dead, but not before killing others. The system is really, really broken.

 

[FunYun]

Liberal frickin' wienies in the defender's offices around the state. And, the judges are just as bad.

Get the scumbags off the streets by enforcing the laws! No LTC should mean automatic jail time. Ammo, too? More jail time. No mercy. No deals.

I predict that Livington will eventually end up dead, but not before killing others. The system is really, really broken.

You wouldn't happen to have any info to back this up other than the obviously wrong article that you could post for us would you?

Why do you want to enforce an illegal law?

 

[M1911]

Perhaps the jury did a little nullification by acquitting on the gun charge?

We don't know why the jury acquitted him on this. I suspect it wasn't jury nullification, but only the jury knows. I have to admit that I might have a hard time convicting someone of a law that, IMNSHO, violates the 2nd Amendment.

 

[jdubois]

No, he's arguing that the laws should be upheld - or don't you remember the signs on every road coming into the state that mentions the mandatory one year jail term for possessing a gun?

He was arguing that the judge or defender somehow must have been liberals because they didn't ignore a jury's decision. That indicated to me that what he meant by 'automatic' was not minimum sentencing, but removal of the right to a jury trial in such a case. That would take further legislation to try to enact.

If the jury had found the guy guilty, and then the judge sentenced him to something less than a year, or if he'd complained about a liberal jury making a bad decision, then his rant would have made a little more sense.

Sorry if I'm belaboring a point, but being a devote moderate, hearing knee-jerk 'liberals are the cause of all evil', or 'conservative are the cause of all evil' coming from the other side, just rubs me. They're certainly comforting rallying cries, but the world is much too complicated for such simple platitudes to be true.

 

[HOPHEAD]

So we should strictly enforce the unconstitutional gun laws we have in Massachusetts? Is that what you are saying?

Silly me, I thought the 2nd Amendement was his LTC!

Liberal frickin' wienies in the defender's offices around the state. And, the judges are just as bad.

Get the scumbags off the streets by enforcing the laws! No LTC should mean automatic jail time. Ammo, too? More jail time. No mercy. No deals.

I predict that Livington will eventually end up dead, but not before killing others. The system is really, really broken.

 

[Scrivener]

Silly me, I thought the 2nd Amendement [sic] was his LTC!

Silly indeed........

 

[Doctordrew]

carrying a firearm with a license and possession of ammunition without a license

what lisence lets you carry a gun, but not ammunition??

 

[chuckster]

DD, that confused me also.
Chuck

 

[Len-2A Training]

carrying a firearm with a license and possession of ammunition without a license

what lisence lets you carry a gun, but not ammunition??

Maybe it is a "Boston unique" restriction?

j/k