Dateline

[Gabe]

I just watched Friday's Dateline; it covered a trial in Arizona of a guy who shot another guy dead in the woods back in 2004. The jury convicted with the charge of 2nd degree murder. There were maddening misrepresentations of firearms throughout the broadcast as you'd imagine, but the moral of the story for enthusiasts: Public opinion matters for more than just legislation.

It is frightening to think of being in a similar situation in this state...if an Arizona jury convicted partially based on woeful ignorance of firearms best practices, then anyone would be fuct in Mass.

The defense fell down, by not instructing the jury that 1)hollow point ammunition is effective, not evil, 2)although a 10mm cartridge is more powerful than what most LEOs use, the longterm trend is that LEOs are using more powerful cartridges than legacy .38s and 9mms, and 3)if you CCW, you are only to expose the gun when you need to shoot, and that otherwise it is brandishing. But this only underscores how critical it is to change public opinion concerning firearms. This ignorance is appalling, and threatening. Whatever the law says, jurys should know enough about firearms to make just verdicts. Awful.

(BTW, the gun was a cherry Kimber 1911, it was difficult to follow the story when they flashed that beauty across the screen .)

 

[Jose]

Wave your right to trial by jury.

I'd rather be judged by one educated man than by twelve morons.

The judge is more of my peer than 12 dumbasses pulled from the street.

 

[ICZEOZN]

That is also what you get from people who are more concerned about the health and safety of criminals than the ability of law-abiding citizens to properly defend themselves.

We all know that the argument against HP bullets is pure trash, however it is sad when fellow citizens would send you to prison and ruin your life for simply using more than "just enough" force. If anything, the HP's increased lethality is doing them a favor...

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Wave your right to trial by jury.

I'd rather be judged by one educated man than by twelve morons.

The judge is more of my peer than 12 dumbasses pulled from the street.

Linda Hamilton might disagree. Old thread should have details.

 

[Jose]

Linda Hamilton might disagree. Old thread should have details.

And she might. Still does not affect my decision. Better to be judged by one intelligent man than by a panel of simpletons.

 

[drgrant]

And she might. Still does not affect my decision. Better to be judged by one intelligent man than by a panel of simpletons.

The thing is though, when faced with a shitty judge, that isn't even remotley
close to being a good alternative. In a place like MA, a jury is going to be
110 times better than any judge in this state.

-Mike

 

[Jose]

The thing is though, when faced with a shitty judge, that isn't even remotley
close to being a good alternative. In a place like MA, a jury is going to be
110 times better than any judge in this state.

-Mike

I guess it's a regional thing. I'm looking at it from the point of view of small town/rural/conservative western Ohio.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The thing is though, when faced with a shitty judge, that isn't even remotley
close to being a good alternative. In a place like MA, a jury is going to be
110 times better than any judge in this state.

-Mike

The only thing that's perfectly clear her is that nothing is perfectly clear. In the recent dog shooting case, defense counsel advise a bench trial since he didn't want to put a "shooting fido" case before a jury. He won an acquital on all counts.

The problem with the Linda Hamilton case was that only one individual had to be convinced it was reasonable to impose a "no jail time, felony conviction" on the defendant. A jury is not supposed to consider the possible sentence, however, the judge can (not should, but can) make deals with himself like "serious enough to convince, but not serious enough to jail."

I know of on individual who faced assault charges because be opened his fanny pack to display, but not draw,a gun during a dispute. He opted for a jury trial (even got his LTC back after winning) and won, despite the court's ruling that defense counsel count not use the criminal charges against one of the witnesses to impeach the credibility of that testimony. Care to guess how this judge probably would have ruled on the case?

Also, justice is a commodity like any other - you get no more than you can afford, and sometimes less.

 

[Hammer]

I'ts all about luck . You never know how the judge , jury , prosecutor , or even your own lawyer is going to behave .

 

[Len-2A Training]

Judges and some prosecutors are a lot more predictable than you may think!

That is why some folks go "judge shopping" to get their cases heard.

 

[Garys]

And she might. Still does not affect my decision. Better to be judged by one intelligent man than by a panel of simpletons.

One intelligent man who in many jurisdictions is a political appointee.

Gary

 

[Scrivener]

One intelligent man who in many jurisdictions is a political appointee.

And, once appointed, holds that office until the mandatory retirement age is achieved, absent some serious misconduct. If anyone thinks the judges rise and fall with those who appointed them, think again.