In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Interesting Conversation with Attorney about shoot
tr fox
Member Posts: 13,856
I had an interesting conversation the other day with an out-of-state attorney who is the attorney for a man who shot an intruder/burgler who was in the man's house and then the man got arrested for having a handgun in his house. although the conversation with the attorney was not mentioned as being "confidential" to be on the safe side of not letting anything of value slip out and get to the prosecutor and harm one of our gun people, I had better not be specific, how ever I would like to tell the story and maybe even under these circumstances some of you might find it interesting.
I offered to send a modest donation to help with legal fees and to post a request for GB members to do the same. But the attorney said they were doing this case based on principle and the worst that would happen is that his client (the man who shot the burgler) is a $750.00 fine and that would be no problem for him. I also complimented the attorney on his novel stragety of defense and mentioned that if he was looking for an even more novel but perhaps workable and until now unused stragety he might want to consider using words in the bible where Jesus orders his followers to "sell all you own and buy swords" (the handgun of the day). I was somewhat surprised when the attorney declined the idea, not because it was a bad idea, but because IT MIGHT MAKE THE JUDGE MAD! I thought if a citizens defense was sincere and legal, no judge could legally get mad. I am truly surprised. comments?
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
I offered to send a modest donation to help with legal fees and to post a request for GB members to do the same. But the attorney said they were doing this case based on principle and the worst that would happen is that his client (the man who shot the burgler) is a $750.00 fine and that would be no problem for him. I also complimented the attorney on his novel stragety of defense and mentioned that if he was looking for an even more novel but perhaps workable and until now unused stragety he might want to consider using words in the bible where Jesus orders his followers to "sell all you own and buy swords" (the handgun of the day). I was somewhat surprised when the attorney declined the idea, not because it was a bad idea, but because IT MIGHT MAKE THE JUDGE MAD! I thought if a citizens defense was sincere and legal, no judge could legally get mad. I am truly surprised. comments?
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
Comments
Where in the U.S. is it an arrestable offense to have a handgun in your house? Just curious where this happened.
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
They are just people too.
Now days if you try to bring religion into the courtroom,
well the attorney told you.....
Justice is not fair, it is which attorney you have. (read...how much money)
The gene pool needs chlorine.
Any such law that says it is illegal to own a self defense weapon is unconstitutional as everyone is guaranteed Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness and such a law violates this.
Ask the judge if you were to come to the bench and attempt to kill him if the bailif would use his side arm to shoot you. If he says yes ask him why, you aren't given the right to self defense under this law and he is not entitled to more of a defense of life than you.
The Illinois Constitution for a Defense:
SECTION 1. INHERENT AND INALIENABLE RIGHTS
All men are by nature free and independent and have
certain inherent and inalienable rights among which are life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
SECTION 2. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property...
SECTION 6. SEARCHES, SEIZURES, PRIVACY AND INTERCEPTIONS
The people shall have the right to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers and other possessions against
unreasonable searches, seizures, invasions of privacy....
SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.
SECTION 24. RIGHTS RETAINED
The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained
by the individual citizens of the State.
Heck throw this one at the judge:
ARTICLE XII
MILITIA
SECTION 1. MEMBERSHIP
The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons
residing in the State except those exempted by law.
You legally possessed the handgun as you are a State Militia member.
For most of my life I thought that if a government or judge, etc. was ignoring the rights of the citizens, all one had to do to rectify that situation was to do some research and pullup some of the various sources of constitutional rights, etc. that stated the citizens were being deprived of their rights. I truly and naively assumed that would correct the situation. I guess I thought the citizens and their attorneys who were the ones being the victims of this "illegal" conduct of the government, judges, etc., were just not sharp enough to think like I did about their situation. Boy was I naive. It appears to me that government and judges, etc. will usually do what they want to do if they can get away with it.
This Illinois man's lawyer seemed plenty sharp enough to know all, and more, than we can provide. My surprise from our conversation was that the lawyer had to take into account to not anger the judge. I know judges are human and can get angry like anyone else, but I thought the court checks & blances, the written law, etc., would not let the anger of a judge harm a defendent's sincere and lawful defense. It seems I was wrong.
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
I write to a couple of my state reps once in awhile.I have noticed a distinct pattern with the honorable Richard(dick)Lugar(r).I ALWAYS get a reply when an election is in the air,and he is ALWAYS concerned about ME and really CARES what affects me[:o)]I have to definately say don't take our state laws for granted.Indiana allows us to have class 3,all trigger configurations for auto weapons,and supressors(ordering one tomorrow from my local class 3 for my pre-ban m-4[;)]) AND ccw,which both my wife and I partake in.All it would take,in my humble opinion to erase most,if not all of that is some DB to take out a school or something of the like.We all agree on the fragility of our freedoms,but do you think we agree on the methodology to preserve them? Do you personally think people would really FIGHT on a large scale to resist consfication? I listened pretty close when Kalifornia enacted it's ban,after 2 years of registration , and I did not see 1 report saying anybody went off.In the final analysis,I wonder which helped us out more.NOT fighting and, feeding the anti movement even more,or going GUNS up and proving we will fight to preserve our rights? Since it was a state ban and not a national ban it is always arguable that the FED ban would incite revolution etc.etc..In my opinion I don't think you would see very much resistance at all,if any.Think about this for a minute, who wants to be the first one to start while everybody watches your demise on tv? I mean it would take a looong time until people from coast to coast would ALL decide collectively to go guns up.In the mean time alot of good people will go down.I hope it never comes to that but you never know these days.Oh.. I always unclick my buddy Richard(dick)Lugar(r) when I vote[;)]
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
I agree that it would be plain stupid to ever consider standing in a doorway etc. I appreciate your insight on these matters. I am glad to see that quite alot of people feel the same way,for the most part, as I.
As far as a judge being able to "legally get mad," there's nothing illegal about a judge getting mad. And a judge that's mad at you can do many things that are well within the law and are up to their discretion that can make an attorney's life miserable. It's generally not a good idea to upset a judge.
Or, suppose you launch your "Jesus" defense...and the judge happens to be Jewish! You're not necessarily going to have the impact you wanted.
[I put this one in, because I've heard of someone actually doing this!!! The judge just said, "I'm Jewish...got any better arguments from the Torah?]
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
I am disappointed. Not disappointed that a judge can mad, I knew that. But Disappointed that an angry judge can, to some degree, act like some angry guy in a bar that decides to do things and treat people in unfair ways. I thought even an angry judge would want to maintain a certain level of decorum in the courtroom and to keep his professionalism and I thought even an angry judge would have to follow the law.
But even at that, how unfair for a defendent to be afraid of making the judge mad by offering a particular defense. One such as his religous beliefs cause him to own a weapon as when Jesus ordered his followers to sell all they own and buy a sword (the handgun of it's day). That to me seems like if you follow Jesus (I am not a religous person) that you should own a weapon. I would hate to think that such a defense would make a judge mad to the point that he/she would take puntitive action aganinst the defendent or his/her attorney.
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
mpolans: Even with the large number of years I have been on this Earth, I am dispointed to hear what you are saying. And I think I remember you posting that you are an attorney plus all your posts I have read have been sensible so I trust what you are saying to be true. I guess I never actually wanted to believe that the attorney and defendent had to not only conform to the law but TO THE JUDGE.
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"