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.
Options
NJ man gets 7 years for gun "crime"
Henry0Reilly
Member Posts: 10,878 ✭✭✭
and the same judge dismissed clearly proven bestiality charges against a man last year.
read the story here
read the story here
I used to recruit for the NRA until they sold us down the river (again!) in Heller v. DC. See my auctions (if any) under username henryreilly
Comments
Yes, there is mom - and there is that judge, but it was a trial by jury. Just sayin'.
And the jury asked several times for documentation about a critical part of the case that the Judge disallowed - just sayin'. This is a BS case and should have never made it to trial. [V]
Yes, there is mom - and there is that judge, but it was a trial by jury. Just sayin'.
So trampling a man's rights is okay as long it's done by a group?
Okay, gotcha.[xx(]
quote:Originally posted by US Military Guy
Yes, there is mom - and there is that judge, but it was a trial by jury. Just sayin'.
And the jury asked several times for documentation about a critical part of the case that the Judge disallowed - just sayin'. This is a BS case and should have never made it to trial. [V]
Spin,
Two words covers that perfectly- *Jury Nullification.
The jury had the power the entire time to tell that judge to take his personal prejudices and shot 'em up his *. Instead, they chose to wrongfully send a fellow citizen to prison. They are as complicit in this as the dumb-* judge.
*Jury nullification occurs when a jury in a criminal case acquits a defendant despite the weight of evidence against him or her.
NS
quote:Originally posted by Spin_Drift
quote:Originally posted by US Military Guy
Yes, there is mom - and there is that judge, but it was a trial by jury. Just sayin'.
And the jury asked several times for documentation about a critical part of the case that the Judge disallowed - just sayin'. This is a BS case and should have never made it to trial. [V]
Spin,
Two words covers that perfectly- *Jury Nullification.
The jury had the power the entire time to tell that judge to take his personal prejudices and shot 'em up his *. Instead, they chose to wrongfully send a fellow citizen to prison. They are as complicit in this as the dumb-* judge.
*Jury nullification occurs when a jury in a criminal case acquits a defendant despite the weight of evidence against him or her.
NS
Agreed.
Two problems in nullification by juries though...
First, the selection process practically requires one to consider ONLY the evidence and ONLY the instructions as directed by the judge. This effectively takes most out of the mindset of nullification.
Second, after the trial, the judges instruct and admonish the 'brainiac's' of the jury that HE/SHE will instruct them on what that are ONLY allowed to consider and on the points of 'the law' that they may use.
People are rarely willing to step outside the specifically created box they have been placed in by the judge and his specific instructions.
After-all, a 'judge' told them what they HAVE to do, right?
In Chicago a 19 year old POS on parole with an ankle bracelet, who was released after only 3 years (sentenced for 6)for armed robbery (with a shotgun) was just arrested for murdering a cop and another guy while they were investigating a robbery that the 19 year old committed at his NEIGHBORS garage. The 19 year old shot both guys twice in the head with a 9mm.
So, 7 years for a 27 year old man owning 2 guns unloaded and locked in the trunk. Purchased legally and not committing any other crime other than "illegal possession of a couple guns, ammo, mags in some stupid state and a punk kid that robbed a liquor store with a shotgun at age 16 gets only 6 years and is released in 3 years because "no one was seriously hurt in the robbery".
Yeah, gun laws are sure working.
I thought it was illegal for a 16 year old to have a shotgun? A 19 year old Felon to have a handgun in Chicago.
Maybe it didn't really happen.....
quote:Originally posted by US Military Guy
Yes, there is mom - and there is that judge, but it was a trial by jury. Just sayin'.
So trampling a man's rights is okay as long it's done by a group?
Okay, gotcha.[xx(]
Absolutly not. My point is / was that there was an opportunity for the conviction NOT to happen - by a much larger group than the single one making the phone call - or the single judge. If our system will not work, when the decision is placed in the hands of a larger group, we are in a world of hurt. Others have talked about jury nullification. What about just plain old "NOT GUILTY"?
I assume the decision is being appealed?
Yes, and the judge is being removed from the bench.
No jury in the state of New Jersey has the balls to use jury nullification. New Jersey juries do what the judge tells them to do, or in the case of Grand Juries, they do what the prosecutor tells them to do.
I've seen New Jersey Grand Juries return true bills of indictment for things which weren't illegal. Juries and Grand Juries in New Jersey are among the worst in the nation. They aren't anything to brag about anywhere, but this is one area where New Jersey tops the list.
If he had murdered another human being a large part of his trial would be determining his intent. Since his crime was having an inanimate object in the trunk of his car, intent doesn't come into it. Beautiful.
If I'm on a jury and ask the judge what the law is, and the judge tells me he doesn't want me to know, that's all I need to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt. I just don't understand everybody's fear of the judge. What the hell good is the jury system if juries are afraid to use it?