Oyez! Oyez! You are on a THR jury

Status
Not open for further replies.
silverstate, the ideologue.

Kansas just passed thier new CCW (congrats) with several restrictions, one being not allowing carry in a church.
Now, next year sometime, some idiot decides he needs to kill all the christians so he loads up the next sunday and takes a stroll over to the local church. After he barges in the door and yells 'say hello to my little friend', he caps the first man sitting in the pew next to him, but a guy sitting three rows away stands up and puts two in his chest, dropping said assailant.

Fast forward, guy is facing violations of the CCW law now, because he carried in church. Don't try to argue that it would never happen because he saved lives. Some overzealous anti gun prosecutor will try to use this to make the CCW law look bad and hopefully get it repealed.

Do you convict, based on the merits of fact and law alone?
 
Thanks to all who have addressed my post.

I have more questions: if you would vote guilty as to Serious Violent Felon in Possession of a Firearm (for purposes of this hypothetical, the underlying felony was Voluntary Manslaughter), are there any circumstances wherein you would vote to acquit? Any arguments that you might find persuasive?

*As an aside to the question of jury nullification that has arisen, our duty as citizens to the Constitution trumps any alleged duty to "follow the law" as the Supreme Court has stated several times. The law of my state (Indiana) states plainly that "jurors are the triers of the facts and the law." If juries do not like a law, then the law (as well as the U.S. Constitution) mandates that they vote not guilty. Jury nullification is the law and there is nothing dishonorable about following that law.:)
 
are there any circumstances wherein you would vote to acquit?
Click to expand...

How long has it been since the conviction? If the felony was a "youthful indescretion" and the guy had served his time, and stayed out of trouble since, I would take that into account. Since the govt has made it impossible to have rights restored legally, :barf: :barf: , I'll do it myself. Even if SilverState doesn't like it.:neener:
 
Is this thread billable ???? :D

El T,

The only way I would vote for Not Gulity on SVFiP, is if:

1) If his conviction was a long time ago and he's been a Boy Scout since, with not so much as a parking ticket. (would also depend on the circumstances regarding the VM conviction.)

or

2) "It belonged to someone else." With some type of proof that, yes, there was someone who had been in the house recently who could legaly possess.
 
Last edited:
SilverState -

Here are a few examples of ridiculous law in your state.

State of Nevada: It is legal to hang someone for shooting your dog on your property.

Elko, Nevada: Everyone walking the streets is required to wear a mask.

Nyala, Nevada: A man is forbidden from buying drinks for more than three people other than himself at any one period during the day. (ever bought a round, SilverState? -- off to the slammer for you)

Reno, Nevada: It is illegal to lie down on the sidewalk.

Reno, Nevada: Sex toys are outlawed.

Eureka, Nevada: Men who wear moustaches are forbidden from kissing women.

SilverState -- if all law was followed to the letter of the law, with out taking into consideration the color of the law, things would be mighty ridiculous.

While the above laws are certainly ridiculous (we can make a similar list for any state), many feel it is equally ridiculous that a man released back into society does not have his rights restored and thus, does not have the right to keep arms for lawful purposes.

The degree to which you believe in a law *just because it's a law* is quite scary. You remove the important roll of common sense and rectitude when you blindly apply any law.
 
According to you all, we should not have laws at all.
Click to expand...

No, we don't. False dichotomy.

We should have laws. And we should have juries. The purpose of a jury is two-fold: To establish guilt, and to rule on the law itself. If the law is a just law being justly applied, the jury won't overrule it.

There's the law, and there's justice. Where those overlap, it is often mere coincidence. The purpose of a jury is to moderate the law with justice.
 
SilverState said:
According to you all, we should not have laws at all. Maybe we should just do like they do in Iraq.
Click to expand...

Did you have a big bowl of non sequitur for breakfast this morning? Seems as though you spilled some on your keyboard.

No one has avowed or even tenuously implied that "we should not have laws at all." How outlandish your comments have become.

If you’re unable to debate your points of view with rationality why even get into the discussion at all?

You have completely ignored legitimate points put forth by other posters, or you have taken their observations to the unqualified extreme in an endeavor to prove how absurd you feel those points may be.

Both tactics are a sure way to lose the debate, and any credibility I might add.

Time for me to take the high road. Now where did I put those directions...
 
I have more questions: if you would vote guilty as to Serious Violent Felon in Possession of a Firearm (for purposes of this hypothetical, the underlying felony was Voluntary Manslaughter), are there any circumstances wherein you would vote to acquit? Any arguments that you might find persuasive?
Click to expand...
I like Powderman's appeal to the lesser harm doctrine. The felon may have broke the law, but in doing so, saved his life (death of the attacker vs. the death of the victim). Furthermore, acquitting on murder and convicting on FIP is just talking out of both sides of one's mouth: you would be saying it was right for him to defend himself, but that he should not have had the means to do so.
 
Last edited:
SilverState said:
There is no ridiculous duty to retreat like the hypothetical stated a few posts before. Let's stick to this hypothetical involving the ex-felon (violent offender) with a gun.
Click to expand...
SilverState said:
New York does not have a duty to retreat like the hypothetical on page 2.
Click to expand...
Penal Law § 35.15 contains the duty to retreat provisions. Granted, they don't apply in one's home if one isn't the instigator, but the law exists.

New York is not the only state with a "duty to retreat" law (Pennsylvania comes to mind, and has similar requirements) and while most states don't specifically require retreat once the attack has progressed into one's home, there has been some caselaw to that effect. Michigan, for instance, has several cases in which the defendant shot and killed someone within their home but were convicted because the judge instructed the jury that they had a duty to retreat within the home (even though this is not technically the case except when it comes to a co-occupant).
The State cannot "stack" a jury to "railroad" a defendant.
Click to expand...
Can the State order a jury to convict someone on an unjust law? For instance, could a judge hypothetically order a jury to convict someone based on the facts of the case, even if the law clearly violated their First Amendment rights? Would the Jury be obligated to do so?
 
Can the State order a jury to convict someone on an unjust law? For instance, could a judge hypothetically order a jury to convict someone based on the facts of the case, even if the law clearly violated their First Amendment rights? Would the Jury be obligated to do so?
Click to expand...

No, Jury Nullification is an absolute right of the jury, and has been supported in dozens of decisions and trials in American History. The jury has the right to decide a case on 2 things:
1 Merit of the Law
2 Facts

It is an absolute right afforded both by "creation"* and by law, and anyone who has to say differently is incorrect.

SilverState: Your point on an oath is incorrect. Just because you take an "oath" does not mean it is completely binding. In many cases, it is more honorable to break your oath than to keep it.

As for felons with guns, it depends on your definition of life. It is often regarded that a group of rights are afforded to an individual by "God"* (ie, God Given Rights). Among those are life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness(recognize that line?). It was also believed by both sides of the aisle during the Bill of Rights debate (Federalists v Anti-Federalists) that the rights currently enumerated by the BoR are "God Given"*. Therefore, even though someone has in the past committed a crime, they still have a "God Given"* right to defend themselves against an immoral government, an evil individual, or an absuive tyrannt. These rights are irrivokable by man. Period.



*I use the phrases "God Given" and "Creation" in both religious and athiest contexts. Those of religious following believe that the rights are given to us by a creator of higher power. Athiests believe that these rights still belong to them, but are afforded by humanity, or existance, not by a greater being.
 
If you are hearing a murder prosecution that involves a classic fact pattern of self-defense (e.g. decedant invades defendant's home after decedant shot up his home and threatened to kill defendant earlier in the week) involving firearms use by the defendant, how is your decision influenced, if at all, by the fact that the defendant has a conviction for a crime of violence (which will come into evidence) and the defendant is a convicted felon who could not legally possess a firearm?
Click to expand...

Just curious why did someone come over and shoot up the defendants house?

Random act of violence?
Home invasion?
Gang war?
Drug deal gone bad?
Defendant was raping decedant's 10 year old daughter?
Defendant invited decedant over, started gunfight and claims self defense?
Two guys that had a little too much to drink?
 
Trip20 said:
While the above laws are certainly ridiculous (we can make a similar list for any state), many feel it is equally ridiculous that a man released back into society does not have his rights restored and thus, does not have the right to keep arms for lawful purposes.
Click to expand...

Although at the same time, many also feel it is ridiculous that a criminal not deemed fit to keep or bear arms can be released back into society.


What is the punishment for being a felon in possession of a firearm?

And if the jury was convinced that this particular felon, despite technically being guilty on the second charge, was now harmless to society and justified in possessing the gun, would it be possible for them to communicate that to the judge and influencing him towards leniency or acquittal in sentencing?
 
Under this hypothetical, the alleged motivation for the purported shooting up of the Defendant's house would be that the wife of the decedant (who may have wanted out of a marriage) told the decedant that she and the Defendant were making the beast with two backs. Defendant denied this.

Defendant=clean, dry and sober; decedant=meth and pot.
 
Under this hypothetical, the alleged motivation for the purported shooting up of the Defendant's house would be that the wife of the decedant (who may have wanted out of a marriage) told the decedant that she and the Defendant were making the beast with two backs. Defendant denied this.
Click to expand...

If true, not a good reason to shoot up another dude's house and trying to kill him.

Not guilty
Guilty
 
Kansas just passed thier new CCW (congrats) with several restrictions, one being not allowing carry in a church.
Now, next year sometime, some idiot decides he needs to kill all the christians so he loads up the next sunday and takes a stroll over to the local church. After he barges in the door and yells 'say hello to my little friend', he caps the first man sitting in the pew next to him, but a guy sitting three rows away stands up and puts two in his chest, dropping said assailant.

Fast forward, guy is facing violations of the CCW law now, because he carried in church. Don't try to argue that it would never happen because he saved lives. Some overzealous anti gun prosecutor will try to use this to make the CCW law look bad and hopefully get it repealed.

Do you convict, based on the merits of fact and law alone?
Click to expand...

"Hell yes!"

This isn't really that complicated. They dude who caught two in the chest, if he lives, goes down for murder. The illegal CCW goes down for whatever the penalty for carrying in a church is. (If doing so is a felony, he gets charged with murder because any death caused during the commission of a felony is such.)

It won't be some overzealous anti-gun prosecutor, it will be an honest and abiding servant of the law who will have to carry out this duty: and he probably won't like it.

"Let the jury decide?"

Fine. But I don't trust juries, either.

That situation would be such a cluster, but it does not excuse illegal use of a CCW. A penalty must be paid to uphold the law, even if a judge offers a $1 fine.
 
iapetus said:
Trip20 said:
While the above laws are certainly ridiculous (we can make a similar list for any state), many feel it is equally ridiculous that a man released back into society does not have his rights restored and thus, does not have the right to keep arms for lawful purposes.
Click to expand...
Although at the same time, many also feel it is ridiculous that a criminal not deemed fit to keep or bear arms can be released back into society.
Click to expand...

(bolding mine)

No, not "Although" -- I say, also! They are equally ridiculous. Both point towards the premise that the punishment should fit the crime; that felons should not be released into society if they cannot be trusted with all of their rights restored.

Felons still obtain firearms even with a big 'ole law in place. Do not release them into society until they can be trusted. But, we Americans are so quick to make a new law in order to fix a problem. We figure if we make it illegal, it will stop happening and we are safe! :banghead: :cuss:
 
Based on the facts and details, either the previous conviction is relevant or it's not.

If the guy was previously convicted of a murder in which he cleverly staged the shooting to appear to be self-defense, and if evidence of something similar was presented in the current case, then I'd have to consider it. I realize this is a far-fetched scenario.

More likely, there would be no obvious relevance. Ie; dude got in a bar fight ten years ago, now he shoots someone in self defense. Would not influence my decision.

El Tejon: under what circumstances can an Indiana jury rule on other than the facts of the case? Does the law have to be unconstitutional? Or just unpopular? Or just seem to be unfair or unjust under the circumstances of the case in question?
 
antsi, under any circumstances. Jury does not have to list reason or talk abou their decision.

FYI, jury nullification happened to me once when I was a deputy prosecuting attorney and I posted it here last year. Kid at Purdue from Alaska with a pistol. Kid was guilty as heck, but jury thought it was no big deal. I'll see if I can find the thread.

Here it is: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=134025&highlight=jury+nullification
 
Mr. SilverState said
Yes, the government must obey laws, just like the rest of us.
Click to expand...
Great satire. Or he is just out of law school. :p

Personally I would honor my oath. It's just that I don't think that I could ever be convinced that the State actually proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendent was actually in possession.

I would also argue that this whole possession charge revolves around the actual meaning of in and that the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendent was actually "in". :D

I would argue that the state failed to prove it. My choice. That is what jurors do.
 
Ezekiel said:
"Hell yes!"

This isn't really that complicated. They dude who caught two in the chest, if he lives, goes down for murder. The illegal CCW goes down for whatever the penalty for carrying in a church is. (If doing so is a felony, he gets charged with murder because any death caused during the commission of a felony is such.)

It won't be some overzealous anti-gun prosecutor, it will be an honest and abiding servant of the law who will have to carry out this duty: and he probably won't like it.

"Let the jury decide?"

Fine. But I don't trust juries, either.

That situation would be such a cluster, but it does not excuse illegal use of a CCW. A penalty must be paid to uphold the law, even if a judge offers a $1 fine.
Click to expand...
hypothetical then. Say Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp had broken the law and carried her concealed revolver in to that lubys and killed george hennard before he had the time to kill 22 people and injure that many more, should she be convicted or should the jury nullify?

ah, never mind. I can see that you've already answered that question like judge dredd.
'The law is the law'.
 
Sliverstate, it seems like you Honor is very important to you. i respect that. however, where is the Honor in sending a man to jail that dosen't deserve to be there, all because you took an oath? Maybe not in this particular situation, but there has to be some law somewhere you don't agree with, or some punishment that you don't believe fits the crime. i could think up a thousand diffrent scenarios. i would think the Honorable thing to do is the Right thing, even if you have to violate a personal code, or an oath you took. at any rate, if an oath is that important to you, i would hope you think long and hard about any you make.

i guess the point i'm trying to make is, to put it bluntly, if your oath is more important to you than some one else's freedom, in my book that's about as far from Honor as you can get.
 
Last edited:
Zero_DgZ stated, "Is it right? Nope. But it's the law, and the jury doesn't get to debate ethics. Just the letters written in those lawbooks."

Disagree. The Judge is supposed to insure all parties follow the law and the jury is properly instructed, in accordance with the law.

The Defense is supposed to make every legal effort to get a Not Guilty verdict.

The Prosecutor is supposed to make every legal effort to get a Guilty verdict.

The Jury are the ones who deal in right and wrong.

Geoff
Who mourns the passing of education in this country. :banghead:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
  • Poll
Oyez! Oyez! You are on a THR jury...SBS
2 3
Replies
72
Views
2K
TC-TX
T
Z
  • Locked
Today in the National Park Morning Report
Replies
4
Views
813
bruss01
B
D
  • Locked
A Review of Self Defense (MD Specific, But All Should Read)
Replies
1
Views
963
Spot77
S
B
  • Locked
for Pax, Legal Jeopardy.
Replies
2
Views
468
pax
P
tuj
  • Locked
my wife was on a self-defense case jury
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
Sheepdog1968
S
Back
Top