This is a discussion on Judge: No Gun For Gun Rights Advocate within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by SIGguy229 So...he hasn't been convicted of a crime...but his rights are infringed upon?? IIRC, the two "victims" are well-known to police and ...
Having sat on many juries (I just can't seem to come up as many good excuses as others do) I have learned one hard fact of life. There is no such thing as shooting a "known criminal." The BGs past record cannot be brought up in trial. Usually the defendent's record is verboten also, and is only admissible at the sentencing hearing.
That is another reason you want to be awfully sure that the BG's actions (at the time of the shooting) were visible to others (if possible) and were reasonable (to a jury of liberal bleeding heart jury members) to consider as threatening. The case presented to the jury will be that you shot an "innocent" citizen, and they will probably never know or will be able to consider the BG's past.
Even if the BG's face and name has been plastered all over the media as "Public Enemy #1", the jury will be instructed that his past has nothing to do with the present case and that they are to concentrate only on yours and his actions at the time of the shooting.
At the trial there are no "good guys" or "bad guys', just two citizens. Your actions are judged solely on what occured at the time of the shooting.
Your best bet is to be judged a "no bill" at the grand jury and not indicted. (most states/municipalities are going to charge you automatically for some form of homicide and let the GJ or Prosecutor's office sort it out) I don't believe that is likely that a "no bill" will occur in the area of the this occurance.
Retired Marine, Retired School Teacher, Independent voter, Goldwater Conservative.
Frankly, when I read the news and although I always hear "things are different in (Tex., Ariz, yada yada), I see no substantive differences between those places and everywhere else.
Completely insufficient details to tell how the encounter went. Could have been two guys attempting to mug him. Could have been he mistakenly presumed "two guys coming toward him" equals "attack" and justifies the maximum response. Could have been he got fearful, demand they halt, and when they didn't (because they weren't assaulting him) he decided to shoot them. Who knows. They haven't mentioned other witnesses, so it might well be a he-said / she-said thing, up to the jury's impressions of whose story is more believable.
As for being denied use of one's firearms when charged with murder, to me that seems reasonable. That's nothing at all like the Pyles take-down by SWAT teams a couple months back, in which he was merely feared ... and that was deemed sufficient to take his guns and commit him for evaluation.