Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

WhiskeyGrinder

(22,356 posts)
Sat Apr 8, 2023, 04:06 PM Apr 2023

Duluth NAACP demands dismissal of man's gun charge

https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/local/duluth-naacp-demands-dismissal-of-mans-gun-charge

Holy shit, what a mess.


The St. Louis County Attorney’s Office is prosecuting Cooper for illegally possessing a firearm that he found in his dead brother’s car in July. Cooper wrapped the handgun in a sweatshirt, placed it inside a secure door in his apartment building and called his parole officer to retrieve it.

That is illegal under the letter of the law, as Cooper is prohibited from possessing any firearm, and state statute does not allow exceptions for brief or accidental possession. But the Duluth Branch of the NAACP labeled it “unjust” and took to the steps of the courthouse to demand that County Attorney Kim Maki exercise prosecutorial discretion and dismiss the case.

(snip)

Maki acknowledged the NAACP’s perspective, but said her office “will not shortcut our responsibility to the public to ensure a thorough investigation of this matter.” She added that any allegations of racism are “unfounded.”

“We stand by the decision to charge Mr. Cooper for violating the law based on the evidence we had at the time,” Maki said in a statement. “The statute at issue in this case is a strict liability statute, meaning that the possessor’s intent isn’t an element of the crime. Rather, if a prohibited person is in possession of a firearm or ammunition, whether they intend to or not, they have violated the statute.”


Mandatory minimum of five years, up to 15.
6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Duluth NAACP demands dismissal of man's gun charge (Original Post) WhiskeyGrinder Apr 2023 OP
Hmm... OldBaldy1701E Apr 2023 #1
It would take a huge asshole to prosecute that. Chainfire Apr 2023 #2
It wouldn't have to be a mess if the County Attorney showed some common sense dflprincess Apr 2023 #3
Indeed. Duluth is in a fight for its soul. PlutosHeart Apr 2023 #4
Common sense sarisataka Apr 2023 #5
Here's a petition geardaddy Apr 2023 #6

OldBaldy1701E

(5,130 posts)
1. Hmm...
Sat Apr 8, 2023, 06:00 PM
Apr 2023
“The statute at issue in this case is a strict liability statute, meaning that the possessor’s intent isn’t an element of the crime. Rather, if a prohibited person is in possession of a firearm or ammunition, whether they intend to or not, they have violated the statute.”


Gee, I wonder why it was written that way?

dflprincess

(28,079 posts)
3. It wouldn't have to be a mess if the County Attorney showed some common sense
Sat Apr 8, 2023, 09:11 PM
Apr 2023

along with "prosecutorial discretion". I have a feeling Mr. Cooper would have been charged even if he had called police the second he saw the gun in the car.

PlutosHeart

(1,280 posts)
4. Indeed. Duluth is in a fight for its soul.
Sat Apr 8, 2023, 10:41 PM
Apr 2023

This is just one thing to be made an example of to further cause issues.

sarisataka

(18,663 posts)
5. Common sense
Tue Apr 11, 2023, 11:28 AM
Apr 2023

Is quite uncommon.

Would it have made a difference if he left it in the car and made the call? Probably not, since the car was also in his possession.

Don't punish people on a technicality for doing the right thing.

Latest Discussions»Region Forums»Minnesota»Duluth NAACP demands dism...