The Right to Keep and Bear Arms at its Worst

[fightthegoodfightnow]

He gets off for murder.

But heh, he's still keeps his gun to intimidate people.

Gets convicted for that but not murder.

Does anyone really want to defend that?

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/17/dc-man-sentenced-threatening-witness/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS


.

[oneshooter]

1. Seven years indicates to me a felony comviction.

That means that under Federal Law he will no longer be able to posses a firearm, and those he currently owns must be disposed of.
So this "But heh, he's still keeps his gun to intimidate people." is wrong.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[AtheistCrusader]

128. 126 posts in this thread, and this post was totally ignored.

Astounding.

[oneshooter]

129. The anti's don't like my questions, they are too hard to answer.

The rest

[socialindependocrat]

2. This is a problem with the legal system

The article says, "after he was acquitted of the 2008 fatal shooting "

It doesn't say how or why he got aquitted.

The law says that people who use a gun during the commission of a crime will automaticall serve 2 years on top of whatever sentence is metered out for the crime. This is usually the first thing that is plea-bargained away. The laws are there but the legal system doesn't use the laws it has.

You need to find out why he was aquitted in the first place.

No one wants these people on the streets.

[pipoman]

4. What people?

No one wants these people on the streets.

What people is that? People who are acquitted of a criminal charge? Generally people on DU approve of the whole innocent until proven guilty concept. This guy was not proven guilty apparently..

edit..not guilty of murder anyway..and he won't be on the streets for a while..

[socialindependocrat]

8. The link states that the guy shot thru the front of the house..

Now, even tho he was aquitted of murder...

doesn't it strike you as a little odd that the guy would shoot at the front of an occupied house?

My safety training says that that is an absolute no-no and therefore I say that the person has shown that he shouldn't own a gun.

[X_Digger]

11. Do you want the state to enforce your judgement?

By what legal justification would his rights be removed? (I'm talking about the period of time before the second trial and subsequent conviction, of course.)

That pesky due process, getting in the way of some good authoritarianism. eta: just in case someone misses it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

20. Is That What Someone Does

.....when they point and shoot a gun at a person?

Judge and Jury.

[X_Digger]

42. Lol, so now shooting someone is *always* murder?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

44. Nah

Only when an armed man shoots an unarmed man whose only 'crime' was being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

That killing was wrong.
That killing was not 'self defense.'
That killing was murder.

Have a good laugh at that as you seem to be.

[X_Digger]

48. I laugh at idiots who wish to pervert our legal system

By supporting the state removing someone's rights without a conviction.

Judges and juries - the trappings of due process are between the state and an individual.

I do not owe you a trial, a judge, nor a jury if you threaten me. Your obvious lack of knowledge about this fact must be the basis for your bleating 'judge and jury' repeatedly.

I suggest picking up a constitutional law primer. (It might even help with your repeated utterances regarding representation, too.)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

50. Seems You Don't Know the Law

Apparently not every threat warrants using deadly force.

But heh.....my 'lack of knowledge' is something you could learn from.

Tell me would the person being threatened by the man using a hand gesture be justified in pulling out a gun and shooting him?

[X_Digger]

52. Had I said *every* threat warrants deadly force, you might have a point.

But since I didn't, you don't.

Your ignorance is nothing to be proud of.

In most states, the standard is some variation of, 'a reasonable fear of grievous bodily harm'.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

53. 'Your Ignorance'?

Tell me how many times do you have to refer to my ignorance before you consider yourself worthy enough to have a respectful and intelligent conversation about guns?

Maybe I confused your post with Pippo. If I did I apologize.

[X_Digger]

54. Kinda of hard to have intelligent conversation when one side isn't.

But seriously- if you'd actually look into something, rather than just repeating some silly statement ad nauseum, I'm more than happy to get into a discussion.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

55. Silly Statements?

You mean like 'you're ignorant.'

Seriously, what were you saying about one side doesn't want a serious conversation?

I'll look into it.

[X_Digger]

56. No, like "Judge and Jury"

The whole supposition, that defending oneself with a gun deprives the attacker of due process- something not owed a person by another person- is downright silly.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

60. Nah

Not going to happen.

A gun is just that. There is no due process. It decides guilt or innocence in a nano second. There is no innocence until proven guilty. The judgment is swift and final. No appeals. Oh and in this case, there was no 'defending' oneself. Just a vigilante who got it wrong.

[X_Digger]

65. OMFG, you still don't get it.

"Due process" is a burden that exists between the state and a person.

Due process does not fucking exist between two people.

Geezus, man, educate yourself.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

66. Exactly

Thanks for making my case.

A gun killed not only the person but the opportunity for an individual to have due process with the state.

No need for profanity or insults. Just makes you sound angry, frustrated and unpersuasive.

[X_Digger]

67. Lol, I can't deny you due process (assuming I'm not a judge).. it's physically impossible.

At this point I have to assume you actually do understand, and are just being intentionally obtuse. (Hint, it's not working, you're just looking silly.)

But on the off chance, let me try again.

Due process is what the state has to do before it can restrict a person's rights.

There is no obligation on a citizen with regards to due process as it pertains to interactions with other citizens. There are two parties in a due process claim- the state, and an individual.

If the family of an attacker who was killed by his intended victim could raise a due process claim, don't you think someone would have done so in the last 220 fucking years?!?

That asinine 'judge and jury' shit is laughable. Do stop embarrassing yourself, and pick up a text on the subject, please?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

68. The Person Being Shot is Presumably Guilty of a Crime-Otherwise No Need to Shoot

Whether justified or not, when a gun is used to kill someone it is denying him a voice to make his case he is innocent. There is always a social contract between the state and the individual. It is a violation of due process when an individual obstructs that. It is final and often not necessary particularly when the other person is unarmed and the shooter was at no risk of danger since he could have remained in the car.

Here's another take on it:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-murder-of-trayvon-martin-is-not-a-black-problem/

Contrary to what you may think, your use of 'shit' and 'fuck' doesn't further civil and respectful discourse nor does it demonstrate intellectual superiority. I'd be a little less worried about how stupid you think I am.

[X_Digger]

76. The 'social contract' between individuals is codified in the criminal code.

There is no 'due process' charge that one person can levy against another person. There is no criminal code for one person violating another's due process.

The criminal code says that deadly force is justified / excusable / etc when the person reasonably fears imminent grievous harm. That is the standard.

If there were this magical violation of due process when one person uses deadly force against their attacker, where is the case law supporting it? Where is the criminal charge? What section of federal or state code can you cite to support your bullshit claim?



*crickets*

Thought so.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

79. Social Contract

See...the key word in 'social contract' is social. It's a contract with each other.

When someone violates someone's civil rights or due process, the government represents the people.

As for 'reasonably fears imminent grievous harm', he will have due process to defend himself against any criminal charges. The unarmed defenseless kid killed will not. His due process was denied by the shooter.

[X_Digger]

82. I give up. You've obviously got it, yet deny it.

Next time, I'll draw stick figures, just to show how silly your intentional ignorance appears to those who don't know that you're working hard not to get it.

In the meantime, find that section of code yet?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

83. And still no argument in there.....

....no reference to guns or the law.

Let's recap: we disagree. One respectfully and one prone to personal attacks, insults and profanity....in other words not so respectfully.

DU has an ignore feature if you truly 'give up'. I'm not banking on it.

[X_Digger]

86. LOL! You realize you're asking me to prove a negative?

eta: and by that, I mean, you won't find a law that says that due process doesn't apply to individuals. By that same token, you won't find a law that says shoes may not be green, or that apples may not be over 6 ounces in weight. That does not mean the converse is true. Derp.



This isn't about guns, this is about fundamental government concepts.

Let's start simple.. what is the purpose of the Bill of Rights?

Well, let's read the instruction book- the preamble:

[div class='excerpt']The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers *1*, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses *2* should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Now class, pop quiz.

1. Who is the 'it' in 'abuse of its powers' above?

2. 'restrictive clauses' are levied against whom?

If you answered 'the government' to both questions, you got the right answers.

Moving on..

[div class='excerpt']
Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Who does the restriction highlighted in Amendment V above apply to?

That's right, class, the government. Gold star!

Word problem:
Johnny steals Jake's wallet. Jake goes to the police and asks the officer to file a claim that he has been deprived of property without due process of law. The officer laughs at Jake. Explain why.

Bonus question: You get an instant 'A' in any class, ever, if you can find a section of federal, state, or local law that says individuals owe each other due process.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

87. Like I Said.....

I'm not banking on it.....indeed......it took all of what less than a hour for you to retreat from your statement that you 'give up.' Apparently, I can't take you at your word.

When you say government, are you referring the people? Guns that kill people falsely accused by the shooter of a crime are denied the ability to clear their name.....much less keep their life......and whether you agree with me or not, that's a denial of 'due process' and everything else that is just and right.

[X_Digger]

88. No dear, government is a concept, granted power by the people

You know, the whole 'deriving its just power by the consent of the governed'.

It's not me you have to convince. You can keep any silly idea in your head you want.

But for it to actually have any weight, you'd have to get a court to not throw you out on your ear, laughing. (None have done so in the 220 odd years since the passing of the fifth amendment.)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

89. Wow

Your patronizing, vulgar, insults and personal attacks have no power in or out of court and carry no weight with me.

Guns are sometimes used unjustly to kill innocent people denying them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness .... And yes due process of the law because the shooter thinks incorrectly he is above the law or is the law.

We disagree.

[X_Digger]

92. One of us has history, our framework of government, our founding documents, and law on our side. n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

95. According to You

....the authority.

[X_Digger]

97. No, not according to me.. according to our founding documents, USC criminal code, TX criminal code..

(I'll save you the listing of states who do NOT have a criminal offense for abrogating someone's due process- it's all of them.)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

99. Guns Kill...Sometimes the Bad Guys, Sometimes the Good Guys, Sometimes Justly, Sometimes Not

Can we agree on that?

Oh right. Cigarettes don't cause cancer.....just smoking.

[X_Digger]

103. People kill with guns, yes.. sometimes for good, sometimes not. n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

105. Just as I thought

.

[DWC]

70. Do you really enjoy trying to educate a stump

or are you just "in to" self abuse???

Semper Fi,

[fightthegoodfightnow]

74. Nothing About Guns?

if you have nothing to say about guns....be gone.....you have no power here.

[X_Digger]

77. Lol, I figure if any lurkers have this asinine meme lodged in their head inadvertently..

maybe I can dislodge it.

[oneshooter]

78. Possable with the help of a 4lb hammer, otherwise?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

81. That's How You Want to 'Educate' Me.....

....with a 4lb hammer?

Not funny. Not even defensible. Good luck with that 'possibility'. I guess some make bad jokes when that's all they have.

Anything to say about guns?

[X_Digger]

84. At this point, we're talking about fundamental government concepts, not even guns.

We had to take a few steps back because you (apparently) didn't actually understand that 'Due Process' doesn't apply to individuals.

Now that we know it's just a ruse, we can all just get a chuckle.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

85. I was resonding to and asking Oneshooter...not you.

Joking about using a hammer to educate me is not taking a few steps back.

Anything about how guns can kill not only an individual but their right to a trial that includes due process and a presumption of innocence particularly for an unarmed kid?

[oneshooter]

90. So, if I am attacked, even in my own home, I should

cower in fear and pray my attacker will not remove my life without a trial? I will be not allowed to defend myself less I injure the attacker, less he get hurt without a jury saying that it is all right to do so?

If attacked I will defend myself and my family with whatever force I believe necessary at that time. Upto and including deadly force. As for you, I don't believe I should raise a finger to help you, as you apparently don't believe in harming an attacker and I respect your beliefs enough to not do so.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[fightthegoodfightnow]

91. That's NOT What Happened in THIS Case Is It?

That's NOT What Happened in THIS Case Is It?

[oneshooter]

93. I truly do not know. The trial hasn't happened yet.

Although you seem to have him convicted and hanging by his toes over a slow fire.

Untill the trial and all the evidence is shown I will reserve judgement.

Anything about how guns can kill not only an individual but their right to a trial that includes due process and a presumption of innocence particularly for an unarmed kid?

Is ignorant on it's face.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[fightthegoodfightnow]

94. Disagree

I'm betting the prosecution disagrees.

And the pretense of being neutral in the case until trial is over is disingenuous at best.

Calling me 'ignorant' because I believe guns can kill not only an individual but their right to a trial that includes due process and a presumption of innocence particularly for an unarmed kid may make you FEEL good but it's not persuasive. Is there any situation were a gun was ever used to unjustly kill someone who was indeed not a threat?

Assuming the facts as we currently know them and as limited as they are, was killing the kid justified?

Right...you don't know.

[oneshooter]

113. Slow down and read again.

I said that the IDEA was ignorant, as in ignorant of the law and the way it works.
Not you.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[fightthegoodfightnow]

96. HERE is What the Trial Will Show

HERE is What the Trial Will Show

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/18/446768/what-everyone-should-know-about-about-trayvon-martin-1995-2012/

[ManiacJoe]

106. Hopefully the trial will show much more.

For the facts presented on that page are very lacking in the answering of key questions.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

107. Everyone is Looking

....so far nothing 'lacking' other than what is in your mind.

[ManiacJoe]

117. That would be a sad commentary on you and "everyone" else.

The first glaring question is: What actually happened?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

118. No one has disputed anything already said

No one has disputed anything already said.

[ManiacJoe]

121. What "everything"?

Am I missing new reports as to what actually happened?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

122. Here

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/18/446768/what-everyone-should-know-about-about-trayvon-martin-1995-2012/

[ManiacJoe]

127. That is the same lacking list from post #96.

Given the rate of reporting, we may have a good idea about what happened in about a week.

[shadowrider]

124. You mean the part about

the guy screaming "help" was zimmerman? If you haven't seen that yet, it's being seriously downplayed. Unless and until I hear from different witnesses AND hear zimmermans version of what happened, I'm reserving judgment.

[Starboard Tack]

130. 'a reasonable fear of grievous bodily harm'.

Like a homeless guy with a knife asking for some change? Oh, yeah! Time to get the bazooka out of the truck and stand my ground, rather than get in the truck and drive away. But he looked scary, your honor and he had a knife.
Nothing like getting a little perspective on things.

[X_Digger]

133. Yes, a person with a knife, chasing you around your vehicle. Fucking duh. n/t

[pipoman]

13. An acquittal is an acquittal

innocent until proven guilty, if one is acquitted of a crime, they are legally not guilty therefore no punishment...we don't punish or remove rights in the US without due process...(usually)

The guy received a felony conviction on another charge, so won't be eligible to own, possess or evn touch a firearm forever (with a few exceptions)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

21. With a few exceptions?

Do tell ....and tell us if you support those exceptions.

[pipoman]

23. Pardons and such..

I generally oppose pardons unless it is because of a mistake in conviction or some act of amazing heroism or humanity worthy of reward.

Oh, and expungements and people who apply for reinstatement..

I believe people's rights should be restored in their entirety at some point after their 'debt to society' is paid.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

26. Right

Someone is convicted of murder with a firearm whose done their time is entitled to that 'right'? Wonder if the victims feel that way.

Heck, do you even support the notion they have to apply?

[pipoman]

14. Oh, and no,

the link states he was accused of shooting through the front of a house. Somebody apparently couldn't convince a jury that the person who shot through the house was, in fact, the accused..not guilty..

[fightthegoodfightnow]

51. Right

So would you shoot him if he made a shooting gesture with his hand?

After all that's a threat unless you disagree with the second jury.

[pipoman]

59. No, I may report him..as is what seems to have happened..

[fightthegoodfightnow]

62. So Not Every Threat is Equal

[pipoman]

112. If a reasonable person would believe

they are in immediate danger of death or bodily harm is the general basis for justifiably taking physical defensive action...a finger gesture does not constitute an immediate threat of great bodily harm. If I had killed every person who verbally or implied death on me, there would be quite a few dead people in my past. As it is, after carrying daily for 15+ years, I never shot anyone, only pointed my gun at 3 people (which likely saved my and my co-workers/clients lives), all of whom had I shot them I would not been charged. My midlife career change was (in part) because I was tired of defending myself and having to carry a gun every day.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

75. Do You Think the Kid Shot and Killed

...should be afforded the same presumption of innocence until tried and convicted by a jury?

[pipoman]

98. Apparently the kid shouldn't have been shot..

in general terms, if someone reasonably fears death or bodily injury from an assailant, and in the process of defending themselves or others, kills or injures the assailant, no the assailant does not get the presumption of innocence. The "reasonable person" standard has been in place for a very long time in the US as a benchmark for determining guilt or innocence of people claiming self defense. If a person points a gun at a police officer, that person will likely not get their Miranda rights read to them, nor will they be receiving a verdict from a jury of their peers..

I answered yours.

In another scenario, someone is threatened by a person (unknown to them) with a gun, or knife, or any other potentially deadly weapon...the person being attacked responds with force which results in the death of the threatening person. Should the person who responded to the threat be charged with a crime?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

100. In General Terms.....No

In General Terms.....No.

Unless there was a history of felony crimes, violence, drug use, improper alcohol use, psych issues, the weapon was illegal, not registered, or other similar considerations.

Agree?

[gejohnston]

102. In most places, the State can not use

history as evidence in any other case, why would this be an issue?
If the gun was not legally owned or possessed, the person would be charged with that separately.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

104. True

It can be used in deciding if someone should be charged if not in trial.
Sometimes it's a factor in sentencing.
Sometimes it's admissible and sometimes it's not.

I am more inclined to not charge someone whose judgment is not impaired, but someone who is drunk or on drugs is fair game as force may or may not have been necessary....that's for a jury whether force was necessary.

Agree on the weapon's charge/point, but then if someone's judgement is that poor, so maybe what their judgement of what constitutes a threat.

[pipoman]

108. Generally agree

if any of the things you mentioned was a factor in the case at hand. If the 'reasonable person' standard is considered and the person defending themself was determined to act based on a reasonable fear of death or injury, the past shouldn't be a factor. If the weapon used was possessed illegally, etc. that could be grounds for other possible criminal prosecution.

I have worked on the defense of 2 people who obviously defended themselves, were not associated with the assailant, in one case killed the assailant, in the other case the assailant was permanently disabled. In the case of the death, the person defending theirself was charged with manslaughter. One year later, after being fired from his job, mortgaging his home, and selling out his 401k, he was acquitted..he lived, but will never recoup his years of saving and probably is still paying on his mortgage some 15 years later.

Circumstances of each case should be considered. No chasing a burglar down the street and shooting them, no killing a person stealing the stereo out of an unattended car, etc. There should be protection from criminal prosecution and civil liability for victims in cases of clear self defense.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

109. Sorry to Hear That

There is nothing worse than an innocent person being charged with a crime except perhaps an innocent person being killed. And the damage done can be life changing.

You write 'Circumstances of each case should be considered. No chasing a burglar down the street and shooting them, no killing a person stealing the stereo out of an unattended car, etc. There should be protection from criminal prosecution and civil liability for victims in cases of clear self defense.'

I don't disagree but it's seldom that clear.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

101. Oh...

....and thanks for agreeing the use of force was not necessary.

[pipoman]

110. As a self proclaimed civil libertarian

there are certainly lines for protection of the civil liberties of people accused of crimes and people who are innocent victims. Every case is different and laws cannot account for every single scenario. People who use any force against another better be pretty sure they are not being over zealous.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

111. Agree

Agree completely.



.

[pipoman]

3. Did you even read the article you linked to?

He gets off for murder.

True...wasn't convicted by a jury of his peers, that is the way the justice system works in these parts. Some goof keyboard commando can't convict someone of something simply because he thinks the guy is guilty. Proof is essential, I like it that way. I think your way is, well, lets just say not well thought out...

But heh, he's still keeps his gun to intimidate people.

Where, oh where did you get this info? You made it up didn't you? You simply made it up..what is the definition of a lie?

Gets convicted for that but not murder.

Gets convicted for what? Did you forget a sentence? What the hell does this mean?

Does anyone really want to defend that?

Defend what? Damn dude, are you suffering sleep deprivation or something? Maybe an edit so your OP is at least in English might be good, no?

[X_Digger]

5. 7 years is a felony conviction.

And under federal statutes, he can't so much as touch a single round of ammunition.

In other words, you're wrong.

Care to retract?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

6. He Got Away with Murder

....which he was never convicted of.

[X_Digger]

7. Please tell me next week's lotto numbers..

Do you actually want a fascist state where people who haven't been convicted of a crime nevertheless lose their rights?!?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

10. Right

...you do the lottery.

I'll be fighting what I consider a grave injustice.

Too bad you simply could not admit it was and call it a day.

But heh....you and him have a lot more in common to defend.......both of you defend your use of guns.

[X_Digger]

12. Yeah, damn that Due Process shit..

I know, it keeps getting in the way, eh?

[Common Sense Party]

32. The number of people who really don't care for the Constitution at all...

...it's astonishing.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

41. Due Process Indeed

Is that what the victim of gun violence got? Due process?

A slayer without a sword can't slay.

[X_Digger]

43. So there are no killings without 'swords'?!?

Riiiight.

[PavePusher]

57. "A slayer without a sword can't slay."

Is this DUZY-worthy, or is it just me?

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl07.xls

ftgfn, please note the far right-hand column. We await your explaination.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

120. You are responding to your own post

I have no idea what you are asking me explain since it appears to have nothing to do with what I wrote.

[rl6214]

114. So maybe we should do away with due process

and just let you hand out those sentences as you see fit

[pipoman]

9. Really? What part of "acquittal" don't you understand?

Do you favor ex parte summary convictions?

acquittal n. what an accused criminal defendant receives if he/she is found not guilty. It is a verdict (a judgment in a criminal case) of not guilty.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/acquittal

[fightthegoodfightnow]

17. You Defend a Convicted Felon

I won't.

[pipoman]

18. I have defended hundreds of convicted felons

accused of crimes they didn't commit..civil libertarianism is a passion.. Again, do you wish for no system of justice? How progressive..

[fightthegoodfightnow]

19. Good for You

What nobility......and such a well framed question....Would it also be true you defended a lot of guilty people who got away with felonies like murder?

Your point is well taken.....but it doesn't diminish the fact that someone charged with murder used a gun to intimidate someone after the trial.

[pipoman]

22. No, that isn't what the article says at all..

In addition to sending threatening online messages to the woman, prosecutors said Jones made a gesture threatening to shoot her on one occasion and nearly ran her over with his car on another.

No mention of actually using a gun.

Would it also be true you defended a lot of guilty people who got away with felonies like murder?

No. Usually the guilty ones received convictions. Most civil libertarians .and just people on the streets, would rather 5 guilty went free than one innocent be convicted..

[fightthegoodfightnow]

24. Right

I bet you are a very good attorney. LOL.

Point and clicking with a finger....nah......he didn't have a gun......really he didn't.

As for defending the guilty, I'll let the finality of your 'no' followed by 'usually' speak for itself. When is it 'unusual'? Just with other attorneys?




.

[pipoman]

25. I'm not an attorney.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

28. LOL

Didn't you see the LOL part after the question.

[pipoman]

30. Your punctuation is as

screwed up as the English in your OP if you are actually trying to convince anyone you meant what you are now claiming to have meant..LOL indeed..

[fightthegoodfightnow]

31. Anything else?

Seriously.....anything else?








About guns that is..........
















.

[pipoman]

33. This thread isn't about guns

never was. It's about your desire to jail people for crimes for which they have been acquitted.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

34. Nonsense

it's about a violent threatening person who was acquitted of murder and later convicted of making threats about shooting someone.

Leave it to you to say it's not about guns.

[pipoman]

38. The only actual gun in the story

was the gun used to shoot the victim that the defendant in question was acquitted of using. Unless there is more to the story (and I'm sure there is), this article has not one thing to do with guns, unless you count this as a gun.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

136. Don't you hate it when someone says they are going to shoot you?

Or do you just ignore it?

[pipoman]

139. I've been threatened many times

some credible, some not. I carried a gun every day for 15+ years. Making a credible threat on someone's life is a crime. Guess what? This guy in question was convicted of threatening someone and is going to jail for it. You however continue to insist he got away with murder even though he was acquitted by a jury of those charges..(Remember? Acquitted=A finding of Not Guilty) He went through the justice system and was found not guilty. Nobody is saying the guy is a choir boy, or even that he wasn't a credible threat.

[AtheistCrusader]

131. Did he have a gun or not?

It's a fairly simple distinction. Why can't you make it?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

135. Do you know whether he had a gun?

Yes or no?

[AtheistCrusader]

138. I've already answered your question once.

No more, either answer my question in good faith, or have a nice day.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

36. No

It's about a violent person acquitted of murder who threatened to kill someone with a gun and was convicted of threatening to kill someone with a gun.

But heh....leave it to you to say it's not about guns.

[AtheistCrusader]

132. Was there a gun or not?

Yes or no.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

134. Was there of threat of a gun?

Yes or No?

[AtheistCrusader]

137. Yes, there was a threat.

I answered your question, why can't you answer mine?

Was there a gun or not?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

37. Sorry for Dupe in Response

Got error message.

[rl6214]

116. Guns, don't you have anything to say about guns?

[pipoman]

27. people love to hate attorneys

until they or someone they love needs one. I bet if you flattened the neighbor kid as you pulled out of your driveway you would not terry in hiring one of those vermin, huh? If you haven't ever hired an attorney you are a rare breed..

[fightthegoodfightnow]

29. Right

....but then again you and aren't attorneys.

PS - please don't tell me who I hate.

[pipoman]

34. You really do have

a huge problem with reading comprehension don't you. How about you quote where I said you hate anyone.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

46. Right

.....because you never implied I 'hate attorneys'.

Nice subterfuge.

[Oneka]

49. "used a gun to intimidate someone after the trial."

And was convicted of his crime and sentenced to 7 years in prison. What was the problem again?

[rl6214]

115. Someone CHARGED with murder, not CONVICTED of murder.

Jeez, it's not that hard to understand.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

119. Correct

So?

[krispos42]

123. So what's your opinion of Don Siegelman?

Are you fighting his appeals? Cheering on the Alabama State Attorneys?

Will you be upset if his conviction is overturned?

[gejohnston]

15. Was his gun legal in DC?

I'm betting not, and I'm betting that has been plea bargained away. Since neither one of us was sitting in the jury box, we don't know what the reasonable doubt was.
Either way, when he gets out, being caught touching a gun will send him to federal prison for at least five years.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

16. Don't Disagree

.

[Callisto32]

40. If he wasn't guilty, he wouldn't have been charged, right?

[PavePusher]

58. Perhaps he did. You should get your evidence to the DA as sson as you can. n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

61. Double Jeopardy Applies

Wouldn't help.

[PavePusher]

63. Can be waived with sufficient evidence. So provide it. n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

64. No It Can't

.

[PavePusher]

69. O.K., it appears you are correct, not sure what I was thinking of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Jeopardy_Clause

But, depending on evidence discovered, it seems the person in question could be charged with a different crime, like Second degree murder if previously aquitted of first degree.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

71. Correct and True

Right on both counts.

Thanks for being open to reconsidering. I'll try to do the same.

[PavePusher]

72. I don't like being wrong....

...but unfortunately, I'm pretty good at it. Lots of practice.

But it hardly ever happens any more....

[fightthegoodfightnow]

73. None of Us Do

...but we often are....myself included.

Thanks again.

[PavePusher]

80. Thank you, too. n/t

[Remmah2]

125. Al Capone went to prison for tax evasion not rackateerring or murder.

The justice system is twisted.

[GreenStormCloud]

39. Because some people abuse a right does not mean the right should eliminated.

Legal gun owners rarely abuse the right.

[ileus]

45. another example of why guns need banned.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

47. I can't decide which editorial I like best.

Sunday's edition is awesome!

[Remmah2]

126. A "gesture" not indicate a firearm was used.

"Shortly after Jones was released from jail, prosecutors said he “embarked on a campaign to threaten and harass” two witnesses, a woman and her child, who testified against him during the murder trial. In addition to sending threatening online messages to the woman, prosecutors said Jones made a gesture threatening to shoot her on one occasion and nearly ran her over with his car on another."



Specifically: "Jones made a gesture threatening to shoot her". Was a firearm used or did he point his finger?

I can't find anything in the article that indicates he was a legal firearm owner, let alone owned a firearm as part of his gesture intimmidation. He used a car to attempt to run her down. Was he a licensed driver? Why wasn't his license revoked and his car confiscated?

How does the second amendment guarantee this felons right to keep his guns? No such statement was made in the article.

Personally I hope the dolt goes away for another 20-40 years. The article has nothing to do with the second amendment or firearms, it's about bastardized justice.