The Real Verdict in a Gun Case

[wayneinfl]

We need more juries to do the right thing. From what I understand, this has happened with several marijuana cases in Kentucky.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/24/AR2009012401613.html

Sunday, January 25, 2009; Page B06

The Jan. 14 Metro article "Marine Amputee Acquitted on Gun Possession Charges" painted a picture of a defendant who, rejecting the advice of his court-appointed lawyer to plead guilty, fought for himself at trial and was acquitted of felony gun possession charges. The lesson appeared to be: "Don't listen to your public defender; he will just try to sell you out."

The real story -- and what the article completely missed -- is that Cpl. Melroy H. Cort apparently admitted in court that he was guilty of carrying an unlicensed gun in the District but the jury nevertheless acquitted him. The jurors engaged in what is commonly known as "jury nullification" -- acquitting a defendant despite a clear violation of the law.

The District's rules of professional conduct for lawyers prohibit defense attorneys from expressly urging a jury to disregard the law. Given that constraint, and that Cpl. Cort's possession of the gun was undisputed, his lawyer's advice to plead guilty seems wholly reasonable -- after all, defendants are not always lucky enough to get a jury willing to nullify.

What was questionable, however, was the prosecutor's decision to bring charges against Cpl. Cort, when he was so clearly not dangerous, had cooperated fully with the police, was licensed to carry the gun in his home state and apparently believed he was allowed to bring it into the District. Perhaps the jury's verdict should be seen not as a vindication of Cpl. Cort for firing his court-appointed lawyer but as a condemnation of the U.S. attorney's decision to prosecute at all.
ad_icon

CHRISTINE MONTA

Washington

[MacBeth]

It is true that laws that a jury of 12 can be convinced are wrong will not be supported.......but it is a complete perversion of the legal system.

And a dangerous road to tread. It worked for OJ when charged with murder, it worked here for a gun criminal.

And if you break a law - say speeding - and don't kill anyone while doing it, should you not be ticketed? That is the argument used here. He broke the law, but he was a nice guy so the laws don't apply?

[oskar]

Ah.
Now I understand why Americans need guns. Laws aren't laws, they're decorations.

[Calluna]

Jan 26, 2009 6:07:51 GMT -5 MacBeth said:

And if you break a law - say speeding - and don't kill anyone while doing it, should you not be ticketed? That is the argument used here.

That argument supports wayne's argument better than your own here. Afterall, how many people get stopped for speeding and the cop lets them off with a warning because they have a clean record, or they take the ticket to court and walk out with nothing but court costs to pay and a still clean record? This sort of thing is waived all the time.

This sounds more like a mistake than a crime, not realizing that another state won't recognize his home state granting him a right to carry a firearm. Funny how we pick and choose the laws we think states should reciprocate on. We allow other states to determine who is licensed to drive, who is legally married, who can sell merchandise, but if it's a gun, then all the other states are incompetent to make that decision?

[oskar]

How frequently does a driver get away with driving without a license?

[MacBeth]

If I believed it was right for a police officer to be judge and jury and say it is fine to let speeders off with a warning, I would definitely have said that.
But I don't
It is not their job to decide who is ticketed and who isn't. Criteria for ticketing is pretty concrete. The reality that we allow them to decide on who the law applies to and who does not is not the same as believing that is the right thing. It is not.

[Pax]

Could be. I'll tell you, though, if I got a ticket for every time a cop saw me roll through a stop sign, not using my blinker for lane change, or going 10 over the limit, I'd be licenseless and homeless.

[wayneinfl]

There's nothing wrong with breaking a law that shouldn't be there in the first place. You call him a "gun criminal"? If he's a gun criminal, then Rosa Parks is a segregation criminal.

And I'm sure the next thing off your keyboard is that it's not the same thing because guns kill people. At one time we looked at black people and concluded that since some black people committed crimes all black people should be kept away from the civilized people. Today some people with guns commit crimes, so we outlaw all people with guns. It wasn't right for blacks and it isn't right for people like me, either.

As for law enforcement enforcing every law on the books to the letter all the time, rather than using discretion, we'd all be criminals.

[MacBeth]

More of that respect for the law? I am always amazed at the compromises that are made in order to make things come out the way we want.....laws are not important, police can decide if you are guilty enough to be charged or not. It went from the traffic violation to violations of gun laws. All OK. What's next? That fellow deserved killing, so don't bother arresting the guy who knifed him? It's all the same


And, yes, Rosa Parks broke the law. She knew it and was willing to deal with the consequences of her actions. And the laws were changed.

There is no such analogy here. It was just ignoring the laws you don't like by the police.

And since you are so very clear on what I will say next, why not hold all those conversations yourself? Maybe because sometimes you would be wrong. Like now.

[Pax]

Depends on your definiition of "nothing wrong" when using the phrase "nothing wrong with breaking a law." I would agree that when laws are unjustly created, it can be our moral duty to peacefully disobey them, as in the case of Rosa Parks. I would also say that in all but the most extreme cases, lawbreakers must still submit to punishment, even those that result from the breaking of unjust laws.

In other news, I still think that the amendment specifically protecting guns should be replaced by a more abstract amendment protecting the right to self-protection: That would bring it to the same level of abstraction as all the other as-important rights, such as the right to a free press and the right to freedom of speech, plus it would include the right to own knives, etc., so it would actually create more freedom, lot less. We've already established that freedom of speech and press and assembly do give implied and adequate blanket protection to specific implementations of those abstract concepts, such as telephones, the internet, private vehicles, etc., so I see no reason why this oversight in the Constitution shouldn't be repaired.

[cooter50]

A woman in my home town shot a would be rapist/assailant before he could get to her IN HER BEDROOM of her home, a over righteous attorney took the case from the dead man's family and took the woman to court. He did lose but the court did hear the case as a "Wrongful" death case insinuateing he had entered through a unlocked door and was looking for a phone to call for a ride. He was a parolled rapist.

The woman lost her pistol to the police, it has not and according to the local press will not be returned as it was a criminal evidence. She has bought another.

The point is the law is often twisted by those looking to profit from it, and for those that have to defend themselves the costs grow each week, this woman had to defend herself twice, once in her home then through another attorney in court and she had to pay those costs both times.

[MacBeth]

Do you have any details on that? I would love to Google it and see the news stories, if any, about the incident. It seems to me that there might be more to the story

[oskar]

A woman in my home town shot a would be rapist/assailant before he could get to her IN HER BEDROOM of her home, a over righteous attorney took the case from the dead man's family and took the woman to court.


Link please.
There are too many fairy tales going around.

[wayneinfl]

"More of that respect for the law? I am always amazed at the compromises that are made in order to make things come out the way we want.....laws are not important, police can decide if you are guilty enough to be charged or not. It went from the traffic violation to violations of gun laws. All OK. "

I respect the law. The problem is that our lawmakers don't always respect the law. In that case, what laws do you follow?

Small example. Our county prohibits firearms in all our parks. The U.S. Constitution says I have a right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed. The state constitution says I have a right to carry a firearm for self defense. Furthermore, we have a preemption statute that prohibits county and city governments from passing laws relating to firearms. Counties and cities throughout the state have had these ordinances thrown out in court, or have taken down the signs after finding that they were breaking the law.

So there are three higher laws, plus several cases on the subject as opposed to one little county ordinance. So what is the law? If you ever had to take it to court, it's pretty obvious what the law is. You can carry in any county park in Florida.

"There is no such analogy here. It was just ignoring the laws you don't like by the police."

I'm not "ignoring" the law at all. When I carry in a park, I am actually following the law more closely than my county government is.

"And, yes, Rosa Parks broke the law. She knew it and was willing to deal with the consequences of her actions. And the laws were changed."

There were already laws in place that should have superceded Jim Crow laws. The law wasn't changed, so much as the government started obeying its own law.

"I would agree that when laws are unjustly created, it can be our moral duty to peacefully disobey them, as in the case of Rosa Parks. I would also say that in all but the most extreme cases, lawbreakers must still submit to punishment, even those that result from the breaking of unjust laws."

Why? Why should you be punished for exercising a right given to you by God and guaranteed by the supreme law of the land, the Constitution? I agree that if you step into the legal morasse of conflicting laws yourself, you're taking your chances and risking prosecution. And Cort and Parks both did so.


"In other news, I still think that the amendment specifically protecting guns should be replaced by a more abstract amendment protecting the right to self-protection: That would bring it to the same level of abstraction as all the other as-important rights, such as the right to a free press and the right to freedom of speech, plus it would include the right to own knives, etc., so it would actually create more freedom, lot less. We've already established that freedom of speech and press and assembly do give implied and adequate blanket protection to specific implementations of those abstract concepts, such as telephones, the internet, private vehicles, etc., so I see no reason why this oversight in the Constitution shouldn't be repaired."

We have a right to keep and bear arms. I don't see how repealing that and replacing it with an amendment protecting a right to keep and bear arms, but only for a specific purpose expands anything.

Not that wouldn't mean that I don't have a right to keep a gun for hunting or to carry a knife for purposes other than self defense. The Ninth Amendment says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." We still have rights whether they're specifically mentioned in the document.

[Pax]

Cooter, of COURSE the judge heard the case, ALL suits are required to be heard, regardless of merit: It's one of the reasons why "frivolous" lawsuits are such a problem.

It's got nothing to do with any notion of an out-of-control court system or value system or whatever in this country that specifically makes possible a civil suit against a gun owner.

It'd have been news if the courts HADN'T tried it.

It also would have been news if those jackasses had won.

Neither is true -- so there's absolutely no news here.

[MacBeth]

Wayne, those were a lot of words to say "I want to pick and choose what laws I obey, and I expect to receive no consequences for that"

[wayneinfl]

It sounds to me like you skipped over most of the words.

I don't choose. We really don't have a choice. As long as the government insists on passing and enforcing legislation that directly conflicts with their own laws, we have a duty to challenge that legislation.

And furthermore, people like Cort who unintentionally disobey the law while trying to exercise their rights shouldn't be prosecuted. It's easy to see how someone would think a state issued license would apply outside his state just as his state issued driver's license applies outside his state.

[MacBeth]

See above for my response. You said the same thing as before and so will I.

[Pax]

"We have a right to keep and bear arms. I don't see how repealing that and replacing it with an amendment protecting a right to keep and bear arms, but only for a specific purpose expands anything."

Wayne, I didn't say "replacing it with an amendment protecting a right to keep and bear arms," I said, "replaced by a more abstract amendment protecting the right to self-protection." It's a very different thing, right? The consequences and implications are very different... you don't think so?

[Temperament]

A woman in my home town shot a would be rapist/assailant before he could get to her IN HER BEDROOM of her home,

You go girl! Gotta get them before they get you into the bedroom cuz thats where rape happens. You know thats whats gonna happen befroe you get there. She was smart knowing he was a rapist and all.

[oskar]

It's easy to see how someone would think a state issued license would apply outside his state just as his state issued driver's license applies outside his state.

There you go with the automobile analogy that no one else is supposed to use.