Prosecutorial Discretion
Felon not to be charged for using a gun in self defense. Good.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
August 13th, 2010 at 9:53 am
I work in the legal system and I have a theory about such things. I believe in the death penalty. If some commits a crime bad enough to loose thier gun rights and right to vote, they should probly be removed from the gene pool. That being said, if someone has paid thier debt, then ALL OF THIER RIGHTS should be RESTORED! If they are bad enough to be rendered infamous, they should be eliminated.
August 13th, 2010 at 10:06 am
Agree with Spook ….
And any 911 call from a convicted felon should include the statement that they are forbidden to own arms for self-defense and are therefore relying on the police to protect them.
Yeah, like that‘ll do any good.
August 13th, 2010 at 10:23 am
It is good. I do wonder, though, if the prosecutor anticipated losing based on a defense of “necessity.”
I know in Virginia there was a similar case decided by the Court of Appeals in 2001 that invokes the defense of “necessity” – essentially, if you have to break the law to defend your life, you can claim that necessity as a defense, but you have to show that it was necessary. The case is Humphrey v. Commonwealth. It’s an interesting read.
August 13th, 2010 at 10:35 am
More likely the prosecutor did not want this to go federal on his watch.
August 13th, 2010 at 10:41 am
“More likely the prosecutor did not want this to go federal on his watch.”
Since when do State’s Attorneys in Florida get veto power over the USA? 🙂
The USA could still pick it up (if he wants to).
August 13th, 2010 at 11:00 am
Seems he acted in self defense. He did not own the gun used to kill the assailant. Now we do not know how he came to have his girlfriends gun, but I would agree that even as a felon, he is allowed use of deadly force in protection of his life.
Could be interesting to find out what felony the guy was convicted of.
August 13th, 2010 at 11:53 am
The famous felon G. Gordon Liddy transferred his firearms to the ownership of his wife IIRC to keep them available after his conviction.
Felons and unconvicted criminals have long used girlfriends to hold their weapons in purses, or to hold their illegal drug stash, or to drive the stolen car, etc.. I’ve seen it enough on COPS to recognize a standard practice. When the police pull the stolen car over, with the kilo of coke and the Glock in the purse of the female driver, the real criminal acts innocent and walks away after denying any knowledge of the poor girl’s actions, leaving her to fend for herself.
While the self defense was likely necessary, the preparation for the possibility of the self defense was likely done quite consciously.
August 13th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
They could, but would face the same “necessity” issue. The case I linked to cites a federal case that said the same thing about the federal statute.
August 13th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Well shooting buddy the feds generally do not step in until a civil right has been violated or the aclu gets involved. Do you seriously think the US attorney wants to get caught up in a case it will lose for sure. Not only that it would allow felons to lawfully possess a weapon if their lives are at stake. Not too many US attorneys are that brave. That would be a career ender if they lost. Russian roulette with one bullet but only 2 chambers is not what I call good odds…