Gun Forums and Prosecution......?
- Thread starter (BH)
- Start date
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Sure, and sometimes you help that happen. Things you say and do reflect things about the kind of person you are, your values, your beliefs. So if you walk around wearing swastikas, if you receive white supremacist material in the mail, and if you commonly make racist and antisemitic statements in public, if the synagogue down the street gets torched, you are going to be one of the first people the authorities will want to talk with. And if you're charged, all those things, as well as any racist and antisemitic screeds you may have posted on the Internet will be used in evidence by the prosecution to help show intent and motive.Jason607 said:
Not quite.Jason607 said:
[1] The prosecutor does indeed get to choose what evidence, from the available evidence, he presents, and how he presents it, subject to the applicable rule of procedure and evidence. So does the defense. But some of your potential and avoidable problems can come from the evidence that you have created -- things you say and things you have posted on the Internet that may bear on something at issue in the case -- and thus made a present of to the prosecutor. You could have avoided creating this evidence which now exists to be used against you, if the prosecutor wants, by being more careful about the things you say in public to strangers.
[2] Of course the prosecutor doesn't choose the jury. But neither does the defense. The jury pool is chosen at random from voter registration records and/or drivers license lists or some other public records listing people living in the community. This panel of prospective jurors is questioned by each side. He side can dismiss a specified number without cause (peremptory challenges) and an unlimted number for cause (challenges for cause).
So the prosecutor won't get his jury of Brady Bunch members, but you also won't get your jury of Gun Owners of America members. You'll have a middle of the road jury usually with no special interest in or knowledge of guns.
[3] The judge is usually selected on the basis of some rotation and/or based on who has time on his schedule for the case. Each side typical has one shot a declining a judge for no reason.
Don't be too sure about that. To dismiss a prospective juror for cause, the side making the challenge must be able to convince the judge that there is actual prejudice or that the particular juror can not be impartial. Some judges take an awfully lot of convincing.Jason607 said:
In case you haven't been following the posts above, remember that in the case of an assault or homicide to which you're pleading self defense you have already admitted the acts constituting the crime.Jason607 said:
OldMarksman in post 35 quoting the NACDL said:
OldMarksman in post 35 quoting the NACDL said:
OldMarksman in post 35 quoting the NACDL said:
And what does a crooked, insanely ambitious and unethical prosecutor, who destroyed his career have to do with anything?Jason607 said:
Self defense is not a crime. The only 'crime scene' related to it is the scene of the crime that led to the defensive application of force.
To an earlier question asking 'what are the elements?' which must be proven, I simply answer 'depends on your state's statutes'. I would think in this crowd of apparent attorneys, legal experts or people who play them on TV- the question would not have even been necessary.
To an earlier question asking 'what are the elements?' which must be proven, I simply answer 'depends on your state's statutes'. I would think in this crowd of apparent attorneys, legal experts or people who play them on TV- the question would not have even been necessary.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Intentionally hurting or killing someone is a crime absent a good defense, justification. Self defense is the defense to the act. The place at which one used force is treated as a crime scene. It is kept a sterile as possible. Evidence is identified and collected. And the entire event is investigated as a crime until either the conclusion is reached that the claim of self defense is valid or that it is vulnerable, and charges will be brought.Sarge said:
Nope, the elements of assault or of manslaughter go back to the Common Law. They may have been codified under the statutes of various states. And they will be essentially the same although there may be some variation in terminology. The bottom line is, Sarge, that I am an attorney, and you are not. You may want to go back and hit the books some again.Sarge said:
The question was asked because you seemed to have some difficulty with the analysis. I know the answer and have stated it.Sarge said:
Fiddletown, you made some great points. Good post.
Well, it proves that the Prosecution has limits and boundries.
I think that as long as it's a legit shoot and you tell the truth and don't say anything too stupid, and use your brain, preferably your lawyers, you'll be good to go.
A civil case might be a bit hairy but unless the BGs love one's have a ton of money, or you have a ton of money, it's not going to happen. Civil trials are about money, and no lawyer is going to take a case unless he's getting paid or there is a chance of a big payout that is good enough. There isn't enough money they can squeeze out of most of us to make it worth it and most don't have the money to hire a lawyer to come after you.
Well, it proves that the Prosecution has limits and boundries.
I think that as long as it's a legit shoot and you tell the truth and don't say anything too stupid, and use your brain, preferably your lawyers, you'll be good to go.
A civil case might be a bit hairy but unless the BGs love one's have a ton of money, or you have a ton of money, it's not going to happen. Civil trials are about money, and no lawyer is going to take a case unless he's getting paid or there is a chance of a big payout that is good enough. There isn't enough money they can squeeze out of most of us to make it worth it and most don't have the money to hire a lawyer to come after you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarge
Self defense is not a crime...
Intentionally hurting or killing someone is a crime absent a good defense, justification. Self defense is the defense to the act. The place at which one used force is treated as a crime scene. It is kept a sterile as possible. Evidence is identified and collected. And the entire event is investigated as a crime until either the conclusion is reached that the claim of self defense is valid or that it is vulnerable, and charges will be brought.
...and despite that wordy reply, self defense is still not a crime. If it is self defense, then no PC Affidavit will issue and no charge will be sought. Of course the PA/DA will be kept appraised of investigation as it develops, but if it is clear-cut self defense then I'm sure as hell not signing an affidavit swearing it's a criminal homicide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarge
To an earlier question asking 'what are the elements?' which must be proven,
I simply answer 'depends on your state's statutes'....
Nope, the elements of assault or of manslaughter go back to the Common Law. They may have been codified under the statutes of various states. And they will be essentially the same although there may be some variation in terminology. The bottom line is, Sarge, that I am an attorney, and you are not. You may want to go back and hit the books some again.
Nobody is going to be criminally charged under the 'common law' and you know it. If charged at all, they are going to be charged under the criminal code. As to your comment "I am an attorney, and you are not", I thank you for the compliment. If you'd be so kind, please enlighten us as to which 'books' have more relevance to the matter at hand than the criminal code of the defender's home state?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarge
I would think in this crowd of apparent attorneys, ...the question would not have even been necessary.
The question was asked because you seemed to have some difficulty with the analysis. I know the answer and have stated it.
No, you dodged into irrelevant banter about 'common law' as if it applied to filing of criminal charges.
My suggestion to each of you is to study your state's laws regarding the justification of force, in self defense. If you have questions, contact your district attorney or attorney general. They will likely refer you right back to the statutes I just mentioned, but it's worth a shot.
My apologies for my part in the sideways drift of this thread. I'll sit it out from here on.
Originally Posted by Sarge
Self defense is not a crime...
Intentionally hurting or killing someone is a crime absent a good defense, justification. Self defense is the defense to the act. The place at which one used force is treated as a crime scene. It is kept a sterile as possible. Evidence is identified and collected. And the entire event is investigated as a crime until either the conclusion is reached that the claim of self defense is valid or that it is vulnerable, and charges will be brought.
...and despite that wordy reply, self defense is still not a crime. If it is self defense, then no PC Affidavit will issue and no charge will be sought. Of course the PA/DA will be kept appraised of investigation as it develops, but if it is clear-cut self defense then I'm sure as hell not signing an affidavit swearing it's a criminal homicide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarge
To an earlier question asking 'what are the elements?' which must be proven,
I simply answer 'depends on your state's statutes'....
Nope, the elements of assault or of manslaughter go back to the Common Law. They may have been codified under the statutes of various states. And they will be essentially the same although there may be some variation in terminology. The bottom line is, Sarge, that I am an attorney, and you are not. You may want to go back and hit the books some again.
Nobody is going to be criminally charged under the 'common law' and you know it. If charged at all, they are going to be charged under the criminal code. As to your comment "I am an attorney, and you are not", I thank you for the compliment. If you'd be so kind, please enlighten us as to which 'books' have more relevance to the matter at hand than the criminal code of the defender's home state?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarge
I would think in this crowd of apparent attorneys, ...the question would not have even been necessary.
The question was asked because you seemed to have some difficulty with the analysis. I know the answer and have stated it.
No, you dodged into irrelevant banter about 'common law' as if it applied to filing of criminal charges.
My suggestion to each of you is to study your state's laws regarding the justification of force, in self defense. If you have questions, contact your district attorney or attorney general. They will likely refer you right back to the statutes I just mentioned, but it's worth a shot.
My apologies for my part in the sideways drift of this thread. I'll sit it out from here on.
OldMarksman
Staff
If it is clearly self defense the actor should be home free, at least from the standpoint of criminal procedure.
The question is, and has been from the beginning of this discussion, is it self defense? One person has shot another. That is not in question. The question is, was it self defense, or was it not?
If the charging authority has reason to believe that it was not, the process starts.
If that process should lead to a trial in court, the defendant must present evidence to try to demonstrate justifiability--in simpler terms, to try to show that his act did indeed constitute lawful self defense, and not manslaughter or accidental homicide or whatever the state may allege.
And the prosecution will present evidence to the contrary. That's the key here. It is just possible that that evidence will include postings made on an internet forum. And that's the point of this thread.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
But unless and until the DA has decided to accept the claim of self defense, it will be investigated as a crime.Sarge said:
You miss the point. We are discussing general legal principles. And since the crime of manslaughter is an ancient crime, the state codes in general will have adopted the historic elements of the crime in their statutory definitions. So state code definitions of the crime of manslaughter will be substantially the same, even though the terminology may vary. There may be minor differences from state to state, but for the purposes of our discussions, those differences are immaterial.Sarge said:
I defined the elements as OldMarksman quoted me
The elements of assault or aggravated assault were also similarly defined in the NACDL publication quoted by OldMarksmanOldMarksman in post 31 quoting fiddletown said:
These definitions are substantially the same for the purposes of this discussion. The point is that if you are claiming self defense, a prosecutor doesn't have to prove those elements of manslaughter or assault, as applicable because you have admitted them.OldMarksman in post 35 quoting the NACDL said:
Yes the Nifong story does illustrate limits as well as retribution for grossly unethical behavior. Of course, fortunately a prosecutor like him doesn't come along often.Jason607 said:
Just never lose sight of the fact that in a given case there may be some disagreement about whether or not it was a legit shoot. So it helps to recognize before hand that might be a possibility, and it's a good idea to be prepared for the possibility. One thing you can do to prepare is to watch what you say in public and to strangers.Jason607 said:
park ranger
Inactive
Case in point...
Although not an incident of self protection, something that occurred in Pennsylvania...
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09197...cmpid=news.xml
Man testifies why he took his gun to Obama rally
Says 'quiet protest' was the intention
Thursday, July 16, 2009
By Daniel Malloy, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
A tree trunk of a man with a Glock on his hip, John Noble went to a rally for then-Sen. Barack Obama in Beaver last year to hand out pro-gun pamphlets as a "very quiet protest," he testified yesterday.
His arrest on charges of disrupting a public gathering resonated loud and clear throughout the Pennsylvania gun rights world, and several supporters checked their sidearms at the door of the Beaver County Courthouse yesterday as Mr. Noble's trial opened.
Jurors are scheduled to hear closing arguments this morning then begin deliberations.
Yesterday they watched as Mr. Noble, sporting a yellow shirt, brown tie and Fu Manchu mustache, took the witness stand to explain why he brought his gun to the Aug. 29 outdoor rally.
Mr. Noble, 51, of Industry, carried his Bible and pamphlets on gun rights on the outskirts of the crowd gathered in a park across the street from the courthouse. On his hip, as usual, was a pistol.
Mr. Noble testified that he was making a statement related to Mr. Obama's much-publicized comments at a San Francisco fundraiser during the primary campaign, in which he said Pennsylvanians "cling to guns or religion." Mr. Noble said he was there to educate his fellow citizens on their rights to carry a firearm in the open -- which Pennsylvanians are allowed to do, without a permit, almost anywhere. A permit is required for concealed carry and in certain other situations.
"I didn't see any reason why I would be arrested," he said.
John Atkinson, of Beaver, testified that he alerted authorities after spotting the weapon.
"I was scared for my family because it's the situation of it -- the first black guy nominated to be president of the United States," Mr. Atkinson said, "All the crazy things people do these days, you never know what's going to happen."
The gun was legal, but state police Trooper Shawn Schexnaildre decided to charge Mr. Noble with disrupting a public gathering, a third-degree misdemeanor.
When cross-examining Trooper Schexnaildre, defense attorney Stephen Colafella compared Mr. Noble to anti-abortion protesters, who also attended the rally.
"It's normal to show up with picket signs," the trooper responded. "He showed up with a pistol."
In order to win a conviction, prosecutors must prove that Mr. Noble intentionally started a disturbance.
The intent comes from posts on two gun rights blogs Mr. Noble made before the rally that Assistant District Attorney Frank Martocci described as a "call to arms."
On opencarry.org, Mr. Noble wrote, "Come to beaver tonite [sic] and show Obama what a Bible toten gun owner really looks like." The posts seem to undercut his assertion on the stand that he was not offended by Mr. Obama's comments.
Beaver County Judge Harry E. Knafelc, in dismissing a motion by Mr. Colafella asking for a judgment of acquittal, said he would have thrown the case out if not for the blog posts.
But, despite the Internet bluster, was there a disturbance at all? The commotion came only after police arrived and put him in handcuffs.
Beaver County Sheriff's Deputy Sgt. Richard Yonlisky testified that when he detained Mr. Noble, he asked why Mr. Noble brought the gun.
Mr. Noble responded, "Because I'm an American."
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09197/984278-57.stm?cmpid=news.xml#ixzz0LpwgAoO0
As an end note, he was acquitted today of all charges.
Personally, I think the reporter, Malloy, did a great job of summarizing the information and I was pleasantly surprised that no personal opinion or views were injected into his article. Now, if we can just get him an anchor spot on one of the major networks, maybe we can get unbiased and objective reporting.
Although not an incident of self protection, something that occurred in Pennsylvania...
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09197...cmpid=news.xml
Man testifies why he took his gun to Obama rally
Says 'quiet protest' was the intention
Thursday, July 16, 2009
By Daniel Malloy, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
A tree trunk of a man with a Glock on his hip, John Noble went to a rally for then-Sen. Barack Obama in Beaver last year to hand out pro-gun pamphlets as a "very quiet protest," he testified yesterday.
His arrest on charges of disrupting a public gathering resonated loud and clear throughout the Pennsylvania gun rights world, and several supporters checked their sidearms at the door of the Beaver County Courthouse yesterday as Mr. Noble's trial opened.
Jurors are scheduled to hear closing arguments this morning then begin deliberations.
Yesterday they watched as Mr. Noble, sporting a yellow shirt, brown tie and Fu Manchu mustache, took the witness stand to explain why he brought his gun to the Aug. 29 outdoor rally.
Mr. Noble, 51, of Industry, carried his Bible and pamphlets on gun rights on the outskirts of the crowd gathered in a park across the street from the courthouse. On his hip, as usual, was a pistol.
Mr. Noble testified that he was making a statement related to Mr. Obama's much-publicized comments at a San Francisco fundraiser during the primary campaign, in which he said Pennsylvanians "cling to guns or religion." Mr. Noble said he was there to educate his fellow citizens on their rights to carry a firearm in the open -- which Pennsylvanians are allowed to do, without a permit, almost anywhere. A permit is required for concealed carry and in certain other situations.
"I didn't see any reason why I would be arrested," he said.
John Atkinson, of Beaver, testified that he alerted authorities after spotting the weapon.
"I was scared for my family because it's the situation of it -- the first black guy nominated to be president of the United States," Mr. Atkinson said, "All the crazy things people do these days, you never know what's going to happen."
The gun was legal, but state police Trooper Shawn Schexnaildre decided to charge Mr. Noble with disrupting a public gathering, a third-degree misdemeanor.
When cross-examining Trooper Schexnaildre, defense attorney Stephen Colafella compared Mr. Noble to anti-abortion protesters, who also attended the rally.
"It's normal to show up with picket signs," the trooper responded. "He showed up with a pistol."
In order to win a conviction, prosecutors must prove that Mr. Noble intentionally started a disturbance.
The intent comes from posts on two gun rights blogs Mr. Noble made before the rally that Assistant District Attorney Frank Martocci described as a "call to arms."
On opencarry.org, Mr. Noble wrote, "Come to beaver tonite [sic] and show Obama what a Bible toten gun owner really looks like." The posts seem to undercut his assertion on the stand that he was not offended by Mr. Obama's comments.
Beaver County Judge Harry E. Knafelc, in dismissing a motion by Mr. Colafella asking for a judgment of acquittal, said he would have thrown the case out if not for the blog posts.
But, despite the Internet bluster, was there a disturbance at all? The commotion came only after police arrived and put him in handcuffs.
Beaver County Sheriff's Deputy Sgt. Richard Yonlisky testified that when he detained Mr. Noble, he asked why Mr. Noble brought the gun.
Mr. Noble responded, "Because I'm an American."
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09197/984278-57.stm?cmpid=news.xml#ixzz0LpwgAoO0
As an end note, he was acquitted today of all charges.
Personally, I think the reporter, Malloy, did a great job of summarizing the information and I was pleasantly surprised that no personal opinion or views were injected into his article. Now, if we can just get him an anchor spot on one of the major networks, maybe we can get unbiased and objective reporting.
Last edited:
And on the golden side of the coin... be ready to hand over the links to your lawyer so your defense team can pull up every single post you made that you proclaim that you are only prepared to defend your life and the lives of loved ones. Also all those posts that recount your neutral, non-prejudiced way of life. Your intent to to never scare anyone etc. too.
If you proclaim to be the cowardly lion with physical limitations can't hurt either
Brent
If you proclaim to be the cowardly lion with physical limitations can't hurt either
Brent