Jury Duty

4

4V50 Gary

Staff
Besides joining the NRA, your state gun club, giving $, and voting for pro-gun candidates there is another service you can do to protect firearms.

If you ever get called upon to serve as a juror in a defective/unsafe product case with a firearms manufacturer as defendant, please do. You may get voir dire out, but try your best to remain on the jury panel. After all, we're all in it together.

Just a thought.
 
Here, here!

I would add that we are obligated to serve on juries regardless. There is a movement afoot that is gaining strength and support that believes the public may not be qualified to serve as jurorers;that it should be left up to professionals.

The Big Government types would absolutely love that.
 
Yup.
Maryland voted on a Constitutional Amendment this week that would do away with the option for jury trial in civil cases where the claim is less than $10,000.

Remind you of the trend in any of our other civil liberties? Firearms laws? Search and Seizure? Taxation? I guess was seen as a "minor" infringement, necessary to make life easier for certain public servants. They must have grown tired of work day interruptions resulting from the petty problems of their bosses (the taxpayers).

No way the Maryland electorate is gonna go for that. They know how Conservative you have to be in passing a Constitutional Amendment. Right?

Guess what? It passed. 72% For; 28% Against
Rich
 
Rich; No matter how wise and suave you and I are we can NEVER expect anyone else to act in a rational manner.
People are so unethical that you cant even buy a vote and count on it any more.

------------------
 
While we sit in the comfort of our dens, a jury in Alameda County, CA deliberates on the culpability of Beretta in a product liability case.

A 14 year old Berkeley boy found his father's Beretta and removed the loaded magazine. Not checking the slide, he pointed it at his friend and fired the shot which now echos in the chambers of the court.

Plaintiff's attorney Jonathan Lowry pleaded that Beretta marketed an unsafe product while Beretta's Robert Gebhardt countered that the 92 incorporated the state of art safety and that the boy's father was culpable for failure to heed the warnings in the owner's manual.

May the jury in their collective wisdom appreciate that responsiblity rests with the individual and not with society as a whole. While this is an old concept, it holds true today.
 
On Monday, Nov. 16, 1998, an Alameda County Jury acquitted Beretta in a defective product lawsuit. As reported earlier, a 14 year old boy retrieved his father's gun and shot his friend. The parents of the deceased sued Beretta.

The jury, composed of 8 women and 4 men, voted 9 to 3 against the question of whether the gun was defective in some way. On the issue of whether the defect was a substantial factor in the boy's death, the jury voted 10 to 2 against it.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs are considering an appeal. Robert Gebhardt, attorney for Beretta, stated: "I'm pleased, and I think justice was done. This jury looked at the facts, looked at the law and decided appropriately."

Richard Feldman of the American Shooting Sports Council warned gun control advocates: "You'd better think twice, because you're going to be spinning your wheels - and with no reduction in crime."

While we may all breathe easier and bathe ourselves in the sunlight of Beretta's victory today, we must never rest our vigilence in this most sacred of causes - for without the Second Amendment, all other are meaningless.

Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
 
Thanks for the update, Gary. Hopefully, smaller cases like this can start setting legal precedent in favor of 2nd Amendment rights instead of against.

While thinking about this thread, I was upset with the idea that many of us will never make it onto a jury in which we can make a difference. Why? If we have an opinion, it is based on fact. We are rational and logical. We are informed. Most trial attorneys will ask for our dismissal because we aren't able to have our emotions molded by their legalese and emotional appeals.
I've been on juey duty twice, and three times made it "into the box". Excused or dismissed each time. They went something like this:
Attorney: "Are you familiar with the term `deep pockets liability'?" Me: "Yes." Attorney: "Thank you, you may be excused." Strike one.

Attorney: "Do you feel comfortable with the direction that liability law is currently headed?" Me: "No, not at all." Attorney: "Thank you, sir. Your honor, I would like to request that Juror Number (whatever) be dismissed." Strike two.

Attorney: "Sir, do you feel that current drug laws are effective or ineffective?" Me: "They're very inadequate, and our current administration's lackadaisical attitude towards drugs and lack of a coherent drug policy is only going to make things worse." Attorney: "Um, uh, that will be all." Strike three.
Maybe I need to be less obvious ;)
 
First, thanks gary, I posted a link to your info at a few places around the net, maybe it'll bring in some good people looking for facts. I think that as Internet discussion groups go we have the lions share of facts/post (exculding all of my posts, of course. ;))

Second, If I ever get to the Jury box of an important case, I think I'll just stare dumbly at the ceiling and act confused whenever the attornies ask a question. I should make it through okay to the trial.

------------------
-Essayons
 
The Beretta case in San Francisco is precisely the type of case "they" would remove from jury responsibility.
The rationale would be that the average citizen can not understand such a complex issue and its ramifications.
The actual reason is that this case is perfect for social engineering, increasing governmental control and de facto nationalization of a type of business.

The danger is obvious: if the "hearing officer" (judge, appointee, whatever) wishes to maintain or further his/her career, they rule according to the prevailing political clime. The second this happens, the concept of justice and law becomes a myth.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
May I suggest buying a couple dozen copies of the Citizens Rule Book, Bill of Rights Jury Handbook. Keep them on hand in case you are called to serve. Whitten Printers (602) 258-6406, 1001 S. 5th St., Phoenix, AZ 85004.
 
I participate on a few other forums, in particular knife forums. One has an associated chat room. A few of us were talking about some particular knives and one fellow from Finland expressed an affection for a particular thin profile knife.
So, curious I asked him about knife laws in Finland, which ultimately turned into a conversation about legal systems.

Apparently Finland doesn't have a jury system and cases are decided by a judge. Worse, self-defence is not legal, in that one is not allowed to escalate beyond the hands; and if the perpetrator is hurt more than the victim, then the victim becomes the principle person on trial. My friend cited a few examples (no names or case #'s so obviously this is hearsay): 1) a woman defended against rape with a knife and cut the guy....he was fined for assault, she was fined and placed on probation for assault with a deadly weapon; 2) a man happened upon the end stage of a rape and used a stick to beat the rapist senseless...because the rapist hadn't injured the woman other than smacking her some, was acquainted with her and that the actual rape was a "quickie"..the judge determined it was merely a domestic dispute and therefore that the Samaritan was the guilty party. 3) At night a shopkeeper goes to his shop and surprises 3 guys who broke in and were loading up stuff in their car. He shoots at them hits one. The shopkeeper is arrested, sued and had to pay all hospital expenses, lost his shop and went to jail. He told reporters that apparently he was supposed to help them load the car.

So, I asked my friend whats the rationale for these decisions. The powers-that-be want an orderly well behaved non violent society, so that is the philosophy that judges use when deciding cases, i.e. dispensing "justice" according to a political agenda. There is no jury of common citizens to interfer with this.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
One basic philosophical question is: " What is the purpose of government?"

In answering this question, our Founding Fathers incorporated the words, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" into our Bill of Rights. Pursuit of happiness wasn't in reference to attending a ho down/wingding at the county fair grounds. Rather, it was the means by which one earned their livelihood and accumulated wealth and property. Government served to protect the accumulation of property without which, anarchy would rule.

Apparently the Finns believe that life is so sacred that depriving a man of his livelihood or allowing a woman to be raped is acceptable as lesser but tolerable evils.
 
The Finland situation seems to be typical of the "Social-Democrat" type of governments common in Western Europe these days. A couple of years ago, the Rifleman carried a story about a guy in London who cut a mugger who tried to rob him on the subway. He was arrested, and at that time of the article he had been in jail for nine months, but had not been to trial. The story said that self defence is not considered cause for using a weapon over there now. The European governments are the models for what the liberals here want for U.S. God help us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top