Stunning conviction

L

Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret

New member
A guy gets dragged out of a car by a man intent on attacking him; he gets hit with fists; he pulls a gun and shoots his attacker. The jury convicts him of first-degree reckless homicide while armed with a deadly weapon.



Said the prosecutor, "...it was unreasonable for [the shooter] to use deadly force in what was clearly "a fist fight."


Isn't that amazing?
If anyone needs a lawyer in Wisconsin regarding guns , don't go with Dennis Coffey


From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel


http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/...-in-fatal-shooting-b99180038z1-239316951.html
 
I don't think the conviction is necessarily stunning.

The story indicates the convicted individual made several errors in judgment. He went to bad places with folks he had a history with. He gave an initial statement that contradicted a self-defense claim:

Huebner also asked Green why, in a recorded interview with detectives soon after the shooting, he estimated Banks was more like eight feet away and didn't say Banks was coming at him when he fired.

Green said he was traumatized by the whole experience and unclear about details in the first hours after it happened. He said he'd never been arrested — or shot a gun — before.
Click to expand...

He tells a tale to the detective without counsel?

He carries a gun and has never shot one before? Without actually hearing all the testimony and seeing the exhibits - this is not a stunning conviction apriori.

Perhaps the jury didn't think the level of force was appropriate. We haven't read the transcript. If he wasn't believable - that was the game.
 
The conviction underscores the need to consult with counsel before saying anything except "I was scared for my life and shot in self-defense."
 
I can pretty much guarantee that there were some factors focused on at trial that weren't focused on in the article.

It looks like the incident involved some sort of altercation between friends or acquaintances, and they apparently had been drinking. Those factors can cause the appropriateness of the use of lethal force to be legally uncertain.

It's notable that the jury took only a short time, three hours, to reach a verdict.
 
Dont talk to the police besides "i was in fear of my life and I want a lawyer"
Click to expand...

How about this one too: Don't carry a gun when you're drunk, especially with preexisting stoopid.
 
Green said he was traumatized by the whole experience and unclear about details in the first hours after it happened. He said he'd never been arrested — or shot a gun — before.
Click to expand...

Interesting. How does one get a permit in Minnesota without the firearms qualification?
 
Last edited:
Oh, that gleaming Jewel of the Midwest, that Wonder on the Lake, that Endless Parade of Attractive People- Wisconsin.

I took the hunter safety course 20 years ago and I didn't need to shoot. I only needed to handle a firearm for 45 seconds.

No permit for open carry needed. You want to carry concealed? Tell the State you're a law abiding sane person and they'll mail it to you, just like that.
 
You want to carry concealed? Tell the State you're a law abiding sane person and they'll mail it to you, just like that.
Click to expand...

While this approach does mean the occasional idiot gets a permit, it also means the rest of us don't have to stand around, hat in hand, and wallet open, possibly for months, while the state decides whether or not to grant us the privilege...

There's no free lunch.
 
Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret said:
I didn't mean to imply the concealed permit is free.
Click to expand...
Nobody thought you did. By "no free lunch" he meant there're pros and cons to everything; if it's easier for idiots to get permits it also means it's easier for good, responsible citizens to get permits. He wasn't referring to the cost of the permit itself.
 
We're a funny bunch, aren't we? "We" [collective "we"] all sit at our keyboards and lament the fact that the gummint doesn't respect the Constitution and the Second Amendment, boo hoo, boo hoo -- and then along comes someone who has a gun and does something silly or foolish and all of a sudden major subsets of the "pro-gun, pro-RKBA" community start channeling their inner Dick Metcalf and bemoaning the fact that this idiot or that idiot was allowed to carry (or just own) a firearm.

It's a logical fallacy to argue that the Second Amendment should prevail and at the same time argue that "some" people just shouldn't be allowed to have guns ...

Make up your minds, folks. Either you support the Second Amendment ... or you don't. "In for a penny, in for a pound," as the saying goes.
 
"Oh, that gleaming Jewel of the Midwest, that Wonder on the Lake, that Endless Parade of Attractive People- Wisconsin.

I took the hunter safety course 20 years ago and I didn't need to shoot. I only needed to handle a firearm for 45 seconds.

No permit for open carry needed. You want to carry concealed? Tell the State you're a law abiding sane person and they'll mail it to you, just like that."
Well, ouch.
I suspect that in most areas of Wisconsin if you open carry, although legal by law, you will come to the attention of the local law enforcement officers since they must respond to a "MWAG" call and a lot of people in Wisconsin do not know that open carry is legal. Obtaining a CCW in Wisconsin is not quite as simple as implied in the quoted post.
One must survive a real background check done after all the rest of this is done. Then one must take a course (amount of time is not specified but must be attested to by the instructor whose teaching license is at risk should he lie). Course content usually involves safety procedures and ethics of carrying a weapon. In the course I took, easily as much time was spent on when NOt to shoot and how to avoid having to shoot. Online courses are NOT allowed. In addition one must submit a letter of character reference. At this time, I can see nothing in the law that requires firing the weapon. It looks to me that Wisconsin is close to getting it right about the shooting drill....most would not simply buy the weapon and not learn to use it. Some will. Some courses offered do include some range time. An application must be sent to the state along with a fee, now $40.
I have recently researched this thoroughly.
 
It's a logical fallacy to argue that the Second Amendment should prevail and at the same time argue that "some" people just shouldn't be allowed to have guns ...
Click to expand...

I believe I subscribe to a version of a logical fallacy. While I do believe in the primacy of the 2nd Amendment, I also believe that there are people who just shouldn't be allowed to have guns.

AFTER they have proven themselves dangerously irresponsible with them. The same people who we don't allow to have matches, lighters, sharp knives, etc. are in that category as well.

I don't believe in prior restraint, nor having to prove to a bureaucrat how "good" you are. But if you do something that proves you a danger to self or others, then, no, you shouldn't be allowed a gun.

I realize that this isn't the most popular opinion these days, because it allows greater risk of harm than the currently popular idea of disarming people because of what you think they might do.

To me, that's the price we pay for liberty.
 
As I celebrate the right of law abiding idiots to carry guns, I celebrate the right of idiot citizens to vote for politicians who would ban carry and all guns.

The argument that the Second Amendment is absolute is an old one.

Kids, felons, Lanza types?
 
The fact that idiots have rights shows that EVERYONE has rights....and that's a good thing.....

.....having to get the government's permission to have said rights, not so much....
 
I don't believe it's any kind of fallacy to say that "everyone" should be allowed to own guns and also believe that there are exclusions from "everyone".

We believe in freedom in general but we still put people in jail, that's not a contradiction.

Some exceptions go without saying. Nobody (of sane mind) thinks Charles Manson should be freed and allowed to own guns.

The trouble comes when we start excoriating some poor schmuck who just happened to have won the reverse lottery and got caught doing something that a million other people did the same day, many times we ourselves have done before, but without getting caught.

As 44AMP said, prior restraint ain't cool. It's very much a Minority Report phenomenon.

Examinations of military, police and even firearms trainer accidents prove that NO AMOUNT of training will ever completely and totally eliminate accidents or even stupid behavior.

Requiring training before a person can carry a gun is really no different than requiring karate before they can defend themselves with their hands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top