The Olofson Case - Merged Threads

Your faith in the jury system would be positively touching if it weren't so smug. Heaven above help you if you ever run afoul of the law, which in your chosen line of work isn't really too hard to imagine.
 
I'd like to see them legally required to change the name to the Bureau of Unmilitarized Longguns, Lager, Spirits, Handguns, Incendiaries and Tobacco.
 
Pointing out the painfully obvious (that this guy was convicted by a jury who heard both sides as opposed to you me Lou Dobbs, and the rest of the peanut gallery) isn't being smug, its, well, pointing out the obvious.
 
Juries in this case are a joke. Would anyone on a jury want to be known to oppose the ATF and invite retaliation by people who can almost literally get away with murder? Didn't think so. If they can have you jailed and out $10k+ and/or ruining your life for having a bad spring or a bent sear and the most that happens to them if they're wrong is having to say "Oops, sorry, my bad" is that any kind of fair fight in a court of law?
 
The outcome can also be determined by the instructions given to the jury by the judge, which may severely limit the breadth of scope with which they can view the evidence and come to a finding. Most jurists are not aware of jury nullification. The jury can be instructed in such a way as to stack the bias either for or against the defendent, depending upon the situation. I've served on a jury and our jury was given specific instructions on "how we must interpret the evidence presented" and what we were allowed to consider when reaching our verdict. In other words, if the court and the prosecutors brought evidence that a law was broken, even if jury members thought the law was rediculous, they would be instructed that they must vote for a guilty verdict in that case. Well, are they legally obligated to do so? I don't think so. I think they could vote "not guilty" without being prosecuted.

Prior to the trial, we were each questioned by both the defense and the prosecution to see if they could determine any pre bias on our part, prior to the trial being commenced. They could then dismiss you if they felt you wouldn't be unbiased. So the jury can also be stacked in one form or another with a bias towards only voting in regards to whether a said law was broken or not.

In this case, a law was broken, accidently, as I hear it. Is this a good law? Maybe it needs revamping. However, the prosecutor went after this one. Maybe he/she was trying to move up the ladder. People can easily be trapped by an overbearing, over powered government. Any government big enough to give you most of what you need, is also powerful enough to take most of what you have.
 
Last edited:
Would anyone on a jury want to be known to oppose the ATF and invite retaliation by people who can almost literally get away with murder?
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that if a juror voted to acquit the ATF would hunt them down and file bogus charges?

If so, I recommend renyolds wrap. Its stiffer and folds better.
 
Your faith in the jury system would be positively touching if it weren't so smug.
Click to expand...

My "faith" is based on knowledge, whats your worldview based on? TV? The net?

Perhaps you would prefer the Continental system?

Anyway, shall we free mr. Means?


WildoroborousAlaska ™
 
wildalaska said:
My "faith" is based on knowledge, whats your worldview based on? TV? The net?
Click to expand...

What's the liklihood that the prosecution challenged and removed anyone on the jury who is an NRA/GOA member, a gunsmith or has technical knowledge of firearms operation or repair? I'd say in the 90% range.

What's the liklihood that the prosecution removed any juror with more than 3 years of military service? Or a reliability engineer? Or someone who is a machinist? Likely about 80%.

The point is, the jury is likely devoid of anyone with enough knowledge of firearms to know that there is a significant difference between a malfunction/breakage and an intent to violate the law.

Why did BATmen raid his place? I dunno. If I had to guess, maybe the BATFe's "source" found out that he was not in a hurry to have the gun repaired (aka: there were other priorities for his cash) and they used that to show he wanted it that way.
 
What's the liklihood that the prosecution challenged and removed anyone on the jury who is an NRA/GOA member, a gunsmith or has technical knowledge of firearms operation or repair? I'd say in the 90% range.
Click to expand...

Whats What's the liklihood that the defense challenged and removed anyone on the jury who is a Brady Buncher, or who deosnt own guns, or someone who doesnt havetechnical knowledge of firearms operation or repair? I'd say in the 90% range.

Thats the system, set up by the beloved founding father.

Why did BATmen raid his place? I dunno. If I had to guess, maybe the BATFe's "source" found out that he was not in a hurry to have the gun repaired (aka: there were other priorities for his cash) and they used that to show he wanted it that way.
Click to expand...

Why did BATmen raid his place? I dunno. If I had to guess, maybe the guy was peddling guns to gangbangers.

Let the appeal run its course and then we can all speak in an educated fashion

To be fair, there's a degree of controversy over Leonard Peltier's guilt, or so Wiki says.
Click to expand...

Hey so I confuse em...but I have been listening to the whinings of "political prisoners" for all my life.

WilditsthesystemdealwithitAlaska ™
 
kkb

Alan: You've posted the abbreviated link display, not the real links. We need links without a bunch of dots in the middle.

---------------------

I copied the links as I received them, to the best of my recollection. It is possible that I figured out how to do this incorrectly though.
 
Thats the system, set up by the beloved founding father.
Click to expand...

No, it is not. Under the U.S. Constitution, there is no right to peremptory strikes. The strikes are strictly a creature of federal procedural rules or state laws/procedures.
 
No, it is not. Under the U.S. Constitution, there is no right to peremptory strikes. The strikes are strictly a creature of federal procedural rules or state laws/procedures.
Click to expand...

Cool lets have jury trials without strikes then...that will work LOL

WildrandomselectionAlaska ™

ps...research the history of premptory challenges
 
Why not? They do it anyway with no hesitance as it is.
Click to expand...

Baloney. Making statements like this are just as bad as what Brady says about gun owners.

If its verboten when they do it, we should hold ourselves to the same standards.
 
One thing that changed radically since the days of the founding of our country are the rules of evidence. The judge has the absolute power to decide what what if anything may be presented to the jury in you defense. A fine example is the Ramos & Campean case where the defense was forbidden to inform the jury that the drug smuggler was a drug smuggler with a van load of drugs. If in this case the judge chose to forbid testimony that the weapon was defective then we have yet another rail road job.

BTW, Dobbs is a pretty good guy. I don't always agree with him but he's pretty sharp for a CNN guy. There was even talk of drafting him for an independent run for president. Something that he turned down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top