Legally Blind Man Acquitted

[Lady Di]

Here's another story about a legally blind man who was acquitted for shooting someone in self-defense. He was found guilty for being in possession of a concealed weapon since he was a felon. He sounds like a BG too, but I do think the jury got it right on the self-defense charge.

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071101/NEWS01/711010348

[Bill of Rights]

He was found guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm.... OK... Can someone tell me why even an ex-con should not be able to exercise the right of lawful self defense, if he's not committing a crime himself at the time?

Cogito, ergo porto.

Blessings,
M

[Lady Di]

Well, if he's paid his debt to society then he should be able to have the means to protect himself. Too bad I'm not in charge, huh? :lol:

[Raccoon]

Really thats just another law that doesnt work. I have not seen too many bad guys that wont carry just because they cant. What I see is that they go to extra elngths to not get caught if they are carrying when they should not. Bad guys dont generally obey the law. Maybe some of the laws, not not the ones they think should not apply to them.

[Bill of Rights]

Imagine that: Criminals don't obey the law! Whodathunkit?

Blessings,
M

[VegasGeorge]

This issue presents a conundrum.

Guns are not the problem, right? Guns don't kill people, people kill people, right? If you make guns illegal, then only the criminals will have guns, right?

So, how can you justify allowing felons to own guns? Incidentally, there is no such thing as an "ex-felon." Once a felon, always a felon. We can't have it both ways. We can't argue the distinction between the gun and the person wielding it, and then say it's OK for felons to have guns. We would be shooting ourselves in the foot.

In my opinion, there are way too many crimes classified as felonies. And, in my opinion, only the traditional violent felonies should disqualify a person from owning a gun. But, I do agree that felons should not have guns.

[Lady Di]

In my opinion, there are way too many crimes classified as felonies.

This is part of the problem. There are many "ex-felons" out there who shouldn't be. I'd trust G. Gordon Liddy with guns any day.

[Bill of Rights]

George,

You know I like using examples... So OK, here's one. Kid of 18 (yeah, I know that makes him an adult, but considering most of us here are at least double that if not more, he's a kid. Anyway...) screws up, commits a felony battery while being stupid drunk and finds himself on the wrong side of a set of bars or an ankle bracelet for a couple of years. Ten years and zero crimes later, yes, he was still once convicted of a felony charge, but now since he had a record and no one would hire him, he went into business for himself and is a successful businessman, married, 2.6 children, the whole works.

It's not unheard of, and while rare, it can happen. I don't excuse his actions on the grounds of him being, as I put it, stupid drunk, but I do look at the time since then. Granted, he can apply to have his felony reduced to misdemeanor or even expunged/pardoned, and that would remove it from his record entirely, but my point is that he should not have to go to all those great lengths to be able to protect his family and his business, not to mention himself, from people who would do him/them harm. We simply cannot keep guns out of criminal hands with laws; never have, never will, nor can we (or do we want to) remove guns from society; this would leave honest people at the mercy of the larger, stronger, more numerous thugs and perps. This being the case, keep the criminals in cells until they're either safe to return to society or ready to go into a coffin. Don't demonize either the gun or the person for what the person MIGHT do with the gun. Preventative law enforcement is unjust. Intent is the key. Having been in a courtroom or two :) , you probably know the story of the man caught with a crowbar, hammer, and knife, sitting on the stand, being questioned by the attractive, young prosecutor:

"But you had all the tools necessary to be a burglar when you were arrested!"

"Yes Ma'am, I did. And standing in this courtroom, you have all the tools necessary to be a prostitute."

We may differ on this, but I am of the opinion that no one, prior crime or not, (edit: who is not presently incarcerated) should be prohibited from effectively defending him- or herself from danger.

Cogito, ergo porto.

Blessings,
M

[VegasGeorge]

We may differ on this, but I am of the opinion that no one, prior crime or not, (edit: who is not presently incarcerated) should be prohibited from effectively defending him- or herself from danger.

Yup, we differ on that one. :(

Let me point out that the law of self defense is still fully available to felons. A felon may legally defend himself and others, just the same as a non-felon. It's only that felons are not allowed to own or possess guns. If a felon were to defend himself, or another, by using a gun, the fact of the prior felony would not make the homicide criminal. The felon would have to answer for illegally possessing a gun, but the felon would have the same legal defense to the homicide that you would.

I do believe that most States have a restoration of civil rights petition available for cases such as your example.

[Bill of Rights]

I don't agree that the ex-con, trying to turn his life around, should have to choose between re-offending and getting in more trouble vs. dying or being a helpless victim.

However, I think we can agree to disagree. :)

Cogito, ergo porto.

Blessings,
M

[nodaywithout]

I am glad to hear that there is an ex con out there that has turned his life around, and has become sucessful.

[Bill of Rights]

While I'm sure there are some, Jason, my example was hypothetical.

Sorry about the confusion.

Blessings,
M