-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Florida city commissioner shoots, kills alleged shoplifter, surveillance video shows
- Thread starter commodon
- Start date
StevieP
NES Member
"… jury of our peers" doesn't apply? LTC carriers should absolutely be part of the panel, since they've ostensibly been trained and would have basic understanding and insights about guns, rules of engagement, etc. that a non gun-owner wouldn't have. If I was a defense attorney I want to say I'd insist upon at least one on a jury of 12. No?
Lol good luck with that. Also 95% of gun owners are usually clueless about that stuff. We're biased because we're used to guys that carry, etc. The median gun owner is far worse....
StevieP
NES Member
Yeah I was just reading up on 6th Amendment stuff, and how bias comes in to play. Licensed gun owners on a jury likely would bring some preconceived bias.
But at the same time it's sort of like like telling a black defendant he can't have any black jurors in a racial discrimination case because they might be biased (but somehow the 12 crackers wouldn't be?). Somehow that doesn't seem like it would fly.
But at the same time it's sort of like like telling a black defendant he can't have any black jurors in a racial discrimination case because they might be biased (but somehow the 12 crackers wouldn't be?). Somehow that doesn't seem like it would fly.
Or like saying men can't be empaneled on a rape case because they lack a basic understanding of women
namedpipes
NES Member
Well, I wouldn't have shot the guy over a stupid hatchet, but it does seem unlikely that the thief will re-offend.
Indeed it wouldn't fly, as far as it goes. See Batson v. Kentucky. However, while the principle may extend from race to gender and socioeconomic status, as a Constitutional matter it wouldn't extend to "LTC holders". The state is free to pass laws regulating the use of peremptory challenges, of course...as if they would ever want to specifically protect LTC holders. Not holding my breath for that.
Actually I would even argue that on average, gun owners are clueless about nuances of self defense, etc, and are no better or worse than the rest of
the public. For example, does anyone here think that the average smoe that has an LTC to shoot trap on sundays knows what a Tueller drill is? amongst
other things.
-Mike
So if you were an defendant in a case involving firearms in Massachusetts would you have a problem with the judge/attorney excluding prospective jurors because they owned firearms, thus they were biased ?
Sure I would have a problem with it, I just wouldn't be that confident of a given juror "cuz gun owner" though, by itself. In a way, my viewpoint illustrates exactly why it shouldn't be considered by a court as an automatic dq on a jury.
-Mike
I've only been called for jury duty once. By the third question, I was told my services would not be needed. This was for a civil trial. I don't know which side voted me off the island. But every LEO in the room was cut.
namedpipes
NES Member
I told the judge the truth. That I'd make my decision based on common sense and the Constitution. The lawyers squabbled (one wanted me the other didn't) but they said my services would not be needed. Shame too. The jurors that had already been picked, couple of them were not guilty lasses. One might even have been a school teacher.
You mean they screwed you out of Jury Duty pay....lol
Local news just reported that he was released on bond tonight. As part of his conditions of release, he cannot possess firearms or ammo (well, duh!) which the news reported means that he will not be able to work in his Army/Navy surplus store.
