ToddDubya
NES Member
Everything the law says can and will be used against you in a court of law.
-
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.
RIP Vermont: update the restrictions passed the House
- Thread starter VTski4x4
- Start date
Everything the law says can and will be used against you in a court of law.
I'll dig into the incident but I don't see what this has to do with judges- that guy chose a jury trial, and he either got railroaded/nifonged by the prosecutor talked too much, or had a crappy attorney, or some combination of all of the above. The way the system works you can sometimes be right, be 110% innocent and still get convicted. When I originally made my claim I never stated that the system would be infallible. I only made the claim that legally speaking, the state usually has the burden of proof in such matters when it comes to technical issues.
Not receptive? I'm not receptive to tinfoiler bullshit, but I'm going to make a WAG and guess that this incident doesn't really involve tinfoil, and more like a poor
guy that either talked himself into a conviction (this happens a lot more than people want to admit) or a prick prosecutor/DA that railroaded the shit out of the poor guy. There have been several cases like this in the past couple decades in NH, where an incident that was nothing was manufactured into something by malicious state actors. (Ward Bird comes to mind, much ado about nothing, but got manufactured into a huge deal. ) Given the fact that this guy got hit with other charges other than just the one for the dog, makes me think he got a railroad job from the prosecutor. PM me if you want, if you have additional sources about it I'd like to read it, I've only found a few crappy, short news articles in the limited digging I did, that don't really describe the full narrative of what happened with this guy and the dog, etc.
While that's sound advice in a practical sense it often places arbitrary limitations on ones freedom, and in my book that results in shitty way to live, because if taken literally it will just cause people to have irrational fear. We see it all the time around here with pant shitting about post 7/20 FTF transfers, registering guns they forgot to do 40 years ago, etc. All things which, in reality, don't matter but people tie themselves into knots over. Meanwhile when the state actually screws people WRT gun laws in this state its nearly always the boring, easy to prosecute stuff nobody ever talks about, like a 209A, "safe storage" BS, carrying under the influence, etc... not esoteric, poorly written laws like some AW bans, or some convoluted BS about registering a gun. Knowing the reality of how something is enforced or will be enforced in a given state, or whether it's even enforceable at all, is pretty important; so you can make informed choices about your behavior in that environment rather than being wrapped up with irrational worry.
-Mike
Nick Fury
NES Member
So then you read about the curcuit judge dropping the animal cruelty charge only to have the the DA reintroduce it to be put before a grand jury? Or the judge who finally struck down the prison time and ruled community service plus restitution was enough?
Strange however is this little tidbit you never hear mentioned in any of those articles but do in pretty much every other nh dog shooting incident...
Section 466:28 Killing Dogs Legalized.
Tell me more about how the burdon of proof lies with the state. Tell me your relevant life experience. I tell mine and it’s nothing but foil. I offered proof. You offer supposition. It’s not the first time i have posted about this either. Do you absorb what you read?
Strange however is this little tidbit you never hear mentioned in any of those articles but do in pretty much every other nh dog shooting incident...
Section 466:28 Killing Dogs Legalized.
Tell me more about how the burdon of proof lies with the state. Tell me your relevant life experience. I tell mine and it’s nothing but foil. I offered proof. You offer supposition. It’s not the first time i have posted about this either. Do you absorb what you read?
There is no supposition, burden of proof is a commonly established tenet of legal procedure. Just because a DA or a judge abuses or ignores it, or someone, or their attorney decides not to hold them accountable for that abuse, doesn't make it any less valid. It also doesn't change the judge's role in sentencing (if there is a conviction) It sounds like this guy got nifonged, though; in which case I'm surprised that it didn't draw more attention. Was his attorney prohibited from introducing discussion of that law? Did the jury ever divulge what instructions they
received or what evidence they may have been told to disregard?
As far as "life experience" goes I've spent an inordinate amount of time in the past looking at various cases involving
firearms. When it comes to "technicals" the state has to at least make something up and then convince the jury
that the defendant violated the law as written. You or your counsel usually has an opportunity to refute that. Then the jury decides whether or not it believes the state has proven itself or not. Now if a judge is perverting that course of due process, then that's obviously an issue, I mean that's obviously banana republic/kangaroo court
shit. Still more questions about this than answers- like how the hell does a DA reintroduce an animal
cruelty charge? wouldn't that violate the 5th? (or did they weasel out of that because technically he wasn't put on trial the first time around?)
-Mike
Yeah, but the SOP in MA is "stack up a bunch of bogus charges, if your attorney is halfway decent he'll get rid of most of them, leaving like "the one" that they will try to hang on you. Then you face the wonderful choice of (assuming you have money) go to trial, with a possible chance of jail; or suck for the felony plea no jail deal, or in lighter cases, a CWOF. I've never heard of anyone bothering to go to full trial on only gun charges (unless it was the type of situation where the negotiated deal was garbage and resulted in prison anyways, but usually that means you plugged someone or something a lot bigger than just some gun BS... ) . Of course a lot of this stuff seemingly happens in a black box, too... unless you have folks familiar with the court system, its difficult to find out exactly how something was disposed; you might see a newspaper article, and then POOF the case seemingly disappears from the media.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that someplace like VT might not be quite
that f***ed up, but who knows... every system is different. MA's is alarmingly
bad, though. But you knew that already.
-Mike
Nick Fury
NES Member
I dunno man. I tried to explain my real life experiences regarding the court system and all things GUNZ even going as far as providing links to seriously biased journalism that if even a little imagination was applied one could realize this is far from isolated yet all I get back is more judicial theory.
Some folks just cannot be reached...
Some folks just cannot be reached...
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 543
- Likes
- 165
I believe you meant to say that the MA system is double-plus ungood ...
And none of that has anything to do with the statement I originally made.
I made the statement to stem what I think is a common misunderstanding about law. In a criminal case in the US the prosecution/state, at least on paper,
pretty much always has the burden of proof. It's similar to the misunderstanding where people ask about a law that "permits" them to do
something.
Whether or not the court is corrupt, or the state obeys the rules, etc, or judges play f***y-f*** games to subvert due process, etc... is a different matter entirely.
I get it- your argument is "the system is f***ed, and the courts will do whatever they want" - I understand that. Maybe I should have prefaced my
response with "on paper, the state has the burden of proof" or "depending on your level of faith in the system...."
-Mike
That was sort of my point in the first place, judges have a lot of power over what goes on. Remember the case Rob quotes where the judge says something to the effect of "I don't want to hear anything about the legality of the search warrant" It's clear bullshit, and they get away with it. I can easily see the same with some DA basically saying "It's obvious those are illegal mags, they hold more than the allowed 10 rounds" and leaving it to you to prove otherwise and the judge allowing it.
Whutmeworry
NES Member
The problem is beyond that I think. I've been spending time on the Vermont Gun Owner's Facebook page trying to warn them that unless - in addition to replacing Traitor Phil with a pro-gun Republican in the primary - they fight like hell to overturn the Democrat majority in both houses of the VT legislature, they don't have a prayer of reversing, or even stopping additional, anti-gun legislation.
There are a few pro-gun Democrats in the Vermont statehouse, but as we've seen here in the PRM for almost a century, it's the legislative leadership that matters. The Democratic party platform very plainly spells out an anti-gun agenda. The Democratic legislative leadership in the VT House and Senate WILL carry out that agenda regardless of a few pro-gun Democrats among them.
Vermont gun owners, and even many Vermonters who're active in pro-gun organizations in Vermont don't seem to understand this yet. I hope they figure it out before it's too late (before the primaries).
That section of the NH statutes is meaningless. A person I know was charged with felony animal cruelty and felony reckless conduct for defending himself against a growling charging dog in a wooded area. Dog was loose and away from owners property with owner nowhere to be found. He took a plea to ensure there was no felony conviction. This occurred at the same time as the Epping case. Pat Conway is a witch and one of if not the most corrupt county attorney in NH. Pretty sure she hates all men, especially men who own guns. Somehow she manages to get re-elected.
She is also the same prosecutor who railroaded Max Abramson for breaking up a physical brawl on his own property with a gun.
I honestly have no idea. I know the attorney my friend used. There is no caselaw making it null to my knowledge. Even the competing harms statute didn't help.
If the county attorney wants to prosecute, there is literally nothing that will stop them, not even an NHSC ruling, if they have an agenda. Similar to the police the MO is prosecute and let the courts figure it out. Meanwhile the defendant (s) is having a nervous breakdown and is substantially poorer.
I think what caught them off guard is failing to understand that the definition of Democrat/ Liberal /Progressive in Vermont is not the same as it is in states where the carpetbaggers who are infesting their legislature now come from.
The live and let live culture in Vermont that they have had forever is gone.
The vermin that came in from NY, MA. CA. ect. that hold office there now didn't come to enjoy what Vermont has to offer.
They came to take it. All of it.
That's what you need to impress on them.
Last edited:
Whutmeworry
NES Member
There are plenty of other posters on that VT Gun Owner's Facebook page that are arguing exactly the same point that you are, but I'm not convinced that's the whole problem, though I certainly agree that it is part of it. Some of these legislators that voted for this new law have been in the VT legislature for two, three decades or more. Consider that Pat Leahy, Bernie and other extreme-left lawmakers have represented Vermont for a long, long time (yes I know Bernie is originally from New York). My point though is that leftism is nowhere near a new phenomenon in the state. Vermonters for years have done their best to over-regulate commerce and to drive away economic opportunity in the interest of keeping the state small and quaint. All this has actually resulted in is abject poverty. There are probably almost as many people moving OUT of the state as moving in, and most of those leaving are young people because there is little to no economic opportunity left in the state. There's a lot of ignorance there. I lived up there and went to college up there and it just really makes me sad to see that the one redeeming political quality the place and it's people had (and coincidentally the political quality I personally hold most dear) has succumbed to ignorance as well.
KBCraig
NES Member
The timing matches, since the move to VT started four or five decades ago.
backinblack
NES Member
Looks like the NYtimes has "confirmed" what we all thought. Bloomie and the likes pushed turncoat Phil to sell us all out...
"...
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Guns. Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America was started by Shannon Watts in the aftermath of Sandy Hook, and now as a part of Everytown for Gun Safety has over four million members. Then there are smaller groups like Survivors Empowered, started by Sandy and Lonnie Phillips after their daughter was killed in the mass shooting in 2012 in Aurora, Colo.
These people have no fear of the N.R.A. — despite its steady targeting of people, especially women, who speak out against them. These are the volunteers who have gone door to door with petitions and who speak before state legislatures. And it works: They have brought significant change to eight states, forcing stronger background checks, limiting gun access to perpetrators of domestic violence, and creating “red flag” laws to allow the local police and families to take guns away from relatives who are at risk to themselves or others — laws that might have prevented at least some of the mass shootings in the last decades.
These are the people who forced change in Vermont, persuading Gov. Phil Scott to require a criminal background check for every gun sale in the state, and who, in Florida, successfully pushed for a red flag law and raised the minimum age to buy a gun to 21. In the same state they managed to close the so-called Charleston Loophole, which allowed gun sales after three business days, even if a background check was not completed. (Dylann Roof, who murdered nine African-Americans at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C., in 2015, got his weapon this way.)..."
Opinion | Things Have Changed Since Sandy Hook
"...
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Guns. Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America was started by Shannon Watts in the aftermath of Sandy Hook, and now as a part of Everytown for Gun Safety has over four million members. Then there are smaller groups like Survivors Empowered, started by Sandy and Lonnie Phillips after their daughter was killed in the mass shooting in 2012 in Aurora, Colo.
These people have no fear of the N.R.A. — despite its steady targeting of people, especially women, who speak out against them. These are the volunteers who have gone door to door with petitions and who speak before state legislatures. And it works: They have brought significant change to eight states, forcing stronger background checks, limiting gun access to perpetrators of domestic violence, and creating “red flag” laws to allow the local police and families to take guns away from relatives who are at risk to themselves or others — laws that might have prevented at least some of the mass shootings in the last decades.
These are the people who forced change in Vermont, persuading Gov. Phil Scott to require a criminal background check for every gun sale in the state, and who, in Florida, successfully pushed for a red flag law and raised the minimum age to buy a gun to 21. In the same state they managed to close the so-called Charleston Loophole, which allowed gun sales after three business days, even if a background check was not completed. (Dylann Roof, who murdered nine African-Americans at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C., in 2015, got his weapon this way.)..."
Opinion | Things Have Changed Since Sandy Hook
Wonder what the price tag is to sell out an entire state ?
Hope the prick chokes on it.
71montess
NES Member
Intellectual elite liberal DemocRATS is the disease, the 2nd Amendment is the cure ! Hear me ?
Similar threads
