SAF SUES IN MARYLAND OVER HANDGUN PERMIT DENIAL UPDATED 3-5-12

[Merlin]

If I recall correctly, retreat isn't necessary in the context of a robbery, either. Too bad it's not codified...

I guess as long as the robbery is still in progress the danger is present. Until the robbers are doing the running/escaping thing and you can only call 911 at that point.

 

[esqappellate]

I guess as long as the robbery is still in progress the danger is present. Until the robbers are doing the running/escaping thing and you can only call 911 at that point.

Right, self defense means only that. It does not include using deadly force to capture or prevent escape where your life is no longer in danger.

 

[esqappellate]

Having served on a jury where this came into play, I can say you don't want to take the chance. There are always those people who watch too much TV and come up with their own versions of he/she should have could have done that, they should have just shot the gun out of their hands, or shot him in the leg. Trust me, we argued for an hour on nonsense like that and it wasn't even firearm related. Lets just say someone broke into your house after getting into a verbal battle outside, the owner used a weapon to defend themselves inside their own home (women homeowner -- man was the person breaking in). We heard all kinds of stories about how she could have run out the back door, locked herself in a room, stayed on the opposite side of the kitchen table and kept going around it while waiting for police.

I really wanted to tear my hair out by the end of those deliberations.

And the verdict? Did she kill him?

 

[ffemtreed]

And the verdict? Did she kill him?

haha no she didn't kill him. That wasn't the whole story of the case either, just part of it. defendant argued that the assualt took place in her house, plaintiff said defendant attacked him while outside 50ft from the front door, which was the more likely story in my opinion. Ended up with 2nd degree assault and reckless endangerment, we could not agree on 1st degree assault after arguing for hours.

was just trying to use that part of the case to show what really goes on in deliberations. Jurors let their own predispositions show through, even though they are instructed to just follow the law to a T.

 

[esqappellate]

haha no she didn't kill him. That wasn't the whole story of the case either, just part of it. defendant argued that the assualt took place in her house, plaintiff said defendant attacked him while outside 50ft from the front door, which was the more likely story in my opinion. Ended up with 2nd degree assault and reckless endangerment, we could not agree on 1st degree assault after arguing for hours.

was just trying to use that part of the case to show what really goes on in deliberations. Jurors let their own predispositions show through, even though they are instructed to just follow the law to a T.

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing. Lawyers seldom get to sit it on juries. We love to hear what goes on there

 

[Merlin]

Having served on a jury where this came into play, I can say you don't want to take the chance. There are always those people who watch too much TV and come up with their own versions of he/she should have could have done that, they should have just shot the gun out of their hands, or shot him in the leg. Trust me, we argued for an hour on nonsense like that and it wasn't even firearm related. Lets just say someone broke into your house after getting into a verbal battle outside, the owner used a weapon to defend themselves inside their own home (women homeowner -- man was the person breaking in). We heard all kinds of stories about how she could have run out the back door, locked herself in a room, stayed on the opposite side of the kitchen table and kept going around it while waiting for police.

I really wanted to tear my hair out by the end of those deliberations.

BEN THERE, DONE THAT!!!

I to was on a jury years ago. it was an armed robbery/kidnapping charge. do my best to keep it short, but in truth, the excused (25 yo boy that was not so well off) just tricked this (25 yo boy that was very well off) out of $200.

The poor kid told the rich kid that he knew a guy that was selling pot. Got the rich kid to drive into a new housing development where some people started to move into. Poor kid told the rich kid the guy that lived in the house that had the pot for sale did not like strangers and that he should give him the money and let him go in to buy the pot as the rich kid waited out in his car. So the rich kid gave him the money and the poor kid knew where they was a house where no one lived. he went in the front door and out the back with the rich kids money.

The rich kid after waiting forever before he figured out that he was tricked was VERY mad and came up with this story of how the poor kid robbed him at knife point.

In court it was easy to see what happened after hearing both side. 11 members of the jury wanted to just find the poor kid for steeling the $200 and drop the armed robbery and kidnapping charges. But this one older lady wanted the kid to get the electric chair. She could not get it through her head that there were no drugs involved.

She had it in her mind that we were dealing with a drug dealer and she was using info she got from TV shows to support her reasoning.

We got our way in the end and the robbery and kidnapping charges were dropped. But we had to badger this older lady to go along with us so this kid did not go to jail for life or whatever.

After the trial the judge came in to talk to us and told us we made the right call because of info that he had that could not be introduced about the rich kid.

What I want you to take from my ramblings is it does not matter how right we may be when we do whatever, if we are EVER accused of something your future may be in the hands of people that are half NUTS that will never see things your way.

 

[Broadside]

What I want you to take from my ramblings is it does not matter how right we may be when we do whatever, if we are EVER accused of something your future may be in the hands of people that are half NUTS that will never see things your way.

I believe the legal term for this is "a jury of your peers".

 

[CharlieFoxtrot]

I have at least 200 jury trials under my belt. I used to try to talk to the jurors afterwards and find out what went on. Almost uniformly it depressed me how utterly random the decision making process was. Now I rarely bother unless it was a hung jury and I want to get the count.

 

[jmcgonig]

What I want you to take from my ramblings is it does not matter how right we may be when we do whatever, if we are EVER accused of something your future may be in the hands of people that are half NUTS that will never see things your way.

Same experience the other way around. We had 2 on our jury that were so completely incompetent to think it was amazing. I actually sat there for a good hour during the process deciding if these guys could get out of their own house in the morning w/o help... How they functioned in society had me baffled.

Really, really sad.

 

[Seagrave1963]

......if we are EVER accused of something your future may be in the hands of people that are half NUTS that will never see things your way.

That is just downright unsettling and scary

 

[csanc123]

Well...one must also look at the charges. Why would he be charged with something he didn't do. Overzealous prosecution I assume???

We got our way in the end and the robbery and kidnapping charges were dropped. But we had to badger this older lady to go along with us so this kid did not go to jail for life or whatever.

After the trial the judge came in to talk to us and told us we made the right call because of info that he had that could not be introduced about the rich kid. .

 

[saberwuf]

Well...one must also look at the charges. Why would he be charged with something he didn't do. Overzealous prosecution I assume???

because they took the word of the rich kid.
long ago i was charged with something i didnt do based on the word of just some guy. got a good lawyer and got the charges dropped. it doesnt take much for the cops to charge you of something.

 

[esqappellate]

I have at least 200 jury trials under my belt. I used to try to talk to the jurors afterwards and find out what went on. Almost uniformly it depressed me how utterly random the decision making process was. Now I rarely bother unless it was a hung jury and I want to get the count.

Depressing, isn't it.

 

[esqappellate]

Well...one must also look at the charges. Why would he be charged with something he didn't do. Overzealous prosecution I assume???

The prosecutor is *not* your friend. His job to get a conviction. And most only care about doing just that.

 

[Boxcab]

Weeeeeee-oooooooooooo, Weeeeeee-oooooooooooo, Weeeeeee-oooooooooooo, Weeeeeee-oooooooooooo, Weeeeeee-oooooooooooo, Weeeeeee-oooooooooooo...

Thread drift warning.

Any word from Judge Legg?

 

[swinokur]

Seems to me that the longer the Judge takes, the more bullet proof his ruling may become on a stay request to CA4.

 

[esqappellate]

Weeeeeee-oooooooooooo, Weeeeeee-oooooooooooo, Weeeeeee-oooooooooooo, Weeeeeee-oooooooooooo, Weeeeeee-oooooooooooo, Weeeeeee-oooooooooooo...

Thread drift warning.

Any word from Judge Legg?

Nothing as of 11:54 this morning on Pacer.

 

[NY Transplant]

I have at least 200 jury trials under my belt. I used to try to talk to the jurors afterwards and find out what went on. Almost uniformly it depressed me how utterly random the decision making process was. Now I rarely bother unless it was a hung jury and I want to get the count.

Same experience the other way around. We had 2 on our jury that were so completely incompetent to think it was amazing. I actually sat there for a good hour during the process deciding if these guys could get out of their own house in the morning w/o help... How they functioned in society had me baffled.

Really, really sad.

That is just downright unsettling and scary

Kind of make you wonder if trying to skip jury duty is such a good idea while relying on others with little to no common sense to adequately make the right judgement.

 

[tc617]

Kind of make you wonder if trying to skip jury duty is such a good idea while relying on others with little to no common sense to adequately make the right judgement.

On one hand I firmly believe that it is one's civic duty to serve jury duty...

On the other hand, I cringe at the thought of being judged by 12 of my peers who were not smart enough to get excused from serving jury duty.

 

[Merlin]

Well...one must also look at the charges. Why would he be charged with something he didn't do. Overzealous prosecution I assume???

Not at all. In this case the kid he tricked out of the money made the story up that led to the charges. He was just mad at the one kid for tricking him out of him money and wanted to get him into some real trouble, as well as he had to come up with an story of why he was with this kid in this half occupied housing development to began with.

During the trile the well off kid that lost the money and made the accusations to the LEO's that led to the charges it was easy to see that he was liying his A$$ off. It was clear to us because his story did not make any sence and was full of holes. The boy that was being charged, admitted to what he did to trick the one kid and his story added it perfectly.

Your statement is the very thing you have to be careful of. He is charged so he must be guilty line of thinking. That often could not be farther from the truth.

For example, if I get mad at you and say to the LEO's you did this and that to me, they will just arrest you and let the court system hash it out. In the end you may not be found guilty, but what happens if their is one or two people on your jury that would say the same thing as you just did about; "Why would he be charged with something he didn't do?".

Someone could lie to keep them from getting into trouble, or someone may have thought that you were the one who did whatever but tells the LEO's that they are 100% sure it was you.