Like I tell my kids, theres the way it should be and the way it is!

 

 

http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/images/stories/journal/Network_2010-9.pdf

Awesome read. Great find. Depresing but informative.

Wow, it amazes me, though I guess it shouldn't how biased people can be. Three on one, not a reason to use a gun? Wonder how those who voted to convict would feel about their loved ones in danger. Bet they would change their mind about the right to defend loved ones.

 

The only way we can change perception is to try and get people to understand that guns aren't bad or the problem. We need to them to hold people, not objects accountable. I try and take as many of my kids friends shooting as their parents allow. Start to change their minds so they are not biased when they are young.

From the article...

 

 

 

After recounting his ordeal from beginning to end,

Hickey emphasizes that he no longer believes that a trial

is about right and wrong, crime and justice. “It seems to

be about winning and losing,” he muses. For example, he

cites how a judge arbitrarily controls what evidence to allow

in to the trial, and what to keep out.

 

“People need to understand how it works,” Hickey

says. “You think you are going to be able to present this

evidence and that evidence and everyone will be able to

see it clearly. Well, the judge decides what evidence you

are going to present.”

 

I think he is right. The prosecutor just wants to win the case. He or she is not concerned with jutice. They want to have a high prosecution rate in order to make themselves look good.

 

Good article though.

This is why I feel the courts have created a caste system. Us surfs go to jail and X football players go free.......

good read.. it will in all honesty not change much about how I would do things.. the unfortunate saying rings true in this read "better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6".... what is interesting is that the whole shooting someone who didn't have a gun seems to be the issue that created the most difficulty..

what is interesting is that the whole shooting someone who didn't have a gun seems to be the issue that created the most difficulty..

 

 

That is the scary part. The purpose of a gun is to equalize the playing field.

For example 5 foot 90lb 78 year old grandmother shoots unarmed 6'6" 280lb thug breaking into her house. I pretty sure no sane person would argue that she was in no danger because he was unarmed.

That is the scary part. The purpose of a gun is to equalize the playing field.

For example 5 foot 90lb 78 year old grandmother shoots unarmed 6'6" 280lb thug breaking into her house. I pretty sure no sane person would argue that she was in no danger because he was unarmed.

 

That would be true if the prosecution didn't get to hand pick their jurors to convict you. IIRC I'm supposed to be tried by my peers and not 12 people whose morals and beliefs do not match my own. My peers are gun owning responsible law abiding citizens. The "justice" system is a friggin joke. Don't let anyone tell you different.

Guilty untill proven innocent.

Not to thread jack here, but do you think it is the responsibility of a CCW holder to also carry a non lethal defense mechanism for this exact type of situation (unarmed assailant)?

 

I agree that he was right to defend himself, but I think all the turmoil he went through would have been avoided had he used something like OC spray to attempt to deter the threat. If they persisted, he could then use his firearm and hopefully illustrate to the jury that despite his best efforts he had no other option.

Not to thread jack here, but do you think it is the responsibility of a CCW holder to also carry a non lethal defense mechanism for this exact type of situation (unarmed assailant)?

 

I agree that he was right to defend himself, but I think all the turmoil he went through would have been avoided had he used something like OC spray to attempt to deter the threat. If they persisted, he could then use his firearm and hopefully illustrate to the jury that despite his best efforts he had no other option.

 

In this instance, if he were to use OC spray, it would have gotten all over himself. This would have rendered him useless to use his firearm, and the attackers may have gotten control of it.

The OC spray is irrelevant and doesnt fit this scenario IMO. It didnt change into a disparity of force situation until the boyfriend blind sided him by punching him in the temple.

That would be true if the prosecution didn't get to hand pick their jurors to convict you. IIRC I'm supposed to be tried by my peers and not 12 people whose morals and beliefs do not match my own. My peers are gun owning responsible law abiding citizens. The "justice" system is a friggin joke. Don't let anyone tell you different.

You have that pretty much backwards.....the Defense has just as much control over the Jury pool as the prosecutuon does..In fact, from my experience, the prosecution usually comes out on the short end after Jury selection.

Hayes continues, “In the second trial, I made it clear to the defense team that you need to establish ahead of time what guns the local police use because they all use .40 caliber Glocks which are generally more powerful than 9mm. So in the second trial, we established through a de-tective’s testimony that their gun was a .40 caliber Glock and guess what? Nicolini knew what we had done and he never made the gun an issue in the second trial.”

 

Sad, but excellent read.

 

The DA was throwing anything to the wall to see if it would stick. Hickey's training and type of firearm were brought into question. They used the defense that it is of the same type/caliber that the local PD uses. Defused the argument and the DA never brought it up again.

We need to them to hold people, not objects accountable.

Totally, 100%, without a doubt agreed. I strongly believe in "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." I would much rather allow a fully law abiding citizen the right to carry an automatic M4 slung over his shoulder in public, then let some gang-banger have access to a knife. It is NOT the object, it is the attitude of a person. If someone has the motive to commit a crime, they will do it WITH or WITHOUT a gun.

Totally, 100%, without a doubt agreed. I strongly believe in "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." I would much rather allow a fully law abiding citizen the right to carry an automatic M4 slung over his shoulder in public, then let some gang-banger have access to a knife. It is NOT the object, it is the attitude of a person. If someone has the motive to commit a crime, they will do it WITH or WITHOUT a gun.

 

could not agree more! just like the war on drugs.. why waste all that money time effort demonizing an item... just focus on the criminal actions.. not the item! I could care less is someone smokes themselves unconscious.. but if they try to drive like that.. lock them up!

That would be true if the prosecution didn't get to hand pick their jurors to convict you. IIRC I'm supposed to be tried by my peers and not 12 people whose morals and beliefs do not match my own. My peers are gun owning responsible law abiding citizens. The "justice" system is a friggin joke. Don't let anyone tell you different.

So I guess it could be Acceptable then for any Police Officer charged with a crime such as Excessive Force, or the like being tried by a Jury comprised solely of cops???