Author Topic: Gun Debaters, Read this and tell me what you think. (Read 1281 times)

Toad · « **on:** December 17, 2002, 09:36:24 AM »

Jury clears man who shot priest he accused of abuse

I'll hold my comments so as not to prejudice the thread before it starts.

Just read it and post your first reaction.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #1 on:** December 17, 2002, 09:45:22 AM »

My first thoughts:
Anyone who uses a firearm for other than self defense, sport shooting or target shooting should spend jail time for using it on another human.

My second thought is: Our jury selection process in this country needs an overhaul.

Mickey1992 · « **Reply #2 on:** December 17, 2002, 09:58:30 AM »

As horrible as the initial crime against the child may have been, no justice was served with this verdict. They didn't even find him guilty of a simple assault charge? I agree with Rip.

Thrawn · « **Reply #3 on:** December 17, 2002, 09:59:06 AM »

He should have been found guilty. He went there with a gun to confront his alledged abuser?

Yeah, that's called vigilantism.

Peace officers have authority to use physical force in the course of there duties. They get this authority from our representitives, who get their authourity from us, the citizens.

If this system of authority breaks down you get yourself anarchy.

Curval · « **Reply #4 on:** December 17, 2002, 09:59:20 AM »

My first thought...."I'd" go find a gun if a priest touched my child in a sexual way.

My second thought....sounds like an temporary insanity defense.

My third thought....mistrial, the jury was acting on emotion and not rule of law.

My fourth thought...anyone who lets their kids be an alter boy should think twice.

midnight Target · « **Reply #5 on:** December 17, 2002, 10:00:55 AM »

I almost agree with Rip (eewwwwww).

This guy should have to pay for the assault. Maybe a lenient sentence, but not acquittal.

The gun should definitely be incarcerated though!

Ripsnort · « **Reply #6 on:** December 17, 2002, 10:11:32 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target

The gun should definitely be incarcerated though!

ROTFLOL! Thanks, I needed a smile this morning.

Dune · « **Reply #7 on:** December 17, 2002, 10:12:56 AM »

The fact is, as a prosecutor myself, I wouldn't want to try and convict anyone of doing anything to a priest that might've abused them. Especially if the "victim" is going to plead the 5th. That screams "Yes, I porked the kid!" at the jury. And everyone and their dog is getting real fed up with the Catholic Church and these stories.

My question right now is who called the priest to the stand? Since this was the victim, the prosecutor must have known he would take the 5th and not testify about any allegations of sexual molestation. So, if the state did call him, the prosecutor did it for one of two reasons; 1. They had to call him to make their case about the shooting, or 2. The prosecutor knew the priest would take the 5th, look like toejam and the kid would get off and did it on purpose.

Either way, the state had to know the defense would hammer the priest on the defendant's allegations of molestation and the jury would end up dissapointed the kid didn't kill him.

I've interviewed the victim's of child molestation for trials before. I've seen up close the damage this does to them. There is a sadness and....for lack of a better word hole, something missing to them that breaks your heart. I can't imagine how much worse it must be to have that done to you by someone you trust. It is my deep and true desire that every priest who molested one of these children spend a long time in jail. And the same goes for anyone who covered up their crimes and unleashed them on some other unsuspecting congregation. I don't care who goes down for, but I want them all to pay and dearly.

H. Godwineson · « **Reply #8 on:** December 17, 2002, 10:15:26 AM »

Lawyers don't really want college graduates on a jury. They're hard to confuse and are able to recognize "spin."

I also firmly believe that it is very easy to "plant" a friend or associate on a jury. The only jury I ever served on was in a man-slaughter case. All the prospective jurors were asked by the judge if they knew any of the principals involved in the case. All said no. During the course of the trial the husband of one of the jurors sat in the courtroom and loudly rooted for the prosecution. During deliberations, she was the most vocal supporter for conviction of one of the plaintiffs. I was a lot younger then, and naive about some things. If I had it to do over again, I would report it to the judge.

Shuckins

ra · « **Reply #9 on:** December 17, 2002, 10:22:47 AM »

This case has nothing to do with gun laws, if he had used a baseball bat the handsomehunk jury would have still let him go.

Dune · « **Reply #10 on:** December 17, 2002, 10:23:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by H. Godwineson
Lawyers don't really want college graduates on a jury. They're hard to confuse and are able to recognize "spin."

I also firmly believe that it is very easy to "plant" a friend or associate on a jury. The only jury I ever served on was in a man-slaughter case. All the prospective jurors were asked by the judge if they knew any of the principals involved in the case. All said no. During the course of the trial the husband of one of the jurors sat in the courtroom and loudly rooted for the prosecution. During deliberations, she was the most vocal supporter for conviction of one of the plaintiffs. I was a lot younger then, and naive about some things. If I had it to do over again, I would report it to the judge.

Shuckins

Actually, I would say that you're wrong. Today much of the evidence used by the prosecution is scientific. We want educated people in the jury box to be able to understand it. And of course there's spin in a trial. That's all the opening and closing arguments are. Each side spins the facts presented as they want them seen. It is up the jury to decide who they believe.

And I'm sorry you feel juries can be planted. You say the jurors said they didn't know one of the principles. Then you say that one of the jurors' husbands was in the gallery, rooting for the prosecution. Did he have a stake in the prosecution side? Did he know someone on that side? Or did he just like the prosecution's evidence better. You also said that she vocally supported a guilty verdict. How did you vote? How about the rest of the jury? Was she swiming upstream or did you all feel the defendant was guilty?

H. Godwineson · « **Reply #11 on:** December 17, 2002, 10:48:15 AM »

Dune,

Uh...You've never tried a case in ARKANSAS, right? They tend to want the elderly and/or the illiterate. There were both on my jury. One could barely write his name. There were a lot of technical arguments associated with the case that I feel went right over his head.

The jury was split in opinion, at least at first. The lady I mention earlier held out the longest for conviction of one of the plaintiffs. (The case involved the killing of one child by another, with a parent's loaded shotgun. The parents of the slain child sued the parents of the child that killed him. The parents of both children sued Mossberg gun company, the manufacturer of the firearm. They also sued the Western Auto store chain for selling the firearm. They were asking for a total of $4 million dollars in damages.) The juror in question wanted Mossberg to be convicted. The reason, in retrospect, was obvious. Mossberg had the deepest pockets. Both families stood to make a large profit from its' conviction. Their motives and those of their lawyers were obvious to all on the jury, except her.

That trial beat anything I've ever seen in my life. To that little southeast Arkansas town came the owner of Mossberg, a member of the Warren Commission, and one of the top firearms experts in the field of law enforcement. They came to give testimony in a case that eleven of the members of the jury agreed should never have been brought to court.

I'm sure there are many lawyers who take their jobs seriously and are motivated by a sense of justice and fair play, but all I sensed from that group was greed.

Shuckins

Dune · « **Reply #12 on:** December 17, 2002, 10:55:56 AM »

Well, you also have to take into account that many times those are the people who can't figure out a way to get off the jury

And it sounds like this lady had a real beef against gun companies and saw this as her oportunity to make a stand.

That happens. Obviously she lied when she was asked if she could be fair and impartial. There isn't anything the judge or attorneys can do about that.

StSanta · « **Reply #13 on:** December 17, 2002, 10:56:56 AM »

We have 'professional' jurors here.

Very few frivolous lawsuits end up giving the claimant any money, and BS tactics used to lawyers is often recognized as that.

It works.

That guy should go to jail. The priest is not on trial and whatever happened doesn't alter the fact that the young man shot the priest. That's against the law no matter what the priest had done, except if it had been self defense which it clearly was not.

Hm, any racial tensions in the US that the state wants diminished? I couldn't help to notice that the defendant is black.

ra · « **Reply #14 on:** December 17, 2002, 11:09:14 AM »

The victim was black too. Most likely the jury was too.