Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Vigilante Justice

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    Based on the CA law which permit it

    https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...ctionNum=26035

    25850.


    (a) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when the person carries a loaded firearm on the person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory.


    On the other hand, the duty to retreat still applies (lives over property). But even within such legal constrains, a CA owner with a gun can still discourage looters. The latter are usually opportunistic and typically will not assume the risk of confronting an armed person who (even in California) can still use his weapon to defend himself if he is in danger.

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/californi...e-floyd-unrest

    California liquor store owner uses AR-15 to protect his property from looters in George Floyd unrest

    In CA even when the law is on your side, it all depends on the judge and jury. It can go either way.




    “Someone who doesn’t know is less stupid than someone who wrongly think he knows."

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Nikki View Post


      In CA even when the law is on your side, it all depends on the judge and jury. It can go either way.



      This is true everywhere and including in cases when the law is against you. We have seen how one juror could protect defendants who were obviously guilty (the case of cop shooting on the back a person running away is one example). .

      I assume in a case of attempting looting, the jury and the judge will be more willing to accept the defendant's claims of self-defense.
      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by pamak View Post

        This is true everywhere and including in cases when the law is against you. We have seen how one juror could protect defendants who were obviously guilty (the case of cop shooting on the back a person running away is one example). .

        I assume in a case of attempting looting, the jury and the judge will be more willing to accept the defendant's claims of self-defense.

        Exactly! Like the judge and one juror in the Flynn trial. She was clearly biased against Flynn, and the judge as well.

        “Someone who doesn’t know is less stupid than someone who wrongly think he knows."

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Nikki View Post


          Exactly! Like the judge and one juror in the Flynn trial. She was clearly biased against Flynn, and the judge as well.
          What Flynn jury trial?

          Are you confusing it with Manafort and the one juror who was refusing to convict him? Eventually she was persuaded to join the rest of the jurors and convict Manafort for some crimes . The rest of the jurors wanted to convict him for all crimes.

          Anyway, yes, this can happen in any setting! I would not be surprised if we see it in Arbery's trial even if the evience is ovewhelming against the defense. A single "confederate" juror can impact the whole trial and serve of justice.
          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by pamak View Post

            What Flynn jury trial?

            Are you confusing it with Manafort and the one juror who was refusing to convict him? Eventually she was persuaded to join the rest of the jurors and convict Manafort for some crimes . The rest of the jurors wanted to convict him for all crimes.

            Anyway, yes, this can happen in any setting! I would not be surprised if we see it in Arbery's trial even if the evience is ovewhelming against the defense. A single "confederate" juror can impact the whole trial and serve of justice.

            Sorry, Roger Stone trial.


            “Someone who doesn’t know is less stupid than someone who wrongly think he knows."

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Nikki View Post


              Sorry, Roger Stone trial.

              If he was convicted then this was not a result of one juror...

              My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

              Comment

              Latest Topics

              Collapse

              Working...
              X