In a case such as this I wonder if a bench trial would have been preferred. Again this comes down to the individual judge on the bench and whether or not they are activist judges or follow the law. I think that problem with juries is that they tend to be full of women and college students. College students tend to be liberal and women will perhaps be too emotional about the protection of school children to actually look at the facts of the case. In the end it is one civilians word against that of another. In this case the complaining civilian is be given preference as if he is a LEO by both the trial judge and the appellate court jury.
Most likely it would have been worse. Judges are reluctant to mess with the decisions of a lower court - especially when we are talking about the county level as opposed to the state system vs the federal appellate system. These guys pass each other in the halls every day and unless there was really good reason to overturn a decision it's going to be a source of friction - regardless of how much a decision needed reversal or not. In this case there is little to suggest the judge would not have reached the same verdict - just a lot faster.
Scouser was looking at not coming home for a long time. Losing everything he did lose still beats not being able to be home.
I'm going to spill a bit of personal information about Scouser and his family - and I'm not even going to ask for permission beforehand. Scouser is a major provider of therapy that his son needs. Being away for the time he was looking at would most likely put his son back several years from the progress he has made to date. (And his kid is only 3!) And to add to that the emotional trauma of not understanding why daddy will not come home and play with him, or take him to the zoo, could mean a complete trainwreck for his son. (I'm not saying much about his wife, but it goes as well for her except she does not need therapy - at least not the kind her son gets.)
In the end it is one civilians word against that of another. In this case the complaining civilian is be given preference as if he is a LEO by both the trial judge and the appellate court jury
I don't think "preference" is the appropriate word. I think it hinges more on being able to understand, both from a personal emotional level, and from a legal level, just what the crime of brandishing is. Given that the law outlawing brandishing does not even know what it is, it does not surprise me that the jury did not know either.
Think
malum in se as opposed to
mens rea and
malum prohibitum. Everybody says there are two elements to the crime of brandishing a firearm, but a structural analysis of the stature would provide a disagreement, saying there are in fact three elements. That the case law does not recognize this is one of the two causes of confusiuon in understanding exactly what constitutes the crime.
Compare
§ 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured. ....
with the only other brandishing statute
§ 18.2-282.1. Brandishing a machete or other bladed weapon with intent to intimidate; penalty.
It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold, or brandish a machete or any weapon, with an exposed blade 12 inches or longer, with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons and in a manner that reasonably demonstrates that intent. This section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense. ....
18.2-282.1 clearly spells out the three elements of the crime. The person brandishing the machete may have the intent to intimidate another, but if that other does not in fact perceive the intent there is no crime committed. It needs further cleaning up, but it's a bit better than 18.2-282.
stay safe.
