Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Judge refuses to return gun to man [innocent] in freeway shootout

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154

    Judge refuses to return gun to man [innocent] in freeway shootout

    Scott, also 29, was charged in September 2013 with being party to the crime of armed robbery at an auto-parts store three months earlier. But that case was dismissed last month because prosecutors failed repeatedly to provide discovery material requested by Scott's lawyer that he contended would show similar robberies by similarly described suspects have been occurring after Scott was arrested and put on house arrest and GPS monitoring.
    [ ... ]
    The judge said while he owns guns and is a big supporter of the Second Amendment, he felt the freeway incident in which about 50 rounds were fired between the two men's cars as they covered about 5 miles "breaches the intent" of Wisconsin's concealed carry law.
    [ ... ]
    He remarked that he had a printout of a Journal Sentinel story about the June 2013 shootout before him, and asked, "I trust neither has a permit any longer?" Assistant District Attorney Sara Schroeder said she did not know the status of either permit. She said she hopes to refile the armed robbery charge against Scott, and may revisit his involvement in the shootout with Adamany and therefore opposed the return of Scott's weapon.

    http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/j...285507631.html
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616
    Dismissed is not the same as innocent.

    Would seem to be other details pending too.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    I suppose he needs to get any 2013 charges expunged and then he will/maybe get his gun back. Having a past criminal intent may be the reason the judge did not give his gun back. But once a criminal always a criminal??? How does one show that the criminal element has been buried for ever and now the person is a 'new' man? I dont trust thr restorative justice program! I know of someone who was made to go thru it and still was committing crimes/doping etc... and when an incident took place the sheriff's deputy refused to believe the victim stating that the perp was a model student at the local restorative justice program! Phoey! I know of only ONE way hearts are changed and the program is not an earthly one.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Dismissed is not the same as innocent.

    Would seem to be other details pending too.
    Dismissed IS equal to an acquittal in the eyes of the law.

    And I see no evidence of any further charges but, even so, he is presumed to be not guilty and I assume that the guns are not evidence in that case, unless shown otherwise. And I think if they were evidence in another case it would have been noted.

    Nice that the judge relies or gives any merit to a newspaper clipping.

    Guy should get his guns back, easy-peasy decision.

    "big supporter" .. right...I don't believe him at all.

    Anyone who says he should not have his guns back would support not giving guns back in cases of self defense where the gun used is never returned even upon a favorable finding of self defense.

    The DA can hope to re-file all he wants ~ a sanction of dismissal over discovery issues is still a dismissal with prejudice in every case I've seen. Comply with the law scummy lawyer. Should be fired IMO.

    I think the additional trial is in respect to he permit admin appeal case (end of article) and not on anything criminal.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154

    No outstanding charges

    State of Wisconsin vs. Roy Anthony Scott, Milwaukee County Case Number 2013CF004253

    All charges against Roy Anthony Scott in this case have been dismissed. These charges were not proven and have no legal effect. Roy Anthony Scott is presumed innocent.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  6. #6
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616
    So now we get down to the nitty gritty.

    Dismissed with prejudice or w/o predudice.....therefore dismissed does not automatically equal innocent, which was my point.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Roy Anthony Scott is presumed innocent. The charges were dismissed without prejudice and he was released from all court supervision. He may be retried (the meaning of without prejudice in criminal law) but will have to be indicted and charged again.
    11-18-2014 Dismissed Moroney-20, Dennis P. Dobbs, Cindy

    Additional Text:

    Defendant Roy Anthony Scott in court with attorney Mark A. Pecora. Sara Nicole Volden Schroeder appeared for the State of Wisconsin. Defense counsel's discovery demand still has not yet been received; trial would be adjourned for the 4th time. Defense motion to dismiss argued and GRANTED by the Court. Court ordered case dismissed without prejudice and released defendant from all terms and conditions of bail. Any cash bail on deposit is to be returned to the person who posted same.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 12-11-2014 at 05:46 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Roy Anthony Scott is presumed innocent. The charges were dismissed without prejudice and he was released from all court supervision. He may be retried (the meaning of without prejudice in criminal law) but will have to be indicted and charged again.
    But LLLLOOOK at his picture ! His P-I-C-T-U-R-E !!!!!!!!!!!!! ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

    to all those who say he cannot get his gun back based on the facts contained in the article.....

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Roy Anthony Scott is presumed innocent. The charges were dismissed without prejudice and he was released from all court supervision. He may be retried (the meaning of without prejudice in criminal law) but will have to be indicted and charged again.
    That's correct as far as it goes, but as you note the charges can be brought against him again. Dismissed With Prejudice means the charges can not be brought up again.

    As my attorney kept reminding me, nobody since Mary has been innocent, but lots of folks are not guilty. It's not a technicality.

    The issue of similar crimes being committed while he was on GPS-monitored house arrest seems to problematic for the prosecution.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  10. #10
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    The accused has NOT been found guilty and while there may be evidence of his participation in a crime until he is found guilty in court he is presumed innocent.
    It matters not to me if the dismissal was with prejudice or not.... Once charges are dismissed until new charges are filed he stands innocent before the law.
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  11. #11
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Sue the judge and prosecutor for malicious prosecution and denial of inalienable rights. Also file a robbery charge against any state agent who has handled that dudes property without his consent.

    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Sue the judge and prosecutor for malicious prosecution and denial of inalienable rights. Also file a robbery charge against any state agent who has handled that dudes property without his consent.

    In other words, file the new charges or give me my gat back!
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    836
    While legally he is guilty of nothing and should get his firearm back, I would suggesting ending the conversation at that.

    This guy does not seem like somebody the gun rights community want to hang their hat on.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
    While legally he is guilty of nothing and should get his firearm back, I would suggesting ending the conversation at that.

    This guy does not seem like somebody the gun rights community want to hang their hat on.
    I think its the exact guy to hang the hat upon. Even though he's a baaaad man, he still has rights to defend himself.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    And here is precisely the issue.

    Birds of a feather flock together and we flockers aren't impressed with some of our flock mates. They believe that freedom of association requires we tolerate icky flockers. SHUN ICKY.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    836
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Even though he's a baaaad man, he still has rights to defend himself.
    Maybe so, but some cases should be exalted more than others.

    I'm laying odds that this guys negative brushes with the law aren't over by a longshot. Do we really want to be embarrassed by someone we've made a shinning light of? He represents a poor risk to our causes reputation if you ask me.

    Say he has the right to get his gun back and end it. No reason to raise a flag over it.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
    Maybe so, but some cases should be exalted more than others.

    I'm laying odds that this guys negative brushes with the law aren't over by a longshot. Do we really want to be embarrassed by someone we've made a shinning light of? He represents a poor risk to our causes reputation if you ask me.

    Say he has the right to get his gun back and end it. No reason to raise a flag over it.
    I disagree .. these are the exact people you should be jumping up and down about. Once it it shown that he can and should get his guns back then future persons of better character (if his character is bad, I don't know) or appearance would be a slam dunk.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    836
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I disagree .. these are the exact people you should be jumping up and down about. Once it it shown that he can and should get his guns back then future persons of better character (if his character is bad, I don't know) or appearance would be a slam dunk.
    And when he get's his guns back (which, yes, legally he should) and continues on the path he's already on, you know what the headlines will read. "Gun rights sweetheart kills 2 in armed robbery" yadda yadda yadda.

    Pick your battles but some should be fought quieter than others. That's all I'm saying.

  19. #19
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    Quote Originally Posted by Law abider View Post
    I suppose he needs to get any 2013 charges expunged and then he will/maybe get his gun back. Having a past criminal intent may be the reason the judge did not give his gun back. But once a criminal always a criminal??? How does one show that the criminal element has been buried for ever and now the person is a 'new' man? I dont trust thr restorative justice program! I know of someone who was made to go thru it and still was committing crimes/doping etc... and when an incident took place the sheriff's deputy refused to believe the victim stating that the perp was a model student at the local restorative justice program! Phoey! I know of only ONE way hearts are changed and the program is not an earthly one.
    That's an interesting story. I've come across some pretty cunning losers in my day though. Let me tell you about living in SE Roanoke, VA... whew.
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  20. #20
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
    And when he get's his guns back (which, yes, legally he should) and continues on the path he's already on, you know what the headlines will read. "Gun rights sweetheart kills 2 in armed robbery" yadda yadda yadda.

    Pick your battles but some should be fought quieter than others. That's all I'm saying.
    Or as Abraham Lincoln has been said to have stated something similar to "I will stand with a man as long as he is right! When he is wrong, he can stand alone!"
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    Or as Abraham Lincoln has been said to have stated something similar to "I will stand with a man as long as he is right! When he is wrong, he can stand alone!"
    Same guy that suspended habeas hearings, right? Lincoln was a terrible president. Terrible.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
    And when he get's his guns back (which, yes, legally he should) and continues on the path he's already on, you know what the headlines will read. "Gun rights sweetheart kills 2 in armed robbery" yadda yadda yadda.

    Pick your battles but some should be fought quieter than others. That's all I'm saying.
    You are entitled to your opinion, I guess.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •