Bremerton man goes to prison for wife's guns

compmanio365 · Jan 7, 2010

imported post

If a man may not be trusted with the most basic right to self defense, then why is that man out of jail and in society? If a man is free, a MAN IS FREE. This, "well you can have SOME freedom, but not all" is BS, plain and simple. And here it shows extremely well the hypocrisy and injustice of our "justice" system.....a man does his time, gets out and keeps his nose clean for 20 years.....does the right thing all the way and then gets tossed back in jail for it.

And people wonder why so many turn to crime, when being a "good guy" just doesn't pay in our society....you'll just be screwed over anyways by the very system you swore to uphold and abide by.

erps · Jan 7, 2010

imported post

And people wonder why so many turn to crime, when being a "good guy" just doesn't pay in our society....you'll just be screwed over anyways by the very system you swore to uphold and abide by.

yes, there are some people who don't need much justification to turn to crime. I'm guessing that nearly 100% of the criminals have some form of justification.

BigDave · Jan 7, 2010

imported post

swatspyder wrote:

BigDave wrote:

You know what they say, Ignorance of the Law is no excuse.

He knew very well he was a convicted felon and at his age I am quite sure he was aware he could not buy or posses a firearms, but instead he tried to walk a thin line between right and wrong that put him where he was today.

He made some very stupid choices and should have opted to the plea.

No sympathy for felons is possession for firearms that have not had their rights reinstated.

Click to expand...

And yet, the 2nd amendment applies to convicted felons who are not in jail or prison. Words on paper do nothing to stop these guys. The laws need to change.

Felons have lost their rights by their actions, take it or leave it.
Does this mean you support the ones who slain the Officers in Washington Lately of having firearms? I would hope not, there are restrictions.

This was brought on by him and him ignoring the laws, he could have had his right reinstated but choose not to do that as well.

Stretch · Jan 7, 2010

imported post

I wonder if G. Gordon Liddy will be dumping his "wife's" firearms collection soon?

sudden valley gunner · Jan 7, 2010

imported post

BigDave wrote:

swatspyder wrote:

BigDave wrote:

You know what they say, Ignorance of the Law is no excuse.

He knew very well he was a convicted felon and at his age I am quite sure he was aware he could not buy or posses a firearms, but instead he tried to walk a thin line between right and wrong that put him where he was today.

He made some very stupid choices and should have opted to the plea.

No sympathy for felons is possession for firearms that have not had their rights reinstated.

Click to expand...

And yet, the 2nd amendment applies to convicted felons who are not in jail or prison. Words on paper do nothing to stop these guys. The laws need to change.

Click to expand...

Felons have lost their rights by their actions, take it or leave it.
Does this mean you support the ones who slain the Officers in Washington Lately of having firearms? I would hope not, there are restrictions.

This was brought on by him and him ignoring the laws, he could have had his right reinstated but choose not to do that as well.

I don't support those who slay these officers to ever get out of jail.

He didn't know the law he was unsure. Plus they were not his guns and it is wrong for the government to deprive his wife of defending themselves. Or him in his own home for that matter.

They do this yet vote for felons to have the right to vote on "racial issue".:banghead::banghead:I guess this had nothing to do with the fact most felons don't vote conservative either?

Another reason not to "cooperate" with police. Look where it got this guy.

And that cocain analogy.....really?

Lante · Jan 7, 2010

imported post

So what's the wife supposed to do? If she keeps the guns under lock and key so that her husband cannot exercise dominion or control over them, then she cannot exercise her right to defend herself in her home. Essentially, she has to sacrifice her rights because her husband cannot have guns.

I was in this exact situation back in 1998. My wife of less than a year, at the time, got busted for fraud (proving I am better at picking guns then women). She took a plea for community service and 3 yrs probation, if she stayed out of trouble the charges would be dismissed. No mention of guns etc. After it was signed sealed and delivered, I got a notice from the county sheriff who noted that during the investigation it was found I had guns, and that I had to turn them over to the court or otherwise prove that they were beyond her reach. So I bought a big safe. Not good enough - I could give her the safes combo, I signed an affidavit swearing I wouldn't give her the combo. Not good enough. I decided to store them off property, not good enough as she still had access to the houses of family. Found out there is no such thing as being "beyond reach" :banghead:. Once you get on the LIST of some paper pusher death or complying seems to be the only agreeable solution to them.

virgil47 · Jan 7, 2010

imported post

BigDave wrote:

swatspyder wrote:

BigDave wrote:

You know what they say, Ignorance of the Law is no excuse.

He knew very well he was a convicted felon and at his age I am quite sure he was aware he could not buy or posses a firearms, but instead he tried to walk a thin line between right and wrong that put him where he was today.

He made some very stupid choices and should have opted to the plea.

No sympathy for felons is possession for firearms that have not had their rights reinstated.

Click to expand...

And yet, the 2nd amendment applies to convicted felons who are not in jail or prison. Words on paper do nothing to stop these guys. The laws need to change.

Click to expand...

Felons have lost their rights by their actions, take it or leave it.
Does this mean you support the ones who slain the Officers in Washington Lately of having firearms? I would hope not, there are restrictions.

This was brought on by him and him ignoring the laws, he could have had his right reinstated but choose not to do that as well.

Not so big dave. Just check todays headlines.The Wash. Supremes said that just because you are a convicted felon you do not lose your right to vote. As a matter of fact they decided that felons can even vote in while still in prison. It appears that the gov. is cherrypicking which rights you will lose.

erps · Jan 7, 2010

imported post

He didn't know the law he was unsure.

Oh. He should get a pass then?

Plus they were not his guns and it is wrong for the government to deprive his wife of defending themselves. Or him in his own home for that matter.

No one deprived either one of them from defending themselves.

Another reason not to "cooperate" with police. Look where it got this guy.

Good point. If you have stuff in your home that is illegal for you to possess, don't call the police to your home.

Citizen · Jan 7, 2010

imported post

erps wrote:

SNIP Defense attorneys are allowed to give closing arguments.

Another, perhaps obvious, restriction on final arguments is that the arguments in closing must be tied to the evidence developed at trial. Inferences and conclusions from the evidence at trial can be argued quite freely, but to mention evidence that was never presented (and perhaps even ruled inadmissible by the trial judge) would be improper.

Read more: Criminal Trial - The Trial Ends http://law.jrank.org/pages/2208/Trial-Criminal-trial-ends.html#ixzz0byVtlcW1

Click to expand...

This is one of my points about how the government has steadily eroded jury powers and taken advantage of people's ignorance on the subject. It goes beyond just nullification.

From Spooner:

But for their right to judge of the law, and the justice of the law, juries would be no protection to an accused person, even as to matters of fact; for, if the government can dictate to a jury any law whatever, in a criminal case, it can certainly dictate to them the laws of evidence. That is, it can dictate what evidence is admissible, and what inadmissible, and also what force or weight is to be given to the evidence admitted. And if the government can thus dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only make it necessary for them to convict on a partial exhibition of the evidence rightfully pertaining to the case, but it can even require them [*6] to convict on any evidence whatever that it pleases to offer them. (emphasis added by Citizen)

Citizen · Jan 7, 2010

imported post

erps wrote:

SNIP We have 12 people who came to a unanimous decision after three days of trial and their careful decision is being trashed by folks who read an article on it. Whatever.

No offense, but it seems to me you are as much crediting the jury with arriving at a correct and proper decision based on the news article as anybody here is detracting.

And, at least with respect to me, overlooking that I am bashing the government, not the jury.

sudden valley gunner · Jan 7, 2010

imported post

erps wrote:

He didn't know the law he was unsure.

Click to expand...

Oh. He should get a pass then?

Plus they were not his guns and it is wrong for the government to deprive his wife of defending themselves. Or him in his own home for that matter.

Click to expand...

No one deprived either one of them from defending themselves.

Another reason not to "cooperate" with police. Look where it got this guy.

Click to expand...

Good point. If you have stuff in your home that is illegal for you to possess, don't call the police to your home.

1. Yes he should, and I still feel he didn't break any law. So we all are supposed to walk around with an expensive law degree? Laws need to be straightforward and to the point.

2. Yes if you take their guns away you deprive them of defending themselves against an intruder who is armed with ....well anything.

3.The weapons weren't his,he had done nothing wrong, called the police, for someone else's wrong doing and because he "cooperated" is now convicted of a crime.

swatspyder · Jan 7, 2010

imported post

BigDave wrote:

swatspyder wrote:

BigDave wrote:

You know what they say, Ignorance of the Law is no excuse.

He knew very well he was a convicted felon and at his age I am quite sure he was aware he could not buy or posses a firearms, but instead he tried to walk a thin line between right and wrong that put him where he was today.

He made some very stupid choices and should have opted to the plea.

No sympathy for felons is possession for firearms that have not had their rights reinstated.

Click to expand...

And yet, the 2nd amendment applies to convicted felons who are not in jail or prison. Words on paper do nothing to stop these guys. The laws need to change.

Click to expand...

Felons have lost their rights by their actions, take it or leave it.
Does this mean you support the ones who slain the Officers in Washington Lately of having firearms? I would hope not, there are restrictions.

This was brought on by him and him ignoring the laws, he could have had his right reinstated but choose not to do that as well.

I'm going to bold this because I feel that this is a very big statement that probably at least 75% of the people here would agree on.

If you are locked up in jail or prison, you are deprived of your rights. Because you have been convicted of a crime, or are waiting based upon the fact that you are a suitable suspect in a crime.

If you are let out of jail or prison, you have every right that you had before you went to jail or prison. You have finished, completed, done your time in the pen and now you are released based upon the fact that your punishment is done. You are back into the general populous and are now a regular citizen!

Your punishment is over, you are free, back to regular life, able to live like you were before you were locked up. If a person should have their rights revoked for life, they need to be put away for life. If a person should do 10 years for a crime, their rights are gone for 10 years. No more after that. Their punishment is over. If they are not ready to be let out into the general populous, they need to stay in jail or prison until they are capable of being honest, upstanding, contributing members of society.

Simple breakdown:
Murder - Life
Assault - Jail time
Drug possession - Nothing

but...

DUI (drugs/alcohol) w/o accident - Impound car for at least 90 days + huge fine to retrieve car.
DUI (drugs/alcohol) w/accident - Impound car/scrap it + License revoked permanently (privilege to drive, not a right) + (see murder/do jail time)

Accident while using cell phone (calling/texting) - License revoked and car impounded for 30 days.

And continue on...

erps · Jan 7, 2010

imported post

Laws need to be straightforward and to the point.

like it's unlawful for a felon to possess firearms, kind of like that?

2. Yes if you take their guns away you deprive them of defending themselves against an intruder who is armed with ....well anything.

No one took their guns away, at least not until he was arrested. I agree that they should give the firearms back to the wife ASAP now that the case has been adjudicated.

The weapons weren't his, he had done nothing wrong, called the police, for someone else's wrong doing and because he "cooperated" is now convicted of a crime.

I can call the police to my house right now and cooperate with them, and I will bet money that I won't go to jail. He went to jail because he was a felon in possession of firearms and he refused a plea deal.

For what it's worth, it's too bad he didn't take the plea deal. There also may be more to this story than the article is telling us. It's pretty telling that 12 people on the jury all came to the same conclusion. O.J's jury couldn't do that with some compelling evidence.

compmanio365 · Jan 7, 2010

imported post

Yeah, well this guy wasn't famous, rich, and have racial issues in his favor. Your argument is specious at best.

erps · Jan 7, 2010

imported post

compmanio365 wrote:

Yeah, well this guy wasn't famous, rich, and have racial issues in his favor. Your argument is specious at best.

correct me if I'm wrong, but it would have only taken one juror to vote that the state did not prove their case, and the guy would not have been found guilty. The guy's own wife says she was not surprised by the verdict. All these people that were actually a part of the process came to the same conclusion but some guy on the internet, who may not be impartial, says they are all wrong. I dunno, but if I had to choose, I think I would go with the conclusions of the folks that were there.

I think a fair argument could be made that the sentencing ought to take all the other factors into consideration. If the original plea bargain was going to let him off with no jail time, it would have been nice if the person passing sentence had that information when they passed sentence.

BigDave · Jan 7, 2010

imported post

Does not matter at this point if you like it or not, until the law is change it is the law and if you break it, well off to jail you go hi ho hi ho.

With some of the logic about he did not know, for crying out loud what is next law he did not know, murder, rape, arson, burglary?

Some of these replies on condoning his actions are immature to say the least.

Johnny Law · Jan 7, 2010

imported post

swatspyder wrote:

I'm going to bold this because I feel that this is a very big statement that probably at least 75% of the people here would agree on.

If you are locked up in jail or prison, you are deprived of your rights. Because you have been convicted of a crime, or are waiting based upon the fact that you are a suitable suspect in a crime.

If you are let out of jail or prison, you have every right that you had before you went to jail or prison. You have finished, completed, done your time in the pen and now you are released based upon the fact that your punishment is done. You are back into the general populous and are now a regular citizen!

Your punishment is over, you are free, back to regular life, able to live like you were before you were locked up. If a person should have their rights revoked for life, they need to be put away for life. If a person should do 10 years for a crime, their rights are gone for 10 years. No more after that. Their punishment is over. If they are not ready to be let out into the general populous, they need to stay in jail or prison until they are capable of being honest, upstanding, contributing members of society.

How about this parallel example;

A level 3 sex offender (level 3 is defined asVERY likely to re-offend) who raped a child is released from prison (Mcneil Island). He did his time, but this guy (like many often do) refused treatment and isNOT reformed. They have no choice but to release him as the law states, and he moves in a few doors down from you.

Please don't make the mistake of thinking this is strictlya hypothetical situation, as I have seen this happen MANY times.

The law says that he must report his address tohis P.O. for the rest of his life, so they can keep his whereabouts known (register as a sex offender). A second stipulation of his release is that he maynever be alone around any children.

You walk outside your house and see him on the sidewalk talking to your young kids who are in your yard. Ifthose who say that theytruly believe that this mandid his time, and should nowhave all his rights restored, then you would have to think this is okay, and you would never report him for violating such an unjust law?........right?

N6ATF · Jan 7, 2010

imported post

erps wrote:

N6ATF wrote:

erps wrote:

The government telling the jury how to evaluate what evidence the government has allowed.

Click to expand...

you don't think his defense attorney told the jury a second way to interprete the evidence?

A jury found him guilty.

Click to expand...

Defense attorneys have been barred from doing so in the past. Just Google the case of Theseus in CA. He was denied the ability to raise exemptions in the law he was covered by and evidence that supported him, and was found guilty under the perverted trial and jury instructions.

Click to expand...

Defense attorneys are allowed to give closing arguments.

Another, perhaps obvious, restriction on final arguments is that the arguments in closing must be tied to the evidence developed at trial. Inferences and conclusions from the evidence at trial can be argued quite freely, but to mention evidence that was never presented (and perhaps even ruled inadmissible by the trial judge) would be improper.

Read more: Criminal Trial - The Trial Ends http://law.jrank.org/pages/2208/Trial-Criminal-trial-ends.html#ixzz0byVtlcW1

Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point. The trial judge maliciously ruled pretty much all aspects of the defense inadmissible, so there was little to nothing to argue on closing.

swatspyder · Jan 7, 2010

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

swatspyder wrote:

I'm going to bold this because I feel that this is a very big statement that probably at least 75% of the people here would agree on.

If you are locked up in jail or prison, you are deprived of your rights. Because you have been convicted of a crime, or are waiting based upon the fact that you are a suitable suspect in a crime.

If you are let out of jail or prison, you have every right that you had before you went to jail or prison. You have finished, completed, done your time in the pen and now you are released based upon the fact that your punishment is done. You are back into the general populous and are now a regular citizen!

Your punishment is over, you are free, back to regular life, able to live like you were before you were locked up. If a person should have their rights revoked for life, they need to be put away for life. If a person should do 10 years for a crime, their rights are gone for 10 years. No more after that. Their punishment is over. If they are not ready to be let out into the general populous, they need to stay in jail or prison until they are capable of being honest, upstanding, contributing members of society.

Click to expand...

How about this parallel example;

A level 3 sex offender (level 3 is defined asVERY likely to re-offend) who raped a child is released from prison (Mcneil Island). He did his time, but this guy (like many often do) refused treatment and isNOT reformed. They have no choice but to release him as the law states, and he moves in a few doors down from you.

Please don't make the mistake of thinking this is strictlya hypothetical situation, as I have seen this happen MANY times.

The law says that he must report his address tohis P.O. for the rest of his life, so they can keep his whereabouts known (register as a sex offender). A second stipulation of his release is that he maynever be alone around any children.

You walk outside your house and see him on the sidewalk talking to your young kids who are in your yard. Ifthose who say that theytruly believe that this mandid his time, and should nowhave all his rights restored, then you would have to think this is okay, and you would never report him for violating such an unjust law?........right?

Please refer to this line at the end of my last post.

If they are not ready to be let out into the general populous, they need to stay in jail or prison until they are capable of being honest, upstanding, contributing members of society.

If that requires mandatory treatment before release and an evaluation of that person by a qualified doctor, then so be it. That can be a stipulation to being released.

If they are likely to recommit the sexual offense, then they should be kept in jail/prison.

brianstone1985 · Jan 7, 2010

imported post

Why is everyone feeding the Troll...

Erps has been on a # of threads doing the same thing... I kind of like having him around as it provides me with a view I dont normally share. However if you disagree with him just take his .02 in and then forget about it.

Not bashing on Erps everyone is entitled to their opinion, when we start bickering amongst ourselves that is when the integrity of the topic gets a little off (in my opinion).

-Brian

Bremerton man goes to prison for wife's guns

Regular Member

Regular Member

Opt-Out Members

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Opt-Out Members

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member