• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

'Open-carry' advocate must give up guns, UPI.com

J

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Public defenders are known for coping plea agreements. I sure hope this isn't the case for Jesus.

I have yet to see a Public Defender put any effort into someones defense other than making a deal with the DA.

Maybe this will be the first.
 
kwikrnu

kwikrnu

Banned
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
1,956
Location
Brentwood, Tennessee
imported post

The public defender has already shown she is unable or unwilling to defend her client. Is there some process where Jesus can get a different one?

On the other hand, the judge has found probable cause that Jesus committed a felony. If probable cause is a preponderance of the evidence and is good enough for the feds to prohibit possesion of guns in civil orders of protection, I think it would be good enough, in this case, to take his guns.
 
Cobra469

Cobra469

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2010
Messages
218
Location
West Allis, WI, , USA
imported post

Regardless of the specific prohibition of possessing a firearm he would still be prohibited. Simple fact is that they had filed a TRO against him for violence. That TRO automatically will prohibit him from possessing a firearm. All they did was make another specific condition of his release that would already apply. It is no different than any other violent crime regardless of his innocence. This injustice is placed upon many individuals who may or may not need such an order. But it is what it is. And I am sure many of us figured it would happen anyhow. Now this doesn't stop anybody else from OCing around him. But I have heard cases where an individual was charged with possession of a firearm merely because it was in the house regardless of if it was in their control or not. But those cases were because it was in a drawer or someplace that was not secured by a lock and as such it was arguable if they had ready access to it.

http://www.doj.state.wi.us/cvs/Victims_Rights/restraining_orders.asp

Respondents face a mandatory firearm surrender that goes into effect when domestic abuse and child abuse final injunctions are granted. The court may order the respondent of a harassment injunction to surrender firearms if there is clear and convincing evidence that the respondent may use firearms to harm another or the public.
 
We-the-People

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
imported post

It twarn't "Domestic abuse" or "child abuse".

While I think the page you linked probably does have the info you were intimating, the part you quoted doesn't appear to apply. Also, websites of a government entity are not the LAW and so whatever they say on their site should be verified by THE LAW that governs the particular case, NOT what some bureaucrat has put up on a web site.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of "official" web pages out there with erroneous information regarding the law.
 
Cobra469

Cobra469

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2010
Messages
218
Location
West Allis, WI, , USA
imported post

Actually I was referring to the fact that they are both violent offenses and if they can revoke it for harassment, abuse, or DV why would they not for a charge of murder. I also clearly stated that the quote was for different offenses but do you not agree that the terms in red does apply? As for misquoting the law...Well that needs no comment.

813.125(4m)(a)
(a) If a judge or circuit court commissioner issues an injunction under sub. (4) and the judge or circuit court commissioner determines, based on clear and convincing evidence presented at the hearing on the issuance of the injunction, that the respondent may use a firearm to cause physical harm to another or to endanger public safety, the judge or circuit court commissioner may prohibit the respondent from possessing a firearm.

Erroneous? Think not. Many people cite the BATF website as well.


This does not mean that I agree with disarming a law abiding citizen, but I can certainly see how a lawyer would find it difficult to do anything about it under the circumstances. After all any homicide regardless if it was justifiable or not is a much more serious offense than a simple DV or harassment charge.
 
J

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Cobra469 wrote:
Regardless of the specific prohibition of possessing a firearm he would still be prohibited. Simple fact is that they had filed a TRO against him for violence. That TRO automatically will prohibit him from possessing a firearm. All they did was make another specific condition of his release that would already apply. It is no different than any other violent crime regardless of his innocence. This injustice is placed upon many individuals who may or may not need such an order. But it is what it is. And I am sure many of us figured it would happen anyhow. Now this doesn't stop anybody else from OCing around him. But I have heard cases where an individual was charged with possession of a firearm merely because it was in the house regardless of if it was in their control or not. But those cases were because it was in a drawer or someplace that was not secured by a lock and as such it was arguable if they had ready access to it.

http://www.doj.state.wi.us/cvs/Victims_Rights/restraining_orders.asp

Respondents face a mandatory firearm surrender that goes into effect when domestic abuse and child abuse final injunctions are granted. The court may order the respondent of a harassment injunction to surrender firearms if there is clear and convincing evidence that the respondent may use firearms to harm another or the public.
Click to expand...
Well from what I read Corn has a TRO from having any contact with certain family members and others involved as well.

I wonder if he is allowed to carry a firearm or other dangerous weapon.
 
We-the-People

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
imported post

I think the "system" is just plain broken.

When the laws and reulations are so prolific that the DA has to go look up what he can charge you with, there are too damn many laws. When an innocent person (innocent until PROVEN guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law) can have such basic constitutional rights as self defense removed the system is BROKEN.

Is there a risk? Yes, of course there is a risk. However, living in a free society comes with risks that must be endured unless we want to risk our very freedoms.
 
P

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
imported post

Cobra469 wrote:
Yeah like Corn is really going to abide by that one. At minimal I am sure he will use 3rd party contact to communicate.
Click to expand...
I thought Corn was paralyzed from the neck down. Is he up and able to walk around with a gun already?
 
J

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

PT111 wrote:
Cobra469 wrote:
Yeah like Corn is really going to abide by that one. At minimal I am sure he will use 3rd party contact to communicate.
Click to expand...
I thought Corn was paralyzed from the neck down. Is he up and able to walk around with a gun already?
Click to expand...
I thought it said paralyzed from the chest down. I think he still has use of his arms.
 
MKEgal

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
imported post

I talked with Jesus on the phone recently, and he told me that not only
wereALL of HIS firearms taken by police (not just the one he used that
night), but they also took firearms from his mother's apartment, which
he wasn't in. Forget 'innocent until proven guilty', how about 'guilt by
association'??

So thewhole family is pretty much defenseless... and they're not at that
court-published address, either. I would guess that between the press &
relatives of the attackers, that house got a bit too much attention.
 
S

scorpio_vette

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
635
Location
nowhere
imported post

sorry, i haven't been around in a while. is this jesus the guy with the long black hair that i met at a couple events???

link to what happened???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top