Legal Defense Fund For Jesus Gonzalez

Doug Huffman said:

A unique claim, even for a claim of 'special knowledge'. It is related to the fallacies of 'ad hominem' (that everyone else is unfit to know the 'special knowledge') and 'argument from authority', the legitimacy of which is not established or concurred.

Click to expand...

I am hardly and "authority" and as usual your thoughts don't apply Doug. How does it feel to live your online life grasping at straws and misapplying logic?

paul@paul-fisher.com said:

Jesus was arrested for doing something while OC'ing.

Click to expand...

Then by this logic if somebody wears a gun while molesting a child you would support them as well?

I will however get out of this thread now. I simply wanted to provide a caution to those who were riding the "Save Jesus" bandwagon and tell them that he may be a lost cause, not because of a lack of quality counsel but because of inappropriate actions.

Spartacus said:

Then by this logic if somebody wears a gun while molesting a child you would support them as well?

Click to expand...

No, I guess I could of been clearer. It is on topic because, even though I don't specifically know the details, I can see myself in this situation. The outcome of this will provide me guidance on how I should react when confronted by a BG. Or, it could lead to pushing for a change in the self-defense laws.

I guess it's worth the money to me to see how this turns out.

Spartacus said:

because of inappropriate actions.

Click to expand...

In your opinion. A jury of his peers will decide this.

Well this is an interesting quandary now isn't it?

You can't give monies unless you have more information, I assume this is based on your existing information coming from various press sources like the rest of us.

So, if he hires a lawyer worth their salt, that lawyer will specifically and methodically work to assure no more information gets out to taint a jury. If they find it is leaking out, they will seek to change the venue raising cost, etc etc.

So what you are really saying is, your not going to give. I do not know the guy, I am not likely to give large at all myself, I might send a 10 or 20 spot just to pay a useful tax of sorts, beats how the politicians spend it IMHO.

I find it more than curious that you seek to hide behind what should be a near impossible task of "more information" and your defense of said position grand entertainment. I wonder what it is about yourself you are so embarrassed of that you seek to hide it.

Tell Jesus that folks in MO have taken note and wish him the best and I hope indeed that justice prevails.

No point in arguing with the elitist he is so busy holding up his big elitist head he can't pay attention to the fact that he doesn't know everything like he thinks he does. He doesn't know anything that we don't already know.

Just goes to show who is loyal here and who is not. I would like to think that while WCI is not directly involved in his defense, I am sure they are involved behind the scenes in other ways.

I believe in Jesus and the fact that he believed he had to defend his life. Like I said before, what is the point of carrying a firearm for self defense if you have no intention of using it. That leads me to believe that people such as the elitist only carry for the attention it brings them and nothing more. For Him and those like him it is nothing more than food for the ego.

spoken thusly....

Just goes to show who is loyal here and who is not. I would like to think that while WCI is not directly involved in his defense, I am sure they are involved behind the scenes in other ways.

Click to expand...

Wisconsin Carry, as an organization has no involvement in this case.

Wisconsin Carry advocates for the right of people to carry in the manner of their choosing. This case does not involve an issue of the right to carry in any manner.

When people exercise their human-right to defend themselves with deadly force, they may well find that they will have to justify that use of deadly force. If people are carrying in Wisconsin and they are not aware of Wisconsin's laws governing the use of deadly force, we strongly recommend they study those laws.

939.48 Self−defense and defense of others.

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0939.pdf

With respect to laws governing the use of deadly force, Wisconsin Carry believes that Wisconsin residents deserve the protection of "Castle Doctrine" laws which the residents of 31 states enjoy. We believe the lack of a Castle Doctrine law is yet another demonstration of Wisconsin's being decades behind the times with regard to the rights of law-abiding citizens. We do not however have any reason to believe the issues of this case involve Castle Doctrine principles.

As with any case we believe that people have a right to a fair trial by a jury of their peers. Our only comment with regard to the Gonzalez case is that we believe the media has unfortunately chosen to focus their attention on the open-carry aspect which has no bearing on the case rather than the heart of the issue in this case which is self-defense and the use of deadly force.

We recognize the reality that media priority in the current era is focused on sensationalism and selling their "news product" over fact-finding and objective reporting but as with any case, we hope that the legal process IS focused on fact-finding and reason and that Mr. Gonzalez is able to obtain a fair trial by a jury of his peers. It is our observation that many people on this forum who know Mr. Gonzalez personally can attest to a much different perspective of his character than that which has been portrayed in the media.

I do not know Mr. Gonzales nor have I ever met him. But from the reading of the news media reports that may or may not be acurate the facts are that he killed one man and the last I heard had crippled another. He says it was in seld-defense and that will be for a jury to decide. I am afraid that given the other supposedly facts presented in this case by the media it will be hard for Mr. Gonzales to convince a jury that his actions were justified. I do not know anything about this other than what I have read but much of the support for his actions being thrown around have nothing to do with this case.

Most people carry a gun to defend themselves when they need to but some seem to look for an excuse to use their guns rather than when they actually have to. It is going to be Mr. Gonzales's task, to convince the jury that deadly force was necessary. There is no harm in trying to support a friend during their times of trouble and is something that we alll need at certain times in our life. But while you are supporting Mr. Gonzales for whatever reason you want to you should also remember that there is one other person that is crippled and another that is dead from his actions. Hopefully it will actually be determined who did what in this case and what really happened but I am troubled that possibly Mr. Gonzales used this as an excuse to use his gun rather than needing to use it.

PT111 said:

I am afraid that given the other supposedly facts presented in this case by the media it will be hard for Mr. Gonzales to convince a jury that his actions were justified.

Click to expand...

That sounds like guilty until proven innocent. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution not the defense, but I agree that it is a difficult road.

TyGuy said:

That sounds like guilty until proven innocent. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution not the defense, but I agree that it is a difficult road.

Click to expand...

In a criminal trial the prosecution goes first and presents their case consisting of testimony and evidence that they have. Once the prosecution has finished presenting their case the defense then has the option of saying that the prosecution has not proven guilt and does not have to do anything. I was on a jury once when this happened and we found the fellow not guilty. Once the prosecution finished with their presentation the defense lawyer said that they hadn't proven anything. Many times at that point the defense will ask for a directed verdict from the judge.

So yes you are innocent until proven guilty. Jesus does not have to testify or provide any defense in his case. I don't know how much evidence the prosecution has in this case but I suspect that Jesus will have to present a defense.

I have a family member that was falsely accused of a crime. It cost him three years of mental anguish and $40,000 to prove himself innocent. I have seen from personal observation that "innocent until proven guilty" is but a figment of someone's imagination. I hope it goes better for Jesus. It is sad that the judicial system in Wisconsin and the country has morphed into a venue of politics instead of facts and evidence as originaly intended.

Doug Huffman said:

................DELETED...........................................

Click to expand...

Can somebody translate this foolishness for me please?

Nemo is quite correct. Innocent until proven guilty sure, but there are so many court imposed bond sanctions and costs that you might as well stay in jail and let the county feed you.

Translation and comment

Spartacus said:

Can somebody translate this foolishness for me please?

Click to expand...

--EDITED _ OFF TOPIC--

I trust those were the parts you were having trouble with. Try Google next time. Some are born Confederate and some are Confederate by choice.

Thank goodness I am a self educated Yankee so I can understand those southerners. Must be all that mountain music I listen to.

Well I for one hope I am not left to stand by myself in front of a judge and jury if I make the decision to defend myself or my loved ones with my firearm that I carry openly. The anti's are like hungry lame lions waiting to pick off a stray or injured one. Guilty or not guilty, he will not get a fair trial without a lot of money, otherwise the verdict will mean nothing and no one will be able to have confidence in the findings.

J.Gleason said:

....................DELETED...........................................

Click to expand...

I just fell off my chair.

To keep mypost on topic,
I am going to use that CHASE Branch Locator and donate.

I find this "debate" and innuendo offensive and unnecessary.

He has a right to a fair trail - less than that is equally offensive to me.

Give in accordance with your standards and wishes - take the insults someplace else. :exclaim:

Grapeshot said:

I find this "debate" and innuendo offensive and unnecessary.

He has a right to a fair trail - less than that is equally offensive to me.

Give in accordance with your standards and wishes - take the insults someplace else. :exclaim:

Click to expand...

Well apparently there are some here that feel he is guilty and already have him convicted. What a shame.
I thought this was suppose to be a forum for those who were united in the cause and would support any one of us who had to use our firearm for self defense.
Sometimes I think it is just the little fish who see an opportunity because one of the bigger fish have been pulled from the waters. Now they can move in and take over the big fish's territory. <----Trying to be nice.

J.Gleason said:

Well apparently there are some here that feel he is guilty and already have him convicted. What a shame.
I thought this was suppose to be a forum for those who were united in the cause and would support any one of us who had to use our firearm for self defense.
Sometimes I think it is just the little fish who see an opportunity because one of the bigger fish have been pulled from the waters. Now they can move in and take over the big fish's territory. <----Trying to be nice.

Click to expand...

It is a shame. Jesus is a good man put in an unenviable position. Looking back on what little has been released and what I've guessed about what happened, I cannot say that I would have reacted differently. Based on that, I say his actions were justifiable and necessary to save his life. Unlike others, I do NOT claim to have any "special" or "privileged" knowledge of his case. I know nothing more than what's been in the news and posted here. If anyone disagrees I'll be happy to debate it in PM.

I believe he is innocent, but my belief does not make it so.

Could we at least get his name right

Jesus Gonzalez.

Uziel Gal said:

Jesus Gonzalez.

Click to expand...

That was my fault. I have made the correction.


John

I also have met Jesus, and I find it hard to believe there was any malicious intent in his actions. I am confident that he will be found innocent once the trial has run its course. I am scraping by, but if Jesus needs it I will give him what I can. If it were me, I would welcome any help I could get. If he comes out and tells us to keep it in our pockets I will abide by his wishes. He may not be able to post here, but I hope he at least knows were in his corner.

Everybody likes Jesus but the presence or lack of "malicious intent" or "belief" in what he did as Gleason likes to croak about will have little meaning to the law.

Some of you guys crack me up sometimes with your emotional outpourings. Have any of you ever even been in a gun battle? Fired your sidearm in self defense? I have and even though I had no malicious intent and had the belief that I was doing the right thing it was the jury that decided my innocence under the law after three days in jail while the DA proffered charges, a two day jury trial and a personal cost of 15 to 20 thousand dollars, missing my only son's graduation and a buttload of mental anguish.

Listen, we all want the best for Jesus and we hope he comes out on top of this. But the bottom line is he will have to live the rest of his life with the knowledge that he took a human life and critically wounded another.

Several times Gleason has expressed the sentiment that we carry for the purposes of self defense. True but not that simple. Draw and fire your sidearm ONLY WHEN DEADLY FORCE IS ENCOUNTERED AND NO OTHER OPTION IS AVAILABLE!!! If you go into a gun fight like a cowboy you will be in for a big surprise when the cops show up no matter who is bleeding and dying.