Am I missing something here? The court doesn't think that the character or past actions of the aggressor is relevant? If he was unable to legally purchase a firearm, chances are that he has a record of behaving in such a manner that would indicate this was premeditated (to me he didn't just pull it split second and shoot in defense, minuets before he could have made the decision to shoot the man regardless).
What I am trying to say is that it is obscene the past actions do not merit an opinion to be formed. I'm sure that if he had been an upstanding model citizen who was in legal possession of the firearm, he would have had his past records and actions (good deeds) brought forth to help paint a nice picture of himself in his defense.
So pretty much, my rant is as follows:
-stupidity that his past violent actions that barred him from legally purchasing a firearm cannot be accounted for in constructing potential motives or reasons for resorting to such actions
and
-that little clause should be changed. If somebody has a record of committing aggressive crimes/acts, it damn well better be brought to light so the jury cannot be duped into thinking the potential sociopath is just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Do I make sense?
Dating in origins from the 1300-1400's, it is a maxim that it is better that 20 guilty people go free than one innocent person is convicted.
We spent centuries overcoming innuendo and rumor in English law. England was very, very lucky that King Henry II laid the ground work for jury trials and the accusatory system just years--less than a century--before the rest of Europe fell under the sway of the Inquisition where innuendo and rumor and malicious gossip could lead to torture and death. England missed out on the Inquisition precisely because it already had the beginnings of an accusatory system by the time the Inquisition started to rise.
Further, an actual legal premise is
innocent until proven guilty.
Facts that prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt are what is wanted. Not facts about a criminal record that indicate he
might be guilty. Or, might be
more likely to be guilty. What if a person had reformed after his last brush with the law? What if the person is at heart of questionable integrity and occasional petty crime, but did not actually commit
this crime? Dare we give government the power to go after bad people using innuendo and implication, for surely once government can use inuendo and implication on anybody, it will turn those weapons on others who might be innocent. Just ask Stephen Hatfill, Richard Jewell, and the Duke Lacrosse team.
Prior history has its place. But, not here.
Prior history of good deeds or community contribution would be useful. And, prior history of the
attackers during a self-defense trial. But, when guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, innuendo and implication have no place.