So we want to shoot someone in a simple fight

Richmond's Commonwealth Attorney says he still wants a conviction and intends to keep Cunningham in jail. "Our position is the sorts of fights that seem to erupt in the Bottom, huge crowds, somebody feeling besieged, somebody pulls out a weapon, this stuff needs to come to an end," said Herring.

Click to expand...

DJEEPER said:

Yeah, i thought the whole idea of carrying a firearm is to pounce on the first chance we can to shoot someone?


I really REALLY feel disgusted at people who say that. I guess we are supposed to be defenseless in order to be a good person?

Click to expand...

peter nap said:

Don't use a firearm in Richmond....Use a Missile
Banjo says we can!

I'm not sure Herring really understands the difference between feeling besieged and being nearly killed.

[video=youtube;XI07SLO1_bc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI07SLO1_bc[/video]

Click to expand...

drdan01 said:

Kind of scary. Sort of makes me feel like someone trying to suggest that just because you keep "one in the pipe" that you must then be looking for the first/any chance to use it.

Click to expand...

52-year-old Donald Vann came close to becoming a homicide victim. I learned that, during a phone conversation I had with his mother tonight. Vann was shot during what appears to have been a robbery attempt, on his way to choir rehearsal, last Tuesday.

Click to expand...

ncwabbit said:

this type of teenage behaviour did not occur overnight...

7 teen video:
One of the teens, a 17-year-old, was charged as an adult, and the rest — a 15-year-old girl, two 16-year-old boys and three 15-year-old boys — were cited in juvenile delinquency petitions.
http://www.suntimes.com/10081824-417/7-teens-charged-in-bridgeport-beating-seen-on-youtube.html

we just had an incident in small town NC recently:
Two 16-year-olds — Mikel Sharil Jones and Xaviera Zy’Keez Davis — are being held without bond in the Nash County detention center while Trekwan Jaquez Dickens, 16, two 14-year-old boys and a 13-year-old boy are being held in secured custody without bond.


The teens allegedly stole $1.99 and a 24-ounce beer from the 67-year-old homeless man, then assaulted him (he died couple of days ago) and ran away.
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/news/teens-charged-murder-death-homeless-man-835411

sigh...am i that olde to remember the times when i did something across town (minor mind you) and my parents were already hollaring about it when i walked through the door?

wabbit

Click to expand...

According to court documents, the Commonwealth asked Cunningham about the illegal purchase of a gun used in the shooting.
The Appeals Court judge ruled that testimony in that line of questioning was against Virginia law, which states attorneys can't bring up illegal acts just to attack the character of a defendant.
We asked Michael Herring to explain that law to us: "Things that seem to be obviously relevant and to be common sense, will sometimes run afoul to the rules of evidence," said Herring. "So, in a homicide trial where you can believe the defendant that he was in fear for his life, but to think that the jury would want to know and be entitled to know that he had illegally obtained the guy[sic] [should be "gun"] that he shot the guy with; this is one of those occasions. However, where the rules conflict with our understanding of what would be relevant and appropriate."

Click to expand...

He [the deceased] was 20, loved music, he graduated high school in Petersburg at the age of 16. He was about to start college at Norfolk State. Jeremy Uzzle had his whole life before him, when an argument and fight outside the Have a Nice Day Café in Shockoe Bottom ended everything.

Police had broken up the fight. Kevin Cunningham left, went to a friend's car, grabbed a gun and went back. He fired one fatal shot into the chest of Jeremy Uzzle.

Click to expand...

During the Commonwealth’s cross-examination of appellant, the following exchange took place:

Q. Now, you didn’t have a permit for that weapon, did you, [appellant]?

A. No, ma’am.

Q. You did not purchase that weapon legally, did you?

A. No, ma’am.

[APPELLANT’S COUNSEL]: Objection. What is the relevance of this?

THE COURT: What is the relevance?

[PROSECUTOR]: The relevance is the character of [appellant].

[APPELLANT’S COUNSEL]: It’s not proper character impeachment, Judge. It is irrelevant.

[PROSECUTOR]: He’s breaking the law, he just hasn’t been caught. I think that’s appropriate for the jury to hear.

THE COURT: Overruled.

[PROSECUTOR]: Thank you.

Q. You did not purchase that firearm through legal means, did you?

A. No.

Click to expand...

Here, at trial, the only basis the Commonwealth proffered to support the admissibility of evidence that appellant’s possession of the firearm was illegal was that it showed his “[poor] character.” Although evidence that appellant possessed and used the weapon was relevant to the issue of appellant’s guilt for the charged offenses, whether that possession was legal or illegal was not relevant to an element of the charged offenses or to appellant’s credibility as a witness. Manifestly, the evidence that appellant possessed the firearm illegally was inadmissible as character evidence. Indeed, the Commonwealth, on appeal, does not dispute appellant’s claim that the trial court erred in allowing the Commonwealth to impeach appellant’s credibility with evidence that he obtained the firearm illegally. Thus, we hold that the trial court’s overruling of appellant’s objection on this issue was error.

...

The error here was not harmless. In addition to improperly eliciting from appellant testimony that he did not obtain the firearm legally, the Commonwealth emphasized that illegal possession in closing and expressly tied appellant’s possession of that illegal firearm to its argument that his testimony was not credible. Appellant’s credibility was key to his defense: If the jury had believed appellant’s account of the events, it could have concluded he acted without malice such that he was guilty of no more than voluntary manslaughter.

Click to expand...

Repeater said:

.... Perhaps he is Exhibit A for a need in Virginia for Stand Your Ground.

Click to expand...

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]No Duty to Retreat When Doing a Lawful Act and Suddenly Attacked[/FONT]​

Decarlos Coleman v. Commonwealth, Va. App. (2002 Unpublished)

"Appellant next contends the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense. We disagree.
"Self-defense is an affirmative defense which the accused must prove by introducing sufficient evidence to raise a reasonable doubt about his guilt." Smith v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 68, 71, 435 S.E.2d 414, 416 (1993) (citing McGhee v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 560, 562, 248 S.E.2d 808, 810 (1978); Yarborough v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 971, 979, 234 S.E.2d 286, 292 (1977)). "[A] person assaulted while in the discharge of a lawful act, and reasonably apprehending that his assailant will do him bodily harm, has the right to repel the assault by all the force he deems necessary, and is not compelled to retreat from his assailant, but may, in turn, become the assailant, inflicting bodily wounds until his person is out of danger." [emphasis added] Dodson v. Commonwealth, 159 Va. 976, 979, 167 S.E. 260, 260 (1933) (quoting Jackson's Case, 96 Va. 107, 30 S.E. 452 (1898))."
See Also : Gilbert v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 466, 473, 506 S.E.2d 543, 546 (1998).

​

Click to expand...

skidmark said:

I thought we already had "stand your ground" under case law:



The issue here is, was the defendant covered by this ruling since he chose to first retreat and withdraw from the affray to the relative safety of his car, where he then obtained the handgun and then returned to the scene. Did he then become the aggressor in a new and different affray?

I have some doughnut holes that are all but begging to be wagered on that.

stay safe.[/LEFT][/INDENT]

Click to expand...

skidmark said:

I thought we already had "stand your ground" under case law:

Click to expand...

DJEEPER said:

man that video really got my blood pumping

Click to expand...

R50FJ60 said:

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?

Click to expand...

Citizen said:

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.

Click to expand...

peter nap said:

You can bring up the criminal history but it haas to be relevent to the crime.
The best example is the way lawyers defended against rape claims.
They would bring up any sexual experience the woman had to prove she was a loose woman and deserved to be raped.
This case in the bottom is far from the cut and dried shooting the police woule like everyone to believe.

Is he a model citizen (No relationship to our Citizen)..
No but that really has nothing to do with what happened.

Click to expand...

Citizen said:

OK.

Your example is one where prior history of the accuser is used to benefit the defendant. Our member above wants to use prior history of the defendant to imply guilt rather than prove it.

Click to expand...