Common sense prevails in NJ flintlock owner case

Carry law and matters dealing with the 2nd. Amendment.
User avatar
Ohio9
Posts: 1057
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 3:23 pm

Re: Common sense prevails in NJ flintlock owner case

Postby Ohio9 » Sat Feb 28, 2015 1:41 pm

Nathan wrote:Substantiate that good cases would be dismissed


I didn't say good cases would be dismissed under your system. I'm saying prosecutors would decline to prosecute some good cases because of the costs associated with losing, even if they have good evidence and the probability of conviction is fairly high.

Nathan wrote:There is no justice in losing your freedom, financial stability, home and family over a charge that never should have happened.


Agreed, but your system wouldn't just effect unfouded cases. Unfounded cases are not the only ones that result in acquittals.

Nathan wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Aitken

This never would have happened if the State were held accountable.


Aitken was convicted in court. The state would not have had to pay even if your system was in place

Nathan wrote:...I just don't know of any other way to remove some of these stupid, unconstitutional prosecutions such as what was happening to this man in NJ. There are scores of similar cases that I am familiar with such as the guy who was moving and had guns packed away in his trunk as he travelled through NJ and was sentenced to seven years in jail (later released).


That prosecution should have never happened, but the thing to remember is that Aitkin was convicted. So how would your system have made any difference? It wouldn't punish the state for cases that they win.

Nathan wrote:Or this guy who was charged after the airline changes his schedule putting his handgun back in his possession in NJ (he was originally flying from UT to PA where the gun would be legal)


In that case, the prosecutor decided to drop the charge. The guy wasn't acquitted in court, so under your system the outcome would have been the same in this case too.

Nathan wrote:This is still saying the same thing as the end result is the same.


It's not the same. Disciplining prosecutors for a pattern of constant losses is not the same as having the state pay for every individual loss. I'm not saying you can't argue for both things, but don't claim I should have assumed you were talking about both when you only mentioned one.

Nathan wrote:It's not "different"; it is only explained more thoroughly with more details after having more time to discuss it.


Okay, but it's still not what you said before. It's a pretty big addition, so you can't retroactively claim it was part of your original argument.

LWP
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 10:25 pm
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA

Re: Common sense prevails in NJ flintlock owner case

Postby LWP » Sat Feb 28, 2015 3:03 pm

Much of this argument is basic citizen versus state. State-affiliated people such as LEOs, prosecutors, bureaucrats, and judges accept the laws on the books and see their duty to uphold them and prosecute law-breakers. Citizens see the establishment as over-reaching, over-regulating, over-bearing, over-large, over-taxing, and unconstitutional. And getting worse, and despite general outcry there's not much turn around from legislators. The state has morphed from constitutionally serving the people to oppressing the people, and the current situation is worse than when the 13 colonies felt compelled to rebel against King George. Reform or rebellion will happen.

User avatar
Ohio9
Posts: 1057
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 3:23 pm

Re: Common sense prevails in NJ flintlock owner case

Postby Ohio9 » Sat Feb 28, 2015 3:13 pm

LWP wrote:Much of this argument is basic citizen versus state. State-affiliated people such as LEOs, prosecutors, bureaucrats, and judges accept the laws on the books and see their duty to uphold them and prosecute law-breakers. Citizens see the establishment as over-reaching, over-regulating, over-bearing, over-large, over-taxing, and unconstitutional. And getting worse, and despite general outcry there's not much turn around from legislators. The state has morphed from constitutionally serving the people to oppressing the people, and the current situation is worse than when the 13 colonies felt compelled to rebel against King George. Reform or rebellion will happen.


Some valid points, but keep in mind that not everyone who works in the criminal justice system is a mindless enforcer of all laws. I routinely decline to make arrests in cases where I catch someone indisputably breaking the law if no harm has been done to people or property.

Also, what cases like this one show are that the state sometimes does respond to bad press and public pressure. I'm sure that played a role in the DA's choice to drop the charges in this particular case.

User avatar
Nathan
Site Admin
Posts: 2202
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 8:51 pm
Location: Billings, MT
Contact:

Re: Common sense prevails in NJ flintlock owner case

Postby Nathan » Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:45 pm

Ohio9 wrote:prosecutors would decline to prosecute some good cases because of the costs associated with losing
I disagree. If the case is solid they have no worries, even if they lose. Have an oversight committee that's responsible for the budget that assesses each case prior to. Don't leave it up to a single DA with no accountability.


Agreed, but your system wouldn't just effect unfouded cases. Unfounded cases are not the only ones that result in acquittals.
As I said earlier, I would rather 100 guilty men walk free than 1 innocent man be imprisoned.


That prosecution should have never happened, but the thing to remember is that Aitkin was convicted. So how would your system have made any difference? It wouldn't punish the state for cases that they win.
Indeed, but that wasn't my point in citing the example. I cited the example to demonstrate injustice in laws. Neither of these cases should have ever seen a court room. That they were convicted only shows that they were tried in a liberal anti-gun stronghold of people foolishly ignorant.


In that case, the prosecutor decided to drop the charge. The guy wasn't acquitted in court, so under your system the outcome would have been the same in this case too.
Under my system he would never have been charged to begin with and that is the point. Don't put good law abiding people through the trauma of bringing the charge to begin with.

Disciplining prosecutors for a pattern of constant losses is not the same as having the state pay for every individual loss.
I don't know how to make it more clear. I'm not calling for disciplining prosecutors for losing a case. I'm calling for termination of prosecutors who are unable to maintain an average number of convictions thus demonstrating a pattern of charging people despite lacking evidence.
Nathan in Image

NRA Certified Instructor in Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Personal Protection Inside the Home and Personal Protection Outside the Home.
Image

User avatar
Nathan
Site Admin
Posts: 2202
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 8:51 pm
Location: Billings, MT
Contact:

Re: Common sense prevails in NJ flintlock owner case

Postby Nathan » Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:51 pm

Ohio9 wrote:I routinely decline to make arrests in cases where I catch someone indisputably breaking the law if no harm has been done to people or property.
Direct question: What would you do if given an arrest warrant to come arrest me and lock me in a cage for being a plyg? No other crimes involved; arrest me because I built a family. Would you refuse to serve the arrest warrant on moral grounds, or would you step in line like all good soldiers do and follow orders? Would you strip me of my liberty, chain me and lock me in a cage because I have a plural family, or would you take a moral stand? Direct answer please, even if you cannot express it on the forum (message me if need be).

I'm not trying to make you out to be a bad guy; I know you to be very honorable and have never questioned your integrity. This isn't about integrity or honor; this is about making a much larger point because I'm confident that you would serve the warrant like all good soldiers do (and for the record, with warrant in hand I would comply fully and peacefully).
Nathan in Image

NRA Certified Instructor in Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Personal Protection Inside the Home and Personal Protection Outside the Home.
Image

User avatar
Nathan
Site Admin
Posts: 2202
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 8:51 pm
Location: Billings, MT
Contact:

Re: Common sense prevails in NJ flintlock owner case

Postby Nathan » Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:55 pm

verisimilitude wrote:I understand what you mean completely, but to play the Devils advocate, that philosophy can be a slippery slope. A lot of the abuse of government comes from indiscriminate application of the law. So, who decides which laws have value and which don't? In the system that we have, the enforcement branch was never supposed to do that. They were to investigate, gather facts and then refer their findings to the Justice branch, who would decide if charges should be brought, and would prosecute the case. Then we realized that more and more the enforcement branch had to actually make an arrest before the judicial branch reviewed the case. This is not ideal in our system, but necessary in some cases. So, we came up with different ways that arrests had to be reviewed by the judicial branch with specific time limits. It was all designed to seperate the enforcers from having say in prosecution other than to provide evidence.
This is a perfect example of a point I was making in another conversation; this is why I'm glad you have chosen to try the Friends and Foes feature instead of dropping out of such conversations. Even when I disagree with you, I fully respect your position because you clearly think it through and express it clearly.
Nathan in Image

NRA Certified Instructor in Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Personal Protection Inside the Home and Personal Protection Outside the Home.
Image

User avatar
Ohio9
Posts: 1057
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 3:23 pm

Re: Common sense prevails in NJ flintlock owner case

Postby Ohio9 » Sat Feb 28, 2015 7:39 pm

Nathan wrote:
verisimilitude wrote: So, who decides which laws have value and which don't? In the system that we have, the enforcement branch was never supposed to do that. They were to investigate, gather facts and then refer their findings to the Justice branch, who would decide if charges should be brought, and would prosecute the case.


Where did you ever get that idea? Law enforcement was never meant to be required to refer all cases to local prosecutors before deciding to make an arrest, let alone the justice department. You're telling me I should consult with them before writing someone a traffic ticket? Or taking in a some wasted guy for public intoxication? That would be totally imparctical. Generally the patrol officers have to decide to whether or not to make arrests while they are "in the field".

The system is made so that usually the police decide to make the arrest, and then prosecutors decide to file charges. The seperation of them acts as an extra safeguard. If the police insist on making an arrest without sufficient grounds, the prosecutors can cut the case off before it goes to trial by declining to prosecute. It also works in cases like this one, where the Sheriff decided to enforce a dumb law, but the prosecutor decided not to prosecute for it.

Nathan wrote:As I said earlier, I would rather 100 guilty men walk free than 1 innocent man be imprisoned.


I get that. At the same time, I don't want good justified cases declined for prosecution out of financial concerns of a loss.

Nathan wrote:
Ohio9 wrote:prosecutors would decline to prosecute some good cases because of the costs associated with losing
I disagree. If the case is solid they have no worries, even if they lose.


under your system they would still have worries due to having to pay the defense in the event of a loss. Budget constraints of having to pay for prosecution are already a burden enough without adding those in.

Nathan wrote:Indeed, but that wasn't my point in citing the example. I cited the example to demonstrate injustice in laws. Neither of these cases should have ever seen a court room. That they were convicted only shows that they were tried in a liberal anti-gun stronghold of people foolishly ignorant.


I agree, I was simply pointing out the system you advocate wouldn't have changed Aitken's fate.

Nathan wrote:Under my system he would never have been charged to begin with and that is the point.


What are you talking about? All you said for "your system" was the prosecution should pay the defense's expenses for cases they lose. That doesn't prevent the prosecution from enforcing dumb laws when they think they could win. That's what happened to Aitken.

User avatar
Ohio9
Posts: 1057
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 3:23 pm

Re: Common sense prevails in NJ flintlock owner case

Postby Ohio9 » Sat Feb 28, 2015 8:45 pm

As far back as law enforcement has existed, enforcers have always had the right to make "on the spot" arrests when they see people breaking the law. There has never been a time where they had to consult the lawyers first.

LWP
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 10:25 pm
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA

Re: Common sense prevails in NJ flintlock owner case

Postby LWP » Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:57 pm

Ohio9 wrote:Some valid points, but keep in mind that not everyone who works in the criminal justice system is a mindless enforcer of all laws. I routinely decline to make arrests in cases where I catch someone indisputably breaking the law if no harm has been done to people or property.

Bravo, but keep in mind one good apple does not sweeten the barrel.

User avatar
Ohio9
Posts: 1057
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 3:23 pm

Re: Common sense prevails in NJ flintlock owner case

Postby Ohio9 » Sat Feb 28, 2015 10:18 pm

LWP wrote:
Ohio9 wrote:Some valid points, but keep in mind that not everyone who works in the criminal justice system is a mindless enforcer of all laws. I routinely decline to make arrests in cases where I catch someone indisputably breaking the law if no harm has been done to people or property.

Bravo, but keep in mind one good apple does not sweeten the barrel.


You think I'm the only one? Why do people only assume bad apples are part of a larger trend, while good ones are isolated incidents?

LWP
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 10:25 pm
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA

Re: Common sense prevails in NJ flintlock owner case

Postby LWP » Sun Mar 01, 2015 10:01 am

Ohio9 wrote:You think I'm the only one? Why do people only assume bad apples are part of a larger trend, while good ones are isolated incidents?

My bad. I respect you and believe you are a good man and a good cop. Of course there are many more. My comment was too snide to be taken the way I meant it. I tried, maybe failed, to invert the phrase "One bad apple spoils the barrel", which is my way of saying that the few bad ones who make the headlines are giving the good ones a bad name.

User avatar
Ohio9
Posts: 1057
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 3:23 pm

Re: Common sense prevails in NJ flintlock owner case

Postby Ohio9 » Sun Mar 01, 2015 4:48 pm

Makes sense.

User avatar
Nathan
Site Admin
Posts: 2202
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 8:51 pm
Location: Billings, MT
Contact:

Re: Common sense prevails in NJ flintlock owner case

Postby Nathan » Sun Mar 01, 2015 5:50 pm

Ohio9 wrote: Why do people only assume bad apples are part of a larger trend, while good ones are isolated incidents?
It's not about "bad apples". Bad apples are just a side effect of a much larger problem; a bad system based in double standards which enables bad apples to thrive.
Nathan in Image

NRA Certified Instructor in Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Personal Protection Inside the Home and Personal Protection Outside the Home.
Image

User avatar
Nathan
Site Admin
Posts: 2202
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 8:51 pm
Location: Billings, MT
Contact:

Re: Common sense prevails in NJ flintlock owner case

Postby Nathan » Sun Mar 01, 2015 5:53 pm

Ohio9 wrote:I get that. At the same time, I don't want good justified cases declined for prosecution out of financial concerns of a loss.
It isn't established that they would. If they have a good case it will stand on its own merit. If it won't, they don't have a solid case.


under your system they would still have worries due to having to pay the defense in the event of a loss
I want them to "have worries". This means they have consequence and will have to be more careful in what they prosecute, as it should be.


All you said for "your system" was the prosecution should pay the defense's expenses for cases they lose. That doesn't prevent the prosecution from enforcing dumb laws when they think they could win.
It provides incentive to not prosecute which is at least a step in the right direction which is more than we have today.
Nathan in Image

NRA Certified Instructor in Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Personal Protection Inside the Home and Personal Protection Outside the Home.
Image

User avatar
Ohio9
Posts: 1057
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 3:23 pm

Re: Common sense prevails in NJ flintlock owner case

Postby Ohio9 » Sun Mar 01, 2015 10:54 pm

Nathan wrote: Bad apples are just a side effect of a much larger problem; a bad system based in double standards which enables bad apples to thrive.


There are bad apples in every profession, no matter what system is in place.

Nathan wrote:It isn't established that they would. If they have a good case it will stand on its own merit. If it won't, they don't have a solid case.


Again, it seems like you are trying to neatly separate cases into two black and white "good vs bad" categories. The fact of the matter is that one must still weigh the factor of probability of conviction when considering whether or not to go forward with cases that even one thinks are good.

You say it "hasn't been established" what the results we would be, but that's only because your idea isn't in practice yet. I can't prove the results of something that hasn't happened yet. We can only speculate based on what we currently know.

Nathan wrote:It provides incentive to not prosecute which is at least a step in the right direction which is more than we have today.


But does it really? All you are saying is that the prosecution should pay defense expenses when they lose. That doesn't provide an incentive not to enforce dumb laws when a prosecutor is confident he will secure a conviction when doing so.

User avatar
Nathan
Site Admin
Posts: 2202
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 8:51 pm
Location: Billings, MT
Contact:

Re: Common sense prevails in NJ flintlock owner case

Postby Nathan » Mon Mar 02, 2015 10:43 am

Ohio9 wrote:There are bad apples in every profession, no matter what system is in place.
The key part of my statement was that our current system enables "bad apples" to thrive.

https://www.popularresistance.org/whist ... epartment/

http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/loui ... onviction/

The list goes on and on and on. When an officer steps forward to report abuse the officer is punished every time in a system that appears to allow it.


You say it "hasn't been established" what the results we would be, but that's only because your idea isn't in practice yet. I can't prove the results of something that hasn't happened yet. We can only speculate based on what we currently know.
You are doing the exact same thing in suggesting that good cases wouldn't be prosecuted. The only difference here is that I am applying logic. :lol:


But does it really? All you are saying is that the prosecution should pay defense expenses when they lose. That doesn't provide an incentive not to enforce dumb laws when a prosecutor is confident he will secure a conviction when doing so.
I concede that you have a point, but believe still that it at least creates incentive not to prosecute unjust laws. In many states, "doggie style" sex is considered sodomy thus illegal. Being illegal doesn't make something wrong or bad or worthy of prosecution.
Nathan in Image

NRA Certified Instructor in Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Personal Protection Inside the Home and Personal Protection Outside the Home.
Image

User avatar
Ohio9
Posts: 1057
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 3:23 pm

Re: Common sense prevails in NJ flintlock owner case

Postby Ohio9 » Mon Mar 02, 2015 11:18 am

Nathan wrote:The key part of my statement was that our current system enables "bad apples" to thrive.


I wouldn't say that's the case everywhere, but certainly in far too many places that's true.

Nathan wrote:You are doing the exact same thing in suggesting that good cases wouldn't be prosecuted. The only difference here is that I am applying logic. :lol:


I don't get how you can't see the logic that increasing the penalty for good faith losses is going to result in reducing a prosecutors willingness to take chances even on good cases, since even good cases don't come with an assurance of conviction.

Nathan wrote:I concede that you have a point, but believe still that it at least creates incentive not to prosecute unjust laws.


I don't think it provides an incentive not to prosecute unjust laws when the prosecutor feels he can get a conviction. We've seen honest well meaning gun owners in New Jersey get convicted for accidentally violating their draconian laws. The problem in New Jersey is the state's population doesn't see these laws as being unjust, and thus is fully willing to convict people for violating them. So long as that remains the case, a "loser pays" penalty won't stop prosecutions of laws we consider unjust when the prosecutor is confident he'll win.

Nathan wrote:In many states, "doggie style" sex is considered sodomy thus illegal. Being illegal doesn't make something wrong or bad or worthy of prosecution.


It seems you are a bit behind the times, my friend. In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled all state anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional in Lawrence v Texas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

A few states might still have those laws on the books, but they will never be enforced because the moment they are, the courts would strike them down based on this ruling.

User avatar
Nathan
Site Admin
Posts: 2202
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 8:51 pm
Location: Billings, MT
Contact:

Re: Common sense prevails in NJ flintlock owner case

Postby Nathan » Mon Mar 02, 2015 12:21 pm

Ohio9 wrote:I don't get how you can't see the logic that increasing the penalty for good faith losses is going to result in reducing a prosecutors willingness to take chances even on good cases
I don't want a prosecutor "taking chances" on a case that isn't solid. That is the basis of my entire objection. Far too many prosecutions. Even if you win, you lose because you just spent tens of thousands of dollars defending yourself and possibly lost a lot more in the process. We (the "land of the free"!) have the highest concentration of prisoners in the entire world. We have too many laws, and too many people who cannot afford justice.

If the case is good, the prosecutor isn't "taking chances"; he is doing his job. If the case isn't solid it shouldn't be prosecuted to begin with and holding the State accountable if they lose is the only way to ensure oversight.

My system isn't perfect, but I believe it to be superior to what we have today which is law enforcement dog-piling charges hoping to find something to stick.
Nathan in Image

NRA Certified Instructor in Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Personal Protection Inside the Home and Personal Protection Outside the Home.
Image

User avatar
Hand and Steel
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2015 2:44 am
Location: In the world but not of it

Re: Common sense prevails in NJ flintlock owner case

Postby Hand and Steel » Mon Mar 02, 2015 12:30 pm

Nathan wrote:I don't want a prosecutor "taking chances" on a case that isn't solid. That is the basis of my entire objection. Far too many prosecutions. Even if you win, you lose because you just spent tens of thousands of dollars defending yourself and possibly lost a lot more in the process. We (the "land of the free"!) have the highest concentration of prisoners in the entire world. We have too many laws, and too many people who cannot afford justice.

If the case is good, the prosecutor isn't "taking chances"; he is doing his job. If the case isn't solid it shouldn't be prosecuted to begin with and holding the State accountable if they lose is the only way to ensure oversight.


Very well said. Your point about the number of prisoners we have brings up another important point. Not only are most prisoners in this country wronged by being sadistically stripped of their freedom and dignity for victimless non-crimes, but when they are caged for selling plants or having a fully automatic rifle or whatever, we the tax-payers are also wronged, because we have to pay for their imprisonment.

Best
"It is demonstrable that power structures tend to attract people who want power for the sake of power and that a significant proportion of such people are imbalanced — in a word, insane.” – Frank Herbert

"Welcome to Costco. I love you."

User avatar
Ohio9
Posts: 1057
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 3:23 pm

Re: Common sense prevails in NJ flintlock owner case

Postby Ohio9 » Mon Mar 02, 2015 12:35 pm

Nathan wrote:I don't want a prosecutor "taking chances" on a case that isn't solid.


Nor do I, but that wasn't what I was talking about. I was talking about "solid cases" we want prosecuted. Those cases still are not assured wins, so probability has to be taken into account.


Return to “Carry / 2nd Amendment”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest