Gun Control & RKBA

gejohnston

(17,502 posts) Thu Jun 7, 2012, 02:23 AM Jun 2012

how should this jury have voted?

According to this Bloomburg article and another OP, the NRA backed this law that critics fear will mean open season on cops. Like shoot outs and duels over parking spaces, the an old story about a bored Shepperd comes to mind.
Do I think it is a good law? There may or may not be better solutions.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-05/nra-backed-law-spells-out-when-indianans-may-open-fire-on-police.html

That was about unlawful entry by police. How about lawful entry by police who do not identify themselves with a no knock warrant at the wrong place based on bad information? Take this guy for example

During the bail process, Basil Parasiris claimed that he intentionally did fire his revolver at Sergeant Daniel Tesser under the impression that it was a robbery. He also claimed that he did not recognize Sergeant Tessier as a police officer until after he fell where the word, "Police," was marked on the back of his vest. After testimony from witnesses and from Basil Parasiris, Justice Boilard came to the decision of allowing Basil to be given bail- a first for first degree murder in Canada according to Basil's lawyer Frank Pappas. His conditions included abiding by a curfew, living with his parents, and having a sister and cousin post $100,000.00 bond.

According to media versions at the time of this shooting, the bullet that wounded Penny was fired from a police weapon. The police also fired several rounds into the children's bedroom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_Parasiris

Long story short, the judge thew out attempted murder and weapons charge (I'm guessing unsafe storage, unless he didn't have a PAL for a pistol) and was tried for first degree murder.

On Friday June 13, 2008, the jury reached a not guilty verdict on the charge of first degree murder of a police officer. The jury suggested that there was reasonable ground to believe that Mr. Parasiris acted in self defence believing the police officers who he thought were attackers were going to harm his wife and children while the Judge deemed that the search warrant which was used to enter Mr. Parasiris's suburban home was illegal

The local cops didn't like the verdict. Did the jury declare open season on Canadian cops with "I didn't see the badge" or was it the correct ruling?

9 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

how should this jury have voted? (Original Post) gejohnston Jun 2012 OP

It is hard to second guess a jury in another country Riftaxe Jun 2012 #1

I predict a lot of faux poutrage over this "shoot cops first" law. ileus Jun 2012 #2

If only there was someone among us who could lecture ad nauseum about intricacies of Canadian law slackmaster Jun 2012 #3

Canadian law... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jun 2012 #4

Only if they have over a decade of trolling the DU boards. ileus Jun 2012 #8

If only there were any others among us who actually know how to read JustABozoOnThisBus Jun 2012 #5

You've done it now CokeMachine Jun 2012 #9

I would have thought that unlawful violence with a real threat of petronius Jun 2012 #6

Looks like the right call to me. AtheistCrusader Jun 2012 #7

Riftaxe

(2,693 posts)

1. It is hard to second guess a jury in another country

Reply to gejohnston (Original post)

Thu Jun 7, 2012, 02:39 AM

Jun 2012

but i suspect they got the verdict right.

Presumably they had access to all the evidence and made their best judgement call.

ileus

(15,396 posts)

2. I predict a lot of faux poutrage over this "shoot cops first" law.

Reply to gejohnston (Original post)

Thu Jun 7, 2012, 07:59 AM

Jun 2012

slackmaster

(60,567 posts)

3. If only there was someone among us who could lecture ad nauseum about intricacies of Canadian law

Reply to gejohnston (Original post)

Thu Jun 7, 2012, 08:45 AM

Jun 2012

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,479 posts)

4. Canadian law...

Reply to slackmaster (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 7, 2012, 09:59 AM

Jun 2012

...(and former lawyers) being so superior to US equivalents.

ileus

(15,396 posts)

8. Only if they have over a decade of trolling the DU boards.

Reply to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #4)

Thu Jun 7, 2012, 03:05 PM

Jun 2012

JustABozoOnThisBus

(23,350 posts)

5. If only there were any others among us who actually know how to read

Reply to slackmaster (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 7, 2012, 10:47 AM

Jun 2012

And if one or two of us can read, do we have the wits to comprehend?

I sort of hear some muffled insults and protests coming from under that pizza box. Hmmm.

CokeMachine

(1,018 posts)

9. You've done it now

Reply to slackmaster (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 7, 2012, 03:22 PM

Jun 2012

You will be the newest target on its personal message board. I was mentioned early and felt very proud.

petronius

(26,602 posts)

6. I would have thought that unlawful violence with a real threat of

Reply to gejohnston (Original post)

Thu Jun 7, 2012, 11:07 AM

Jun 2012

serious injury or death would justify self-defense, whether or not the aggressor was a public official. I haven't read the Indiana law, but from the descriptions I'm a bit ambivalent: on the one hand it seems like a solution in search of a problem, and the number of relevant events is so low that it is reasonable to worry that this could create enough confusion to allow an unjustified killing to go unpunished. On the other hand, I'm not totally averse to reinforcing the idea the public officials have no special protections or immunities when it comes to violent crime...

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)

7. Looks like the right call to me.

Reply to gejohnston (Original post)

Thu Jun 7, 2012, 11:42 AM

Jun 2012

But there's a lot of ground covered in the courtroom that we can't review. So my opinion on whether the jury reached the right decision is less informed than the jury itself.

Reply to this discussion