Quote:
Originally Posted by Belmont Resident
I was told on Wednesday of this story.
Being a gun owner living out in the woods, why did the gun even come out if it was originally in a holster?
Unless the other person had a weapon he was 100% wrong when he removed the gun from a holster.
Guns are not a toy. All he had to do to make a point was have the gun holstered and visible.
If this same person had been someone with a shady background with past problems with the law many would look at it differently.
The bottom line is the law weather it is right or wrong applies to all of us not just the bad element of society.
Maybe everyone who owns a gun should be required to take a class on hand gun safety both inside and outside the home. The laws vary in both instances.
My wife is taking the classes now.
|
Belmont Resident,
I like your logic!
Quote:
Originally Posted by tis
Remember though, her past as well as his past make no difference in this case. You can't bring old cases into a new case. So the issues she had with dogs could not be brought up here. The jury should not have know she had a past.
|
You are correct tis.
IMHO the jury probably knew a little bit about Harris and probably thought it really didn’t matter. The law (as written today) is the law so they had to convict Bird.