On a sad Saturday when the latest Democrat debates saw the Presidential hopefuls trying to outdo each other to see who could be the most anti-gun (and in which Bernie Sanders seemed to blame terrorism on climate change), dozens of serious gun owners and firearms instructors were facing reality as the Legal Eagles firearms law seminar continued in Washington.
Much of that reality is counter-intuitive. For instance, criminal defense lawyers are taught all the way back to law school to never allow a past or present cop to be on the jury that judges one of their clients. After all, wouldn’t a guy or gal who has spent a career making drug busts and arresting drunk drivers be predisposed to convict a defendant facing such charges?
Jim Fleming, a cop for the first ten years of his career in the criminal justice system and a defense attorney for the last three decades plus, explained why he loves to have cops on juries in self-defense trials. Of all the people in the jury pool, who will better understand the defendant’s perspective better than someone who straps on a gun when going to work every day, because they may face the very same murderous dirtbag the defendant was forced to shoot in self-defense?
I’ve taught CLE (continuing legal education) courses with Jim on managing the self-defense case, under the auspices of ACLDN, the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network. To sample Jim’s experience and wisdom, read the book about one of his most famous cases (“The Bison King,” available from Amazon) and particularly his book on handling self-defense situations, “Aftermath.”. If Jim Fleming’s “Aftermath” wasn’t a damn good book, I damn sure wouldn’t have written the foreword.
Seems like ALL the Democratic candidates for President, in 2016, are all talking about MORE GUN CONTROL, if ELECTED, SO I can’t see any American Gun Owner, or Reasonable person, Voting for any of them, in November of 2016!
I’ve seen several comments on various lawblogs from trial lawyers who go against conventional wisdom on jury selection. For instance, common advice is to exclude engineers, but some lawyers find engineers to be the kind of jurors they can persuade.
I think the lawyer needs to consider the specific case, and his own style of presentation. If one is spraying excrement to confuse the jury about definitive but complicated evidence against one’s client, one wants dumb, ignorant jurors. If one is presenting a clear but non-obvious refutation of a dubious but emotionally moving case against an unsympathetic client – one wants intelligent, knowledgeable jurors.
With regard to ex-LEOs – is the LEO retired off the force that made the arrest and filed the charges? Then a defense lawyer probably doesn’t want him. OTOH, if the arresting officer was a politically-connected yahoo and the case is smelly, a fair-minded retiree from the department might be the best person to see through the smoke.
Actually, I’m glad to see the Democrats espouse gun control because it is something that will hurt, rather than help, them. They didn’t learn from the past and seem to think that there are enough dimwits out there that actually believe more gun control laws will stop crime and that this will help get them elected.
Of course, there are the perpetual morons who vote Democrat year-after-year without even knowing what the issues are, simply because their union member father said that’s who they vote for ir they simply vote for the welfare state.
This certainly is a “tipping point” election. If Hillary gets in it may well be the end of our country as we have learned to know and love it. If we go further Socialist we would have to go through a “rock bottom” hit before we could recover. We are the laughing stock of the free world now and, if we ever have to go to other countries with our hands out for aid, we would be humiliated. And don’t think it couldn’t happen. When your budget continues to rise every year there IS a breaking point….
Comments are closed.