This trial judge understood the law, courtroom procedures, defendant’s rights, and controlled this farce from beginning to end. It is great to see our Constitution and its Rule of Law upheld.
I believe the judge could see these verdicts coming as he considered the laws and facts. Despite great temptation to shut this show down, he let the trial run and allowed the jury to do its duty. He could have declared a mistrial over a number of prosecution missteps, but he held that option in abeyance to let the jury work its overarching magic. Excellent judicial administration.
The right to keep and bear arms and use them for personal self defense was upheld for the world to see in a county court in Wisconsin.
The jury verdicts were unanimous. The process of examining the application of the facts presented only in the courtroom to the laws of Wisconsin appears to have been undertaken carefully, one charge at a time. It will be interesting to see if any of the jurors cares to comment on the process. As the judge said, these jury members had an extremely difficult assignment, and they completed it carefully in an appropriate amount of time. Props to them.
I trust that this judgment will further support individual rights, in particular the 2nd Amendment, and will therefore be a reminder to (even sanctioned) law breakers that assaulting a person with a gun, who is doing no other illegal act, is unwise in the extreme.
I also hope it will not embolden people of lesser minds and character to take this as license or precedent to use guns improperly. It’s not.
I believe the judge could see these verdicts coming as he considered the laws and facts. Despite great temptation to shut this show down, he let the trial run and allowed the jury to do its duty. He could have declared a mistrial over a number of prosecution missteps, but he held that option in abeyance to let the jury work its overarching magic. Excellent judicial administration.
The right to keep and bear arms and use them for personal self defense was upheld for the world to see in a county court in Wisconsin.
The jury verdicts were unanimous. The process of examining the application of the facts presented only in the courtroom to the laws of Wisconsin appears to have been undertaken carefully, one charge at a time. It will be interesting to see if any of the jurors cares to comment on the process. As the judge said, these jury members had an extremely difficult assignment, and they completed it carefully in an appropriate amount of time. Props to them.
I trust that this judgment will further support individual rights, in particular the 2nd Amendment, and will therefore be a reminder to (even sanctioned) law breakers that assaulting a person with a gun, who is doing no other illegal act, is unwise in the extreme.
I also hope it will not embolden people of lesser minds and character to take this as license or precedent to use guns improperly. It’s not.
Last edited:
