Law

The Entire Jury Will Have to Be in Witness Protection

by

On the subject of the civil trial of KSM, Trochilus raises a point I hadn’t considered:

Given the nature and depth of Islamo-facist enmity toward all Western institutions, including all faiths other than their own, toward all our democratic institutions, including our judicial system, and finally toward most Americans; and given their willingness to act on that hatred — who in their right mind would willingly consent to serve on such a jury?

This will be a trial watched by the entire planet. Millions of Islamist fanatics will be watching. There is a good chance that several thousands of those fanatics might decide to exact revenge on anyone involved.

Anyone who sits on that jury will have to spend the rest of their lives looking over their shoulder worrying that they will be the target of a revenge killing. They will become participants in a war with no boundaries and no end.

Read more

Legal Question

by

Long time readers know that I am an accredited self defense and home security expert with close to two decades of experience. Ever since my state legalized concealed carry, I am routinely armed not only with a concealed firearm, but also a variety of less-lethal self defense devices.

Lethal force is considered to be a reasonable response to a threat of grievous bodily harm or death. At least it is here in Ohio.

So what presents this threat? When would a reasonable person think that they are in danger of losing their lives, or becoming disabled or disfigured? Easy enough to determine if the criminal attacker is armed with a knife or gun, but it can be tricky if they aren’t.

Interesting video over at Gateway Pundit, where two people were the victims of an unprovoked attack by protesters taking part in a sidewalk chant organized by ANSWER, the Communist group.

Notice that the victims are outnumbered, and the attackers are using the wooden shafts of their protest signs as weapons. Also note that one of the victims was young and fit, and was smart enough to use the tripod of his video recorder as a makeshift self defense device against the perps.

Am I suggesting that the victims should have shot their attackers? No, and not least because I agree with comment #16 at the GP post. But I am wondering if it would have been legal.

Any lawyers amongst our readers want to tackle this one?

How Obama is Bringing Martial Law to America

by

In my previous post, I listed some (but far from all) of the practical problems presented by trying in a civil criminal court an individual (1) who was captured overseas, (2) had evidence against him collected using covert means, with (3) no chain of evidence or custody, and (4) was harshly and physically interrogated with (5) all witnesses and methods being secret.

The greatest danger posed in the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) isn’t that he will go free. The greatest danger is that he will be convicted and that during his appeals the courts will ratify all of the extraordinary measures used to capture and convict him. The great danger is that the courts will ratify the rough, inaccurate and ambiguous norms of martial law as applying to all civil criminal trials.

After a couple of decades of these court decisions reverberating throughout the legal system, we could end up living under de facto martial law.

Read more

The Worst Kind of Trial

by

“Men, we’ve got to give this man a fair trial before we hang him.” — attributed to Judge Roy Bean.

Finding an impartial jury for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) is the least of our worries in President Obama’s decision to try him in a civil court. Our greatest concern is that it will be a shambles of a show trail that ignores all established legal precedent. The ramifications of that could be worse than terrorism itself.

What Obama the law professor fails to grasp is that none of the prerequisites exist for a fair civil trial in the case of terrorist captured overseas by intelligence agents.

For example, just for starters, what objective proof do we have that the individual who will show up in the courtroom is actually the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who planned 9/11? What do we do if he simply asserts he is not the person the government claims he is?

Read more

How Are Convicted Felons Like the Japanese?

by

Citizens of Japan, with very few exceptions, are barred from even touching a single round of ammunition. Defy the law and they could end up in jail for five years.

Convicted felons in the United States, or people who received a Dishonorable Discharge from the armed forces, are pretty much operating under the same restrictions. This section of Federal law has been the subject of much debate amongst those interested in armed self defense. I’ve decided to post about it because John of The Zeray Gazette fame is asking his readers if they agree with the practice.

Just keep in mind that this is my opinion only, and I am certainly not a lawyer or government official by any stretch of the imagination. I’m sure that there will be plenty of stuff in the rambling post below to piss just about everyone off. But this is how see it.

Read more