Gun Control and Presumption of Innocence 01 07 2023

Gun Control and Presumption of Innocence 01 07 2023

Two Scenarios to talk about.

Scenario 1:

Defendant A is a felon that has served his time. Whether it be he completely served the time or is out on probation. We will say the former. He is not allowed to have a gun because he is a felon.

So Defendant A gets into an altercation with Plaintiff B. I won't go into the nature of it. But it turns violent. And Plaintiff B is injured and perhaps is killed or someone else is killed by Defendant A. But Defendant A did not use a gun.

So because Defendant A was not allowed to have a gun, isn't there a general presumption that he is not an innocent person even though he is free? The point being, why doesn't that presumption of not being innocent stack in favor of Plaintiff B in some way? Do you see where I am going?

I think that Defendant A has been marked with not being presumed innocent because he is not allowed to have a gun! That right there is a Constitutional Violation of his rights. Yes, even though he is free it still is a violation of his right to be presumed innocent!

Back to the flip-side of the argument, if he really isn't presumed innocent why isn't a legal structure raised to address that? I mean why isn't there a limit to his defense just as there is a detraction from his presumption of innocence? And to be clear I don't believe that there should be a limit to his defense. Even though he is a bad apple already? The issue of that opinion that there should not be a limit to his defense only comes into play because of the hypothetical nature of this argument? But if the structure of being free and not allowed to have a gun where not present that limit to his defense notion would never have come up. So one could ask is there a “foggy” limit to his defense in existence because he really isn't presumed innocent among the general public when free because he no longer has that Second Amendment right?

Scenario 1b. Now lets say that organized crime or gangs get their hooks into him because he is an ex con. Lets say he is threatened to participate in it. And could that right there be a cause for recidivism? Shouldn't he have the Second Amendment right to defend himself from that org crime or gang influence? I believe he should.

And I think we got some of this because of the Federalist, legalized alcohol and perhaps a longing for English laws to supersede our Constitutional Basis?

It is kind of like a namby pamby gets in the judicial system or politics legislature and wants things to fit nicely a certain way, with very little understanding of how all that has to abide by the Supreme Law of the Land, The United States Constitution.

Scenario 2

Now lets say that Defendant A did have a Gun, he was a felon not allowed to have a gun, he didn't have the gun with him at the time of the altercation.

Should the fact that he had a gun be allowed as evidence admissible in court? I think it is allowed.

But why would you allow that to be admissible in court and perhaps not some of the prior run ins with the law that Plaintiff B had? Why would you allow that and not testimony about prior grievances against Plaintiff B that other people had?

And don't give me that professional license or right to be subjective excuse for the murkiness that has been created. I mean look at it and you can tell right away that sharp minds could have figured this out better. Which means nepotism and favoritism are what rose to the top?

Are you really free if you don't have the standard right to use deadly force to defend yourself?

I believe in either being free with all rights or being in prison or executed for the crime.

And does everybody really deserve a Second Chance? I don't believe that someone with half a brain does. And if in theory you can't stand up for what is right then I also believe you should not have a career in the Judicial System.

So where is the weakness? It is someone in the Judicial System projecting their own failed sense of self onto someone with half a brain? And giving that person a second chance out of pity for oneself and the notion that there is no difference between you and someone with half a brain?

And I do believe you should have greater rights in defending yourself against someone with half a brain.

Oh lets see, now for some fiction?

“There was a young man on the bus. He took my french fries and would give them back. It said right there on the left pocket of his shirt like he is required to wear that he only has half a brain. When I tried to take those french fries back there was a scuffle. I threw a punch in his belly after he hit me a few times. Then he got on my back and tried to rape me right there on the bus. I used my elbow and drove his head straight into the that stainless steel metal bar on the seat there and he hemorrhaged and died, I mean can't we just drop the issue because he only had half a brain........”

© 2023 Thomas Murphy