Run in today with irate, gun wielding guy.

[titsonritz]

Tire spikes as sure as the sun comes up

This is the answer IMO. Everyone pushing their bikes back to their pickups every year would end it.

Afterwards...

 

[CRBMoA]

Trial was in Corvallis, in Benton County, which is the 21st judicial district of Oregon. I don't remember and would have no records of case number. I think it was 1990s, but might have been early 2000s. My best guess would be 1996 - 1999. The defendant was charged with a number of things, including attempted murder. He had, in fact, shot someone in the leg. People getting shot in Benton County isnt very common. so that might be the easiest way to find case. I think crime itself was in Philomath area. Newspaper covering that area is Corvallis Gazette-Times.

Trial outcome was weird because jury was not given a list of options that included the worst the defendant had done. We/jury decided defendant had fired gun toward one guy to scare him, but had accidentally hit someone else. It was clear that nobody including defendant had known anyone was injured until several minutes after shooting. (Gun was a .22 handgun. Bullet was round nose. It looked pristine, so had gone through without hitting any bone.) Guy who had been shot didn't show any signs of having been shot and didn't tell anyone until several minutes later. Victim might not have realized he had been hit immediately. Witnesses said defendant was very upset when he found out he'd shot this other guy. Jury was given many options/counts to decide on, including attempted murder and assault of various degrees toward the injured guy. Shooting the injured guy by accident wasn't a choice. Jury was able to give a guilty verdict only on the brandishing. Judge was seriously unhappy. We the jury weren't very happy either. We would have been perfectly willing to find defendant guilty of careless use of a firearm, illegal discharge of a firearm, and injuring the victim with a firearm in addition to the brandishing. But those weren't options.

 

[OldBroad44]

You need your own trophy!

Memory like an elephant.
Not many on here could pull this off. I should definitely start taking prevagen or neurex, but I'll forget I said that as soon as I open my refrigerator.

It was a memorable case. The defendant had said he was going to kill the guy he had a beef with in front of witnesses a few days before. (Lets call him the Beefee, who was the guy threatened with the firearm a few days later, and shot "at" but not hit.) Defendant, Beefy, and Victim were all members of a work crew. Tree planters I think. Defendant was Hispanic and some or all of the others might have been also. So language barriers might have been involved in the investigators not getting good enough info initially to figure out what actually happened and for grand jury to get the charges right. (Grand juries decide whether to charge anyone with a crime, and if so, what. Trial juries decide whether defendant is guilty or not guilty on each charge.)

So a few days after Defendant threatened to kill Beefee in front of witnesses but in the absence of Beefee, Defendant shows up at work with gun and waves it around at Beefee. And he fires it once. At relatively close range. Maybe 20 feet. Not so close as 10 or as far as 50. Defendant is well known to be a good shot and fires just the once. And altercation ended with Beefee uninjured. And Defendant perfectly able to fire more shots but not doing so. Charges included attempted murder of Victim. Not attempted murder of Beefee. I think investigators and grand jury never realized that Beefee and Victim of shooting were two different people.

Jury tried to get distracted by whether Defendant intended to kill Beefy when he/Defendant pointed gun at Beefy. Defendant said he shot at ground to scare Beefee. Defendant could have killed Beefee but after waving gun around and discharging it once put gun away, and altercation was over. So I thought Defendant was indeed trying to scare Beefy, not kill him, whatever he had said or intended a few days earlier. But it was all beside the point, I said. Jury was not asked whether Defendant intended to murder or harm Beefee. Jury was asked to decide whether Defendant was guilty of attempted murder or assault on Victim, the guy he shot accidentally, had no beef with, and had never threatened to kill. So even if Defendant really had been trying to kill Beefy and only changed his mind after attempting to kill him and failing, it was irrelevant.

I was the only one on the jury who was familiar with guns and shooting. They gave us the bullet as evidence, and tried to make some sort of argument that depended on the assumption that the bullet went straight through flesh. But this was a round nose bullet. All beside the point since the charges were so messed up.

 

[Knobgoblin]

That post literally just cured me of ever wanting to be a juror.
Thank you for that

 

[OldBroad44]

That post literally just cured me of ever wanting to be a juror.
Thank you for that

That trial was unusually messy. However, we finished the same day as we reported for jury duty.

I left that trial thinking that it was important for people familiar with shooting to be on juries.

In Oregon, once you are 7O or older you are exempt from jury duty.

 

[watermerc]

Trial was in Corvallis, in Benton County, which is the 21st judicial district of Oregon. I don't remember and would have no records of case number. I think it was 1990s, but might have been early 2000s. My best guess would be 1996 - 1999. The defendant was charged with a number of things, including attempted murder. He had, in fact, shot someone in the leg. People getting shot in Benton County isnt very common. so that might be the easiest way to find case. I think crime itself was in Philomath area. Newspaper covering that area is Corvallis Gazette-Times.

Trial outcome was weird because jury was not given a list of options that included the worst the defendant had done. We/jury decided defendant had fired gun toward one guy to scare him, but had accidentally hit someone else. It was clear that nobody including defendant had known anyone was injured until several minutes after shooting. (Gun was a .22 handgun. Bullet was round nose. It looked pristine, so had gone through without hitting any bone.) Guy who had been shot didn't show any signs of having been shot and didn't tell anyone until several minutes later. Victim might not have realized he had been hit immediately. Witnesses said defendant was very upset when he found out he'd shot this other guy. Jury was given many options/counts to decide on, including attempted murder and assault of various degrees toward the injured guy. Shooting the injured guy by accident wasn't a choice. Jury was able to give a guilty verdict only on the brandishing. Judge was seriously unhappy. We the jury weren't very happy either. We would have been perfectly willing to find defendant guilty of careless use of a firearm, illegal discharge of a firearm, and injuring the victim with a firearm in addition to the brandishing. But those weren't options.

You are right. I found a different case in the 1980's where they are using Brandishing legal language. My training is mid-2000's on. I haven't seen the term Brandishing in recent times. My understanding is in other states Brandishing is similar to Menacing with a deadly weapon. I really don't like menacing, pointing a firearm, and brandishing laws because they are somewhat subject based upon how the victim feels. What many people consider threatening I don't. I have seen cases where people feel threatened by the mere presence of a large male.

 

[OldBroad44]

You are right. I found a different case in the 1980's where they are using Brandishing legal language. My training is mid-2000's on. I haven't seen the term Brandishing in recent times. My understanding is in other states Brandishing is similar to Menacing with a deadly weapon. I really don't like menacing, pointing a firearm, and brandishing laws because they are somewhat subject based upon how the victim feels. What many people consider threatening I don't. I have seen cases where people feel threatened by the mere presence of a large male.

The Oregon version (ORS 166.190 Pointing a firearm at Another) is pretty good. It does not depend upon whether someone feels threatened. Basically says it applies if you are 12 or older and point a loaded or unloaded gun at or towards someone intentionally or not and within range of the weapon. Includes nothing about feeling threatened.

I agree about the problem with feeling threatened being too subjective to belong in laws. And you're right about many feeling threatened by large males. My dad, who was 6' 6", would cross the street to avoid following, catching up with, and inadvertently frightening women walking at night. And some other big men I've known avoid getting in an elevator at night if it contains a lone woman. the waves of fear are just no fun.

 

[Dr Prepper]

It was a memorable case. The defendant had said he was going to kill the guy he had a beef with in front of witnesses a few days before. (Lets call him the Beefee, who was the guy threatened with the firearm a few days later, and shot "at" but not hit.) Defendant, Beefy, and Victim were all members of a work crew. Tree planters I think. Defendant was Hispanic and some or all of the others might have been also. So language barriers might have been involved in the investigators not getting good enough info initially to figure out what actually happened and for grand jury to get the charges right. (Grand juries decide whether to charge anyone with a crime, and if so, what. Trial juries decide whether defendant is guilty or not guilty on each charge.)

So a few days after Defendant threatened to kill Beefee in front of witnesses but in the absence of Beefee, Defendant shows up at work with gun and waves it around at Beefee. And he fires it once. At relatively close range. Maybe 20 feet. Not so close as 10 or as far as 50. Defendant is well known to be a good shot and fires just the once. And altercation ended with Beefee uninjured. And Defendant perfectly able to fire more shots but not doing so. Charges included attempted murder of Victim. Not attempted murder of Beefee. I think investigators and grand jury never realized that Beefee and Victim of shooting were two different people.

Jury tried to get distracted by whether Defendant intended to kill Beefy when he/Defendant pointed gun at Beefy. Defendant said he shot at ground to scare Beefee. Defendant could have killed Beefee but after waving gun around and discharging it once put gun away, and altercation was over. So I thought Defendant was indeed trying to scare Beefy, not kill him, whatever he had said or intended a few days earlier. But it was all beside the point, I said. Jury was not asked whether Defendant intended to murder or harm Beefee. Jury was asked to decide whether Defendant was guilty of attempted murder or assault on Victim, the guy he shot accidentally, had no beef with, and had never threatened to kill. So even if Defendant really had been trying to kill Beefy and only changed his mind after attempting to kill him and failing, it was irrelevant.

I was the only one on the jury who was familiar with guns and shooting. They gave us the bullet as evidence, and tried to make some sort of argument that depended on the assumption that the bullet went straight through flesh. But this was a round nose bullet. All beside the point since the charges were so messed up.

Alriiight, now your just making this up/show boatin'!
Lesson is.. Dont EVER commit crimes infront of, or to females/ when you voir dire the jury. Just politely ask all the females to leave!

That post literally just cured me of ever wanting to be a juror.
Thank you for that

I was called in for a jury duty while still in high school, in seattle. It was a zoo. It was actually very eye opening. Lots of pre pissed off people NOT wanting to be there. (Really me being one of them back then) and telling people "this persons guilty i dont care what" luckily those people are ALWAYS dismissed. Really those people shouldn't even be forced to be there at all.

In the end i got called in once or twice. Toward the end of the voir dire process the attorney for the defendant (in which it was a armed robbery case) had to ask the rest of us who he didnt focus questioning on something.
So he asks us one by one something general. He asks me "what do you do in your spare time?" I reply "play video games" he asks "what's your favourite video game?" Me NOT wanting to be selected: "grand theft auto!"
The court erupts laughing, including the judge.
The defense attorney once finished chuckling "alright your excused" i would ask that mr. Xxxx be dismissed" "granted"
I WAS a little bubblegum.. Now im a big bubblegum!

Now a days im kinda more inclined to actually want to be on the jury. I seem to get jury duty quite often. I've been 3 times so far. I think there's ALOT of people who get shafted by the system. Lots of people don't have super critical minds.
Part of the problem is they kinda tie your hands as well.

 

[Dr Prepper]

WHY is this thread still going?

Just wait till it gets revived in a couple years...

 

[OldBroad44]

Making things up @Dr Prepper ? Me? Never! Showboating? Well.... (hee hee hee.)

Yeah it would be easy to avoid getting selected for a jury. But the legal system is adversarial. I could never get myself out of serving on a jury for fear a wrong might be committed but for me.

 

[Knobgoblin]

At least bento is still active.
I thought with all the tire popping comments this thread might have outlived his membership.

Keep ridin , never stop ridin.

 

[wired]

At least bento is still active.
I thought with all the tire popping comments this thread might have outlived his membership.

Keep ridin , never stop ridin.

Stay Vigilant(e)

 

[Ridge Walker]

Stay Vigilant(e)

Semper Tenax, Vigilanti Semper

 

[Dr Prepper]

Semper Tenax, Vigilanti Semper

I hereby christen antifa and blm VAGilins! Villainous twats they are!
(Sorry to disparage my lady friends here but, i hope they see the case studies)
How about we "gender neutral" it out and add Flagilins for the flaccid soy boy excuses of men.
(Equal opportunity offender merit badge awarded)

 

[OldBroad44]

Yeah it would be easy to avoid getting selected for a jury. But the legal system is adversarial. I could never get myself out of serving on a jury for fear a wrong might be committed but for me.

Further reflection about the duty to serve on juries--
I have voted many dozens of times. Not once has my vote made a difference--that is, swung an outcome for any candidate or measure. Its unlikely that any of my votes ever will. I vote for symbolic and ritualistic rather than practical reasons.

But when I serve and vote on a jury, the odds are interestingly much higher that my vote and voice might affect the outcome and perhaps really matter--at least to one person.

 

[SrMachoSolo]

Here is my attempt to get this thread back on track, since we're talking about jurys, judges, and motorcycles.

The Lawmaster:


-Robert

 

[Dr Prepper]

Here is my attempt to get this thread back on track, since we're talking about jurys, judges, and motorcycles.

The Lawmaster:
View attachment 883236

-Robert

Yeah sry. I'm ADD..!

 

[wired]

Further reflection about the duty to serve on juries--
I have voted many dozens of times. Not once has my vote made a difference--that is, swung an outcome for any candidate or measure. Its unlikely that any of my votes ever will. I vote for symbolic and ritualistic rather than practical reasons.

But when I serve and vote on a jury, the odds are interestingly much higher that my vote and voice might affect the outcome and perhaps really matter--at least to one person.

I've hung several juries. If I'm on your jury they better have iron clad proof. Otherwise you walk. I'm not going to vote to convict so everyone can go home early.

 

[Dr Prepper]

I've hung several juries. If I'm on your jury they better have iron clad proof. Otherwise you walk. I'm not going to vote to convict so everyone can go home early.

Amen brother.
12 angry men is one of my favs! Good flick. Ill ALWAYS give the benefit of the doubt. Unless its OJ.. OR Epstein!

 

[arakboss]

More innocent atv/motor cycle riders accosted, this time by crazy mom and child.

Rhode Island woman, 24, held after video shows mom, 35, with child beaten in road rage incident: report

A Rhode Island woman was arrested Thursday in connection with a road rage incident caught on video earlier this week in which a mother traveling with her 8-year-old daughter was allegedly dragged out of her car and beaten by a group of ATV and dirt bike riders, according to reports.

www.foxnews.com

Mom should have been packing and if doors weren't locked they should have been.