East Meadow man flashed gun, claimed to be cop during dispute, Nassau police say - Page 2 - Nassau County (licensing/laws) - Long Island Firearms

Jump to content


Welcome to Long Island Firearms, Long Island's premier source for news and education!

Welcome to Long Island Firearms, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of Long Island Firearms by signing in or creating an account. You also have the ability to login with your facebook or twitter account. See the icons in the upper right hand corner.
  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get automatic updates
  • Get your own profile and make new friends
  • Customize your experience here
Get the latest facts on the new NY SAFE gun laws that effect you!

Photo

East Meadow man flashed gun, claimed to be cop during dispute, Nassau police say


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#21 packetloss

packetloss

    Respected Gunowner

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 163 posts
  • LocationNassau

Posted August 05 2020 - 07:46 AM

Actually, it is not

 

Ok, please explain how it's not subjective?

 

If you have a jury and it's not unanimous then it's clearly subjective.  The term resonable is interpreted differently by different people.  Like I said if it was not subjective you wouldn't ever need a jury, you just run it past an analyzer that says yes or no.



# Advertisement

Advertisement

Posted A minute ago



#22 only7rounds2

only7rounds2

    Gunowner

  • Established Member
  • 25 posts
  • LocationNew York

Posted August 05 2020 - 08:47 AM

Ok, please explain how it's not subjective?

 

If you have a jury and it's not unanimous then it's clearly subjective.  The term resonable is interpreted differently by different people.  Like I said if it was not subjective you wouldn't ever need a jury, you just run it past an analyzer that says yes or no.

Apparently you were never on a jury or watched a real trial (not TV).



#23 packetloss

packetloss

    Respected Gunowner

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 163 posts
  • LocationNassau

Posted August 05 2020 - 11:37 AM

Apparently you were never on a jury or watched a real trial (not TV).

 

I have been, but again, please elaborate on why you believe it's not subjective.  Just to be clear, for it to not be subjective, every case would be unanimous every time and you wouldn't need a jury, and there would be no such thing as jury selection. 

 

Just google it.  It's clearly subjective:

 

 

https://www.thoughtc...inition-4156891

 

https://digitalcommo...082&context=olr

 

The Supreme Court has failed to define the concept of “reasonable doubt” with any precision. The Court tolerates conflicting definitions of “reasonable doubt.” It permits some jurisdictions to forbid any definition of “reasonable doubt,” while giving others wide latitude to define the concept in ways that are contradictory.

 

In the United States court system, the fair and impartial delivery of justice is based on two fundamental tenets: That all persons accused of crimes are considered to be innocent until proven guilty, and that their guilt must be proven “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

 

While the requirement that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is meant to protect the rights of Americans charged with crimes, it often leaves juries with the momentous task of answering the often subjective question — how much doubt is “reasonable doubt?”



#24 only7rounds2

only7rounds2

    Gunowner

  • Established Member
  • 25 posts
  • LocationNew York

Posted August 05 2020 - 11:03 PM

I don't think you understand the system. The Jury is the JUDGE of the facts. The Judge is the Judge of the law. The job of the jury is to decide, in a totally objective way, the FACTS. Just because someone says something happened, does not mean it is true or that it happened.



#25 packetloss

packetloss

    Respected Gunowner

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 163 posts
  • LocationNassau

Posted August 06 2020 - 06:53 AM

I understand 100%, I don't think you are facing the reality of how it works.   Read those articles and many others.   Anything that is being "judged" will be inherently subjective.  I don't think you understand what subjective means.   If you have 2 different juries composed of different people you can end up with 2 different outcomes.   If it was purely objective and reasonable doubt was algorithmicly definable, you would only ever end up with 1 result no matter the composition of the jury.  That is how it works and why there is jury selection.  Reasonable doubt and whether they have achieved reasonable doubt will mean different things to different people, no matter how objective they are told to be.

 

This brings me back to my original point.  Yes the actual burden of proof does change, depending on who is on the jury.  As indicated in those articles and many others, there is no clear cut definition of "reasonable doubt".  Even the supreme court won't touch it.   In case I wasn't clear, that means it's somewhat vague and can mean different things to different members of the jury.  If a person in their opinion, believe they have reasonable doubt then they will vote not guilty.  There are some people who just aren't reasonable and they will believe even video evidence was doctored.   

 

 

Let's bring this back to basics.   Do you agree or disagree that 2 different juries can come to 2 different verdicts?
 



#26 ProGodProGunProLife

ProGodProGunProLife

    Gun Guru

  • LIF Site Moderator
  • Others: Club LIF Member

  • 6991 posts
  • LocationSuffolk

Posted August 06 2020 - 08:59 AM

Actually, it is not

 

Yes, it is.  Any time the word "reasonable" is part of a standard, there is inherently some level of subjectivity.  Two jurors can hear the same exact testimony and one could believe there is reasonable doubt, while the other does not.  

 

In this case, assuming the suspect didn't confess, it sounds like mostly one man's word against another.   Assuming the suspect denies carrying or showing the gun, it will come down to the credibility of the witnesses.  I would imagine, a key point would  be whether the complainant can accurately describe the gun he allegedly saw.  Even if the suspect owns a gun that more or less matches the complainant's description, that might not be enough proof, especially if the suspect legally owns a large number of handguns of different types, or if the gun is a very common type.  

 

Unless there is video evidence, another witness, or self incrimination by the suspect, this case seems like it would be difficult to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt.  


  • packetloss likes this

#27 only7rounds2

only7rounds2

    Gunowner

  • Established Member
  • 25 posts
  • LocationNew York

Posted August 06 2020 - 01:15 PM

Not if the jury believes the complaining witness and the defendant, of course, will most likely not testify.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users