• Gun charge dismissed; fallout from Bruen

    From Adam H. Kerman@21:1/5 to All on Fri Mar 29 16:29:05 2024
    Fuckhead illegal alien (This isn't the P.C. way to refer to fuckheads)
    standing near an intersection repeatedly fires at a passing vehicle,
    then fires at another passing vehicle but the gun jammed. These are
    facts the defense agrees with but his attorneys claimed he fired warning
    shots in defense of the neighborhood. This was on the night with a huge
    spike in shootings and gun homicides, June 2020, the hideous violence
    following publicity of George Floyd's homicide.

    The bullets he fired didn't strike the vehicle or people inside, so he
    was charged under state law with aggravated discharge of a firearm and
    other charges. For reasons not stated, state charges were dismissed.

    He was charged with a single federal charge, illegal possession because
    he was an illegal alien.

    The Trump administration was filing lots of gun charges for 2020
    violence because state prosecutors were either not following through, or
    they didn't have evidence to sustain appropriate charges. The federal cooperation was seen as an alternative prosecution strategy that plenty
    of local municipalities (including Chicago) were begging for, not only
    because charges were dismissed or not filed under state law for specious reasons.

    Now that Bruen is law of the land, the federal judge dismissed the
    charge. Laws preventing illegal aliens from possessing guns based on immigration status only are unconstitutional post-Bruen.

    https://chicago.suntimes.com/the-watchdogs/2024/03/29/bruen-supreme-court-operation-legend-heriberto-carbajal-flores-george-floyd

    This was a dangerous fuckhead. Those weren't "warning shots" as he
    wasn't claiming that anyone in those two vehicles were threatening.
    Generally, warning shots aren't legal anyway but an aggravated assault.
    You can still hit a person.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Horny Goat@21:1/5 to ahk@chinet.com on Fri Mar 29 13:48:37 2024
    On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 16:29:05 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
    <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

    This was a dangerous fuckhead. Those weren't "warning shots" as he
    wasn't claiming that anyone in those two vehicles were threatening. >Generally, warning shots aren't legal anyway but an aggravated assault.
    You can still hit a person.

    Legally there is no such thing as a 'warning shot' in any case.

    If you fire a shot you're responsible for wherever it goes - and
    that's 'strict liability' (which I assume means the same in the US as
    in Canada) standard of evidence - i.e. (1) did you pull the trigger?
    (2) is that the bullet that did the harm? - with motive not entering
    into it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)