No Charges: Self Defense article.

[FatSlob]

From the Memphis Commerical Appeal. The site requires registration, I have excerpted portions for your viewing pleasure


No charges in gun death

E. Memphis resident feared for life when he shot burglar, prosecutors conclude

By Chris Conley
May 20, 2004

A 21-year-old East Memphis man convinced prosecutors he was in fear for his life when he fatally shot a burglar who had just stolen a compressor from a shed, officials said Wednesday.

Adam Greenberg of 171 Richbriar will not be charged criminally in the death of Daniel Randolph, 46, outside the Greenberg home just before noon Tuesday.


Greenberg, alerted by a neighbor, caught Randolph and another man loading an air compressor onto a truck bed, according to court records.

Greenberg told the men to put their hands up.

One of the men, identified as David Gonzales, 39, of West Memphis, ran.

Greenberg said he believed Randolph, who was sitting in the truck, was reaching for a weapon. He shot Randolph once in the head.

Police found Randolph, who was wearing an orange utility vest, slumped over in the driver's side of the vehicle. A lawnmower and other items sat in the truck bed.

Officials would not say whether any weapons were inside the truck.

Gonzales, arrested shortly after the shooting, was charged Wednesday with burglary. He admitted to police that he was present at the burglary, according to the charges.

Prosecutors were convinced by Greenberg's account that he believed he was acting in self-defense, Dist. Atty. Gen. Bill Gibbons said.

By law, lethal force is appropriate only when an individual reasonably believes he is in danger of death or bodily harm, Gibbons said.

"Based on our review . . . it appeared he had a reasonable belief he was in danger."

Police said Randolph had a lengthy record in several states, primarily in Missouri.

It was not clear how long Randolph had been in Memphis. He was released from a federal prison in Springfield, Mo., in January, according to federal Bureau of Prisons records.

He had served one year for assaulting a federal officer and interfering with an official in his performance of his duties, records show.

[MrSandman]

1. Gonzales should be charged with the death...n/t

[mosin]

2. Felony murder

Does Tennessee have a felony murder statute?

[MrSandman]

6. I really don't know...

I believe anyone involved in committing a felony and someone dies during the commission, he should be legally culpable. Even if it were not self defense, the other felon should share culpability.

[iverglas]

3. "Officials would not say whether any weapons were inside the truck."

So ... when will we find out?

"Based on our review ... it appeared he had a reasonable belief he was in danger."

If a weapon was found in the truck, it would lend credence to the assertion that the person who fired the gun believed that the person he shot was reaching for a weapon.

If no weapon was found in the truck, he might be needing a little closer questioning about just what it was that made him believe that the person he shot was reaching for one.

Where I'm at, you really don't get to go outside, confront a thief and aim a firearm at him/her. As a matter of fact, if the person you aimed it at reasonably believed that s/he was at imminent risk of being seriously injured or killed, s/he would be the one with justification for shooting.

The drag is that if running out and flapping your arms at the thief didn't work, you might lose the stuff s/he was taking. Of course, you'd be entitled to use reasonable force to stop it being stolen. But reasonable force doesn't include causing serious bodily harm or death, or pointing a firearm. And if you did point a firearm, prompting a person who had to that point not pointed a firearm at you to reach for a firearm, shooting that person just would not likely be called self-defence.

Losing your stuff is a drag. Dying is more of a drag, and up here we take it seriously.

.

[mosin]

4. Confronting a thief...

For exactly the reasons you gave, I would never confront a thief on my property outside my home. In Ohio, and most U.S. states, you can't use deadly force to prevent property loss. In that case, all you can do is run out and flap your arms at the thief, and I'd rather not risk escalating the confrontation. I'd call 911 and guard the door.

Someone breaking into an occupied house, I put into a more dangerous category. If everyeone were safe upstairs, however, I'd probably still guard the stairs and call 911.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mosin]

7. "Violent" ball sports

You're right! Every (non-firearm) sport I play -- soccer and softball -- involves a ball!

Even the sports I watch involve balls. (American) football. Basketball (Go Spurs Go!). Baseball.

I haven't eaten Froot Loops in years. ;) I like Frosted Mini Wheats.

[iverglas]

14. my goodness

I congratulate you on apparently determining (no doubt after long and careful thought; I was just so subtle, eh?) that my choice of words in the header of my post -- "wimp" -- was ... drumroll, gasp ... humour.

Since you had agreed with me about the appropriate course of action in the situation, it went like this:

I would not use a firearm to confront a thief.
You would not use a firearm to confront a thief.
You are a wimp.
Therefore I am a wimp.

Hit me! I just posted a personal attack on myself!

Of course, since there is once again no explanation, perhaps there was some other ground for the offence taken. Who knows?

I only watch soccer, and not entirely by choice. How bout that save by the Millwall goaltender guy at the beginning of the FA cup game on Saturday, Brits?

Thomas Jefferson would undoubtedly have regarded watching ball sports as even more effete than playing them.

.

[mosin]

18. Hmm.

I have no idea no why your post was deleted. I just noticed it was gone.

Perhaps grasping your sense of humor requires a particularly sharp (warped?) mind.

But then, I do like ball sports.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrSandman]

9. Not much info...

He may not have brandished his weapon. If he did, TN laws must be really interesting. Of course most felons who carry a firearm state they do it for self defense or to prevent escalation.

I'm with you, I would call 911, inform the thugs the police had been called, and watch from inside, suitably attired, of course.

I would be within my rights to tell them LE had been called in an attempt to minimize property loss.

[Oaklander]

19. I'm in agreement with you.

No material possession is worth taking the life of another.

[NorthernSpy]

22. "Former Springbok kills daughter in mistake for thief" (May 25, 2004)

You said: No material possession is worth taking the life of another.


I agree with you, Oaklander. Blasting away at a fleeing thief isn't a legitimate "defense" of anyone or anything; it's a deliberate escalation that puts everyone in the vicinity at risk of serious harm. I'm sure Rudi Visagie wishes he could take that bullet back:


Former Springbok kills daughter in mistake for thief

Police charge rugby star with murder for shooting

Rory Carroll in Johannesburg
Tuesday May 25, 2004
The Guardian

A former Springbok rugby player was charged with murder yesterday after he mistook his daughter for a car thief and shot her dead in the family's driveway. Rudi Visagie, 44, apparently assumed that his daughter Marlé, 19, was asleep when he heard her Volkswagen Golf being driven away at 5am on Sunday from their smallholding in Maggiesdal, a rural area in Mpumalanga province.

He got out of bed, took his 7.65mm pistol, and fired a shot through the bedroom window, police said.

When he went outside he discovered his daughter slumped behind the wheel.

She had been hit in the neck and was declared dead upon arrival an hour later at a clinic in the nearby town of Nelspruit.

A blood-stained present on the front passenger seat suggested Ms Visagie had been on her way to surprise her boyfriend on his birthday, without telling her parents of the plan.



for the rest of the article, please see http://www.guardian.co.uk/southafrica/story/0,13262,1224059,00.html



Mary

[Pert_UK]

24. Stupid fucking bastard....

Well, he'll have the rest of his life to reflect on the fact that he killed his daughter.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that SA is an extremely violent place and that people are rightfully paranoid about violence and the need for self-defense......However, anybody who is prepared to kill without warning or investigation purely to prevent their car being stolen, should be locked away as a danger to society.

It is tragic that it's taken the loss of his daughter in order to make this point to him.

P.

[iverglas]

25. interesting ...

We know that income disparity (the concentration of income in the upper percentiles of the population) correlates positively with homicide rates (and we can probably extrapolate very confidently to violent crime rates). The greater the income disparities (the richer the rich, the poorer the poor), the higher the homicide/violence rates.

We know that South Africa has huge income disparity. Also wealth disparity, of course.

We tend to think that the homicides/violent crime rates in question are committed by the have-nots (and commonly against other have-nots), who are relatively more alienated from the society, less protected by the society, and more desperate to share in the material benefits of the society.

Well this one's a hint of something else at work.

Violence/homicide by the rich, desperate to keep their stuff and willing to harm/kill anyone who tries to take it.

Interesting.

[natasha1]

30. It's easy not to die...

Losing your stuff is a drag. Dying is more of a drag, and up here we take it seriously.

We take it seriously down here, too. If you don't want to die, you better not steal my stuff. Seriously.

Nat

[MrBenchley]

31. Yes, nat...

We all remember how eager you are to shoot someone and lie to the police afterwards, I'm sure...

[natasha1]

32. Still spouting those mischaracterizations, eh?

I never claimed to be "eager" to defend myself or my property, I simply state that I will do so if I need to. I know it's much more self-serving to paint me as some slavering wanna-be Rambo, though.

The above article is a classic example of what I mean by saying "I feared for my safety".

If that's what I have to say to waste some loser trying to make off with my VCR, that's what I'll say.

My VCR is worth more than any criminal's life. The lint in my pocket is worth more than any criminal's life.

Anyone who considers their life to be worth more than my VCR has a sure-fire way to insure it's continuation in value - don't try to steal my VCR.

Nat

[MrBenchley]

34. Hell, you busted in here threatening to gun down

anybody who touched your "stuff"....

[natasha1]

37. Yet more mischaracterizations...

I didn't "bust into" this thread any more than you did, but again, we see how eager you are to paint me as some kind of bull in a china shop.

And yes, I will gun down anyone who attempts to steal my "stuff". People like me are a deterrant. People like you are enablers.

Nat

[MrBenchley]

38. "I will gun down anyone"

as effectively as the Beltway snipers?

Or is that going to be something else you want to pretend you never said?

[natasha1]

40. "...who attempts to steal my "stuff""

Oh I own up to everything I say.

I only deny your constant attempts to re-paint what I do actually say.

Defending property is in no way comparable to the heinous crimes of the Beltway Snipers, as you and I both know.

Nat

[MrBenchley]

42. Too TOO funny...

"I own up to everything I say"
Until somebody mentions it...at which point you start shrieking "mischaracterization."

The Beltway Snipers were your model for the effectiveness of your popgun...as you and I know.

[natasha1]

43. I don't dispute that.

I have never disputed my claim that the beltway snipers were very effective at what they did.

It is you who tried to claim that they were not effective, and who continuously tries to paint me as approving or condoning their actions. This is when I start shrieking "mischaracterization" - when you are unable to debate what I say directly and instead resort to mischaracterizing it.

Nat

[iverglas]

41. well, misinterpretations ...

on somebody's part.

I didn't "bust into" this thread any more than you did

I don't think anybody actually asserted that you had. I think somebody was referring to "busting in" to DU / the J/PS forum, and using "bust" in the "burst", rather than "break" sense. How 'bout you?


Lest anyone forget ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=48352

But if the question generically is would I shoot someone to defend my property, the answer is yes, definitely.

... A criminal who would steal from me is worthless, in my opinion. They have chosen a path that places the value of their lives far below the value of my my car, or even my VCR.

... If someone breaks into my home, and I get the drop on them, they're dead. Simple as that. I don't care if they are making off with a box of Fruit Loops.

... I do not believe everyone has the right to life.

... <moi>And yup, it surely is a violation of due process to permit people to kill other people engaged in trespass or theft.

If somene is engaged in theft of my property, I will be sure to tell the police when they arrive that I "feared for my safety".

This is more difficult in the hypothetical situation of catching someone attempting to steal my car.

But in the case of a home invasion, where someone is trying to steal something from me, frankly, if I find someone in my home, I'm not going to stop and ask them, "Excuse me, buddy, but are you here just to steal my stuff or are you planning any alternative activities, like, say, rape, while you are here?"

No, I'm going to blow their ass away.

For anyone who missed it and wonders what it's all about. Shoot first, "explain" it to the cops later.


And I may as well ask again ...

And yes, I will gun down anyone who attempts to steal my "stuff".

What part of your Constitution might you not understand here? (Perhaps you do understand it, and really don't plan to "explain" any such peccadilloes you might commit as self-defence, and plan to take your lumps, or lethal injections, just like any other honest practitioner of civil disobedience does when s/he violates a law s/he considers to be unjust. Of course, you too can always argue that the law that prohibits you from killing someone for attempting to steal your froot loops is somehow contrary to your Constitution ...)

And what part of the liberal gospel are you relying on when you say "I do not believe everyone has the right to life"?

You once said to me:

How you parade out the Constitution, and ignore the 2nd ammendment.

I'm still trying to figure out how you manage to ignore / think you should be able to evade that 5th one:

No person shall be ... deprived of life ... without due process of law ... .

Among other things I'm still trying to figure out.

[iverglas]

33. okay, mosin you wimp - now I can say it

natasha1 has appeared among us, so I may say what I was smacked down for saying before (no, apparently it's okay to call you/me/us "wimp"):

Watch out for the wrath of natasha1, which will descend upon you for your gormless and spineless abdication of the defence of your froot loops. Er, frosted mini wheats. (Personally, I hold breakfast cereal of any sort in the same regard that I would hold sawdust floating in snot. Gimme pizza or curried chicken or a nice tuna sandwich if you're going to force me to eat in the a.m.)

[MrBenchley]

35. Don't forget to lie to the police afterwards

about pooping in the park killing someone over the slightest provocation....

Yes, even though he has his hands, er, wings, up in surrender....

[mosin]

39. I know you mean it with affection...

so it's acceptable.

I admit it. I won't defend my Fruit Loops or my Frosted Mini Wheats -- or yummy breakfast pizza -- unless the threat to my breakfast is accompanied by a threat to myself or my family.

So, if the goblins -- garden faeries run amok? -- break into the house at 2am, setting off the burglar alarm, while the family is all asleep upstairs, I'm going to herd the family into our bedroom, put them in the (very large) closet, grab the 12 gauge from the safe, and guard the bedroom door while my wife calls 911. They are free to steal the breakfast cereal, the VCR, and the DVD player in the time before the police arrive.

If the goblins break into the house at 9pm, with the entire family downstairs, they are going to encounter me with a handgun defending the family.

I don't know what natash1 will think about this, but it is my plan. (We also have plans for tornados and fires.)

[TX-RAT]

44. Sounds like a great plan.

Why risk getting someone hurt when it not necessary.
Hey if i can put up with being called a fat redneck cop who only wears a badge to push people around. You can handle being called a wimp.

[Pert_UK]

10. Unsurprisingly, I'm with Ms Iverglas......

I am 100% in favour of being able to defend yourself - if someone attacks you (even if you don't think they're trying to kill you) IMHO you have the right to defend yourself with maximum force, and if they die then it's their hard luck.

However, chasing someone outside your house is you making the choice to put yourself in further danger. Effectively the criminals were LEAVING the scene with no risk of confrontation or assault, so WHY put yourself into a potentially fatal situation?

I will NEVER agree with someone (and there are people on here) who claim that it is moral or appropriate to kill someone purely in the defense of your property.

However, for the sake of completeness I wouldn't want a criminal to be able to claim self-defense if they shot someone during a crime because they feared for their life. They surrender the right to self-defense the second they take a gun out with them during a crime.

In the UK, if you take a gun with you when you commit a crime then the sentence is as harsh as if you'd used the weapon in the crime.

[LibLabUK]

11. Umm...

"IMHO you have the right to defend yourself with maximum force, and if they die then it's their hard luck."

Isn't the current law worded as "reasonable and proportionate force"?

[Pert_UK]

12. That might be the law, but I don't necessarily agree.....

I mean, if someone is attacking you it's difficult to know:

- whether they're trying to scare you, injure you or kill you
- how much force is required to stop them doing that
- how long you've got to apply that force before they kill or injure you

Basically, if someone attacks me I don't see why I should have to restrain myself to a low level of response and risk them overpowering me and finishing the job.

IMHO it is "reasonable" to respond to an attack by hitting hard & fast and then escaping ASAP.

[LibLabUK]

13. IMHO it is "reasonable" to respond to an attack by hitting hard & fast and

Yeah.. I'd agree with you on that.

I was just wondering what you meant by "Maximum force".. to me that's lethal force.

I don't think it acceptable to kill someone who has taken a swing for me in a pub and I don't think it acceptable to glass/bottle him either.

I have to say I like our system of judging self-defence cases, and I think it works well.

[Pert_UK]

15. Difficult one...

I suppose by "Maximum force" I meant that an individual shouldn't be legally restrained to the minimum level of force, but should be allowed an extra margin.

For example, you shouldn't be compelled to use only the force necessary to trip a mugger up, giving you time to run away - it might not work and then you'd be up shit creek, whereas hitting him with a nearby brick probably would. It would also risk killing him, and he may have had no real intention of hurting me, so is it proportionate or reasonable?

It's tricky.

About 10 years ago some drunken maniac accosted me in a pub and threatened to kill me, for no particular reason. I shook him off and headed into the toilet, but when I was coming out he grabbed me again and threatened to hit me with the bottle of beer he had.

It is the only time in my life that I seriously thought, "I'm going to have to glass this guy and run, because he's genuinely threatening me with a weapon he has in his hand", and I couldn't break out of his hold.

Eventually I got away from him and went over to a group of mates. The guy followed and threatened one of them. Luckily, my mate was a complete nutcase and told the guy to fuck off before my mate, "Ripped his head off and shoved a bar stool down his neck."

This did the trick, and the bloke left the pub, only to return later and get arrested for throwing beer bottles at the windows....but the point is, how was I to know that I could escape before the guy bottled me, or that I could get to my mates and they'd scare him off?

IMHO I would have been totally in the right if I'd glassed him and run off, because I genuinely feared for my life. However, I don't suppose the Police or a judge would have backed me on it.

[iverglas]

16. c'mon now

IMHO I would have been totally in the right if I'd glassed him and run off, because I genuinely feared for my life. However, I don't suppose the Police or a judge would have backed me on it.

The guy had a firm grip on you that you couldn't break, and was threatening to bean you with a bottle, and you wouldn't have been able to show, on a balance of probabilities, that you had a reasonable belief that you were in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death and had no other reasonable way of avoiding it?


However, for the sake of completeness I wouldn't want a criminal to be able to claim self-defense if they shot someone during a crime because they feared for their life. They surrender the right to self-defense the second they take a gun out with them during a crime.

It gets slightly complicated -- but no one *ever* "surrenders" his/her right to self-defence. (What's this "defense" you speak of? Been using too many US English spellcheckers??)

Taking a firearm along to commit a burglary might make a self-defence claim, if it were used, somewhat less credible. It might look more like evidence of intent to commit robbery if burglary became problematic.

It isn't "self-defence" to brandish a weapon in order to complete a theft by "defending" against the owner's attempt to prevent the theft. The owner is entitled to use reasonable force to retain the property that is being stolen, and the thief is not entitled to use any force to repel that force.

If the owner pointed a firearm, even though that is illegal (where we're at, anyhow), the thief would have to drop the property and leave -- or stay put, if the owner wanted, because people are entitled to arrest others whom they find committing crimes. Of course, the thief wouldn't have any way of knowing whether the owner was going to shoot him/her if s/he did that. The reasonableness of the thief's belief that s/he was in imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death, if s/he in turn used force, would then be an issue.

The common law (and the criminal law in Canada, anyway) is that people are justified, by way of "self-defence", in using force to avoid serious bodily harm or death, even if they were the ones who started it, if they let it be known that they don't want to continue it once their attack is defended against.

Because one never knows whether a thief is prepared to turn a foiled theft into a robbery (robbery = theft + assault), or worse, one takes a chance in using (justified) force to prevent a theft. Ultimately, whoever's left standing may have to justify the force s/he used as having been legitimately an instance of self-defence.

.

[LibLabUK]

17. Hmm..

"It's tricky." & "IMHO I would have been totally in the right if I'd glassed him and run off, because I genuinely feared for my life. However, I don't suppose the Police or a judge would have backed me on it."

Again I agree with you, in that you'd have probably been in the right in that situation.

The "I feared for my life" defence was satirised by South Park with the "It's coming right for us!" shout of the hunters as their excuse for killing just about anything. So I'd rather have you arrested and tried for glassing your attacker, as opposed to giving people carte blanche when it comes to "self-defence".

[Pert_UK]

20. "I'd rather have you arrested..."

A lot of people want me arrested......but it ain't gonna happen.

:evilgrin:

ROFL the Southpark reference.

IIRC Scuzzlebutt had Patrick Duffy for a leg....

P.

[beevul]

28. ROFL!!!

I AM SCUZZLEBUTT, LORD OF THE MOUNTAIN!

BEHOLD MY PATRICK DUFFY LEG!!

[Pert_UK]

46. "Hi! I'm TV's Patrick Duffy!"

Marvellous!

"This is the kind of gun I used in 'Nam!"

"You weren't in 'Nam Cartman!"

"That kid is one dirty little bastard!"

Great episode.

P.

[slackmaster]

21. Glassing?

Is that UK slang for using a beer glass or bottle as a bludgeon?

(Pardon my ignorance if this has been explained already. I've just started my first cup of coffee.)

[Pert_UK]

23. Glassing....

the delightful British pub pastime of pushing a pint glass into somebody's face.

You may wish to break the end off first, possibly against the bar, before applying the broken end into your opponents mouth and nose.

As seen in Trainspotting, done by Begby to the bloke who spilled his pint.

Bottling is roughly equivalent, although you'd either cosh someone over the head with a bottle, or break the end off and thrust the jagged bit into their face (as in glassing).

It's not nice, and not a gentleman's tactic and I would never ever think about it even once, unless I genuinely feared for my life.

P.

[slackmaster]

26. Thanks

I love British slang.

Cosh? (never mind - it's clear from context)

:evilgrin:

[Pert_UK]

27. Cosh isn't slang - both a noun and a verb.......

"n : a piece of leather-covered metal with a flexible handle; used for hitting people

v : hit with a cosh, usually on the head"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cosh

I actually think that the definition should be broader (it's certainly used more broadly) - basically the noun is a heavy but padded short weapon that you'd use to stun someone without breaking the skin or intending to cause too much damage, e.g. a sock full of wet sand.

The verb should just mean to batter someone round the head with a heavy, short, blunt weapon.

IMHO of course.

[slackmaster]

29. The closest dictionary to where I am sitting calls cosh "chiefly Brit."

Most USAmericans call that weapon a blackjack or sap.

Section 12020 of the California Penal Code lists among the numerous weapons forbidden to be manufactured, sold, given away, loaned, or possessed here "...any instrument or weapon of the kind commonly known as a blackjack, slungshot, billy, sandclub, sap, or sandbag."

Slungshot? :freak:

I lived in Alamogordo, New Mexico for almost a year back in the late '60s. The locals there all carried them in their trucks (along with the obligatory shotgun and Remington Nylon 66 .22 caliber rifle) and referred to them as "<forbidden racist epithet>-knockers".

I'll never forget how shocked I was to see all the bumper stickers in Alamogordo that said "Send them a message - Vote for Wallace", referring to then-unrepentant racist Alabama governor George C. Wallace, who was running for President of the US under the newly formed American Independent Party. (Late in live Wallace reformed and recanted his racist past.)

[iverglas]

36. not to mention shurikens and shobi-zues

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/12020-12040.html

That on-line version does indeed say "slungshot". So ... aha! I find your Merriam-Webster on line, and my Oxford at my elbow, and here we are:

slungshot
a striking weapon consisting of a small mass of metal
or stone fixed on a flexible handle or strap

slung shot
a metal ball attached by a thong etc. to the wrist
and used esp. by criminals as a weapon

respectively. Seems like the sort of thing you'd want to be careful with; wouldn't there be a bit of a boomerang effect? "Take that, you villain! Ow."

Cosh is indeed Brit. Nobody here would recognize it, either. Unless s/he had watched as much Morse, Frost, Dalziel&Pascoe, Wexford, McCallum, Silent Witness, Wycliffe, etc. etc., as yours truly.

[Pert_UK]

45. Who are you who are so wise in the ways of ninja?

:-)

Speaking of Morse, I was punting in Oxford a couple of Saturdays ago, just in case anyone needed to reinforce their image of me as a floppy-haired, limp-wristed dandy.

P.

[iverglas]

47. well, grasshopper

Ah, it's been a long week. I typed "grosshapper".

Where's that bad joke thread?

I am but a, well, you wouldn't even say novice. Complete ignoramus would be more like it. But me & google are unbeatable.

slackmaster's comment made me snort, so I was curious and looked up the California Penal Code, and then "slungshot".

Were you here for the great "spiked wristband" debate? I think I may have forgotten to mention at the time that I actually once defended someone charged with possession of that particular prohibited weapon; tsk, the streets of Toronto are just chock a block with dangerous things. That was one of my two or perhaps three forays into the criminal courts; I was an articling student acting under instructions that time. I believe I lost. The other one I remember was a silly bit of business that arose when Reagan was in town one day, and a friend of mine was driving his car full of picket sticks and signs from campus to downtown for the protest, and some cops were following him because they figured he had sticks bigger than the 1x2s permitted under the parade permit, and he got lost and they lost him, and then they found him when he parked downtown, and they started annoying him, and my client who was just along for the ride started to sidle off and they put him in a police car and he got out, and they put him back in and he got out again, and they charged him with obstructing police in the performance of their duties. My excellent witness was the senior employee in the Prime Minister's Office who had watched it all from her window and called the mayor to make a police brutality complaint, although I don't really know why. So I argued that he may indeed have obstructed the cops, but they weren't performing any duty when they tried to detain him, they were interfering in him going about his lawful business. The judge found that they were performing their duties but he hadn't obstructed them. I figured I may as well have stayed in bed.

Which is where I may go back to soon today ...

.