OH: Armed Citizen Found not Guilty. Were Charges Political?

Gun Watch ^ | 24 November, 2014 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

This appears to be another politically motivated trial.  The armed citizen was originally found to have been acting in self defense by the police who investigated the situation.  He was confronted by two men, one with a knife, aged 25 and 26.  There was another witness in their car.  The shooter was 43 and had a valid concealed carry permit.   The family of the attacker who was shot protested, and a prosecutor convinced a grand jury to indict the shooter, two months after the event.  From wlwt.com:

CINCINNATI —A man accused of shooting another driver in a road rage incident last year has been found not guilty on all charges.

(snip)

 The judge said that Furr acted in self defense because Grissom was carrying a knife.

I have not found much detail about this case.  The news reports from Cincinnati are only giving the attacker's side of the story, referring to him as the "victim".  Clearly, the judge and the police did not agree.  It is not unusual for the real victim in these cases to be effectively gagged by the fact that they are facing charges, and their attorney has told them not to talk about the case.

I suspect that the situation was very clear cut, but as we have seen with Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin, an attempt to learn the facts is handicapped by the way the system works.   "Victims" can make incendiary charges, without any worry about repercussions.  The accused can have anything he says used against him, so they must be very cautious.

What is clear is that we do not have a detailed account of what happened when the "victim" was shot.  The accusation simply seems to be "He was shot, therefore he is the victim."   It is not clear if a jury was involved or not.  It is a little unusual for a judge to make a statement such as the one above, so it may have been a trial without a jury.   A person who is accused can waive their right to a jury trial, and many do, when they believe the facts are overwhelmingly in their favor.

It would be nice to read the police reports written immediately after the event.  They likely include statements from all of those involved.

 ©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

[marktwain]

He was shot, therefore, he must be the victim?

It sounds like there was a reason that he was shot.

[nonliberal]

The DA and the prosecutor should both be sued for abuse of the legal process. No fine, just permanently disbarred.

[Old Sarge]

“J’accuse!” appears to be the Left’s battle cry.

“He said it, so it MUST be true, why would he lie?”

Same thing with men being accused of rape or molestation: the accusation is the truth.

[rarestia]

The shooter was 43 and had a valid concealed carry permit

What difference does it make if they had a valid permit or not? The media is writing the narrative that we need to be permitted to defend ourselves. It's along the same lines that people believe that firearms have to be registered.

[marktwain]

It makes a difference in how he was perceived by police and it shows that he was legally armed. I have heard that the laws in Ohio make it difficult to be legally armed in a vehicle, unless you have a permit.

[marktwain]

It also shows that he did not have any felony convictions or domestic violence convictions. It has become a sort of short hand for “not a violent criminal”.

[ThunderSleeps]

Just the opposite here in Colorado. Anyone - who can legally own a firearm - can have a loaded weapon in their vehicle. The only restriction (based on hunting laws IIRC) is that "long guns" may not have a round in the chamber inside a vehicle.

I carried a loaded handgun in my car for a long time before I finally decided to get a CC permit so I could (legally) carry on my person too.

[CA_soon_gone]

The liberals in CO are trying to work on this law too. The law says you can carry a gun in your car “while traveling”. I’ve read that some places are trying to use that as an excuse to remove the right in certain circumstances. For example, if your trip does not cross a county line you weren’t traveling. It been a while since I saw anything about this.

[bravo whiskey]

I’ll have to look into the travel issue. I’ m looking for a holster to mount on the console next to my right leg since it’s difficult getting to my weapon with big coat and seat belt.

[CA_soon_gone]

With your CC it’s not an issue anyway.

I was in a Hunter Safety class a couple of years ago. There was a retired LEO in the back of the room observing the class. The question came up about transporting in your car and I brought up this law. The LEO claimed he had never heard of such a thing. Being a two day class I went home and got a copy of the law for him the second day. When I showed it to him he looked puzzled and stated he wasn’t a lawyer and would probably arrest you anyway and let the lawyers figure it out. Glad he’s retired.