First person charged under Florida 'red flag' law found guilty

AR10ShooterinNC

AR10ShooterinNC

Happy to be here
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2016
Messages
13,569
Location
High Point
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
https://www.foxnews.com/us/first-person-charged-under-florida-red-flag-law-found-guilty

The first person to have his guns confiscated under Florida’s 2018 “red flag” law has been found guilty over his refusal to voluntarily surrender the weapons.
Jerron Smith, 33, now faces up to five years in prison after a jury in Broward County rejected his argument that he did not fully understand the new law. The jury returned the verdict Friday after a short trial.
Smith, of Deerfield Beach, was the subject of a risk protection order soon after the law was enacted in response to the Parkland high school mass shooting in February 2018.
 
At one time, juries understood their role was to ensure the individual wasn't steamrolled by the State.

Decades of public education has made them accomplices in validating the immoral and unconstitutional reach of the government.

"Live Free, or Die" is rapidly becoming a way of life rather than a morale patch, bumper sticker, or license plate motto.
 
Last edited:
SPM said:
Atbone time, juries understood their role was to ensure the individual wasn't steamrolled by the State.

Decades of public education has made them accomplices in validating the immoral and unconstitutional reach of the government.

"Live Free, or Die" is rapidly becoming a way of life rather than a morale patch, bumper sticker, or license plate motto.
Click to expand...

Sorry, it's illegal to remind juries about things like jury nullification.
But at least the ACLU is taking that fight on. It's nice when they do something right.
"I Was Arrested and Detained for Passing Out Fliers Near a Courthouse"
 
SPM said:
Decades of public education has made them accomplices in validating the immoral and unconstitutional reach of the government.
Click to expand...
I've never served on a jury, but I have heard that the 'oath' they try to get you to take states something to the effect of can you willingly uphold the law as written? If I were on a jury, there is a good chance the answer would be no. Like this morning, reading about the guy who stole the ambulance getting assault on a cop charge. I don't agree that cops should have special status to begin with, so I object to them carry guns where others can't and likewise I would not be willing to assign special penalty for "assaulting" one as being worse than anyone else.
 
noway2 said:
I've never served on a jury, but I have heard that the 'oath' they try to get you to take states something to the effect of can you willingly uphold the law as written? If I were on a jury, there is a good chance the answer would be no. Like this morning, reading about the guy who stole the ambulance getting assault on a cop charge. I don't agree that cops should have special status to begin with, so I object to them carry guns where others can't and likewise I would not be willing to assign special penalty for "assaulting" one as being worse than anyone else.
Click to expand...
Much like the ridiculous “hate crime” laws. If you violently attacked somebody, that’s hateful, prosecute them for attacking somebody not for what’s going on inside her noodle up for what they actually did.
 
DrScaryGuy said:
Sorry, it's illegal to remind juries about things like jury nullification.
But at least the ACLU is taking that fight on. It's nice when they do something right.
"I Was Arrested and Detained for Passing Out Fliers Near a Courthouse"
Click to expand...

Correct. Which is why those who know what it is, if selected by the jury, need to understand how to introduce it during deliberations in such a way as to not get dismissed from the jury by the judge.
noway2 said:
I've never served on a jury, but I have heard that the 'oath' they try to get you to take states something to the effect of can you willingly uphold the law as written? If I were on a jury, there is a good chance the answer would be no. Like this morning, reading about the guy who stole the ambulance getting assault on a cop charge. I don't agree that cops should have special status to begin with, so I object to them carry guns where others can't and likewise I would not be willing to assign special penalty for "assaulting" one as being worse than anyone else.
Click to expand...

I got called last year. The way the prosecutor goes about weeding out anyone who may try to go with jury nullification (which is completely legal and your Right as a juror, but is detrimental to the State trying to enforce unjust law) is asking you (they asked us as a group, but I did hear a few individuals asked as well) if you can, if the State proves its case, still deliver a conviction despite any moral objections to the law in question.

If you answer no, that your conscience and morality still matter in the jury box, you're pretty much assured to be dismissed by the prosecutor (especially with a police officer whispering in her ear).
 
bigfelipe said:
Guy is up on attempted murder charges... Tough to feel bad for him...
Click to expand...

5c39550b820ef0d5e3f668f2a02f611e--philosophy-quotes-great-quotes.jpg


You don't have to feel sorry for him to demand a respect for his Rights, and by extension, your own.

A full half of the Bill of Rights protects our Rights as citizens accused of committing a crime, because that is always the excuse laid by the government in chipping away or outright violating the Rights of us all.
 
it doesn’t seem like this guy’s guns were taken because of a “thought“ crime or a dumb tweet

He was shooting at someone...

i guess i’m a phudd but if he shot at me and my family i’d prefer he not have his guns.

it’s a lot easier to say he should have his guns if you only think about them shooting at someone you don’t know and don’t care about.

this is one of those situations where the “ if you’re free in society then you should have full 2A rights” is tough.
 
Last edited:
SPM said:
is asking you (they asked us as a group, but I did hear a few individuals asked as well) if you can, if the State proves its case, still deliver a conviction despite any moral objections to the law in question.
Click to expand...

A. I am not a Benthamite legal positivist.
 
SPM said:
The way the prosecutor goes about weeding out anyone who may try to go with jury nullification ... is asking you ... if you can... still deliver a conviction despite any moral objections to the law in question
Click to expand...
I've often been accused of being morally ambiguous in a lot of situations.
I'm quite sure I CAN.... say "guilty" and feel just fine about it.
But will I?
Words are their tools, if they use the wrong tool, that's on them. :)
 
SPM said:
5c39550b820ef0d5e3f668f2a02f611e--philosophy-quotes-great-quotes.jpg


You don't have to feel sorry for him to demand a respect for his Rights, and by extension, your own.

A full half of the Bill of Rights protects our Rights as citizens accused of committing a crime, because that is always the excuse laid by the government in chipping away or outright violating the Rights of us all.
Click to expand...

He got out on bail. This isn't a red flag case. They took guns he allegedly used in a crime. That's not erpo, that's collecting evidence...

This case isn't the hill to die on...
 
One condition of bail should have been to surrender all firearms, are we sure that it wasn’t? I kinda expected it to be a standard ask.
 
noway2 said:
I have heard that the 'oath' they try to get you to take states something to the effect of can you willingly uphold the law as written?
Click to expand...

I've not made it to a jury, but I've been called in and questioned twice. Last time they asked something along the lines of "do you think you can base your verdict on the law and not your opinion?" I said "I don't think what he's accused of is even be a real crime, so I'm going to honestly answer "no" rather than lie to the court". Prosecutor bounced me about 30 seconds later. Wasn't an ass about it or anything, just answered what I actually thought vs. what they wanted to hear.
 
This looks to me like the system trying to get folks used to hearing Red Flag Law. This "gentleman" is a serious cat, with some serious charges he has to work through. Even If they don't get him on the previous charges , he could pull 5 years on this.

As some body said, I'm not sure This is the guy we need to back. Think I'll wait a while on this.
 
SPM said:
Correct. Which is why those who know what it is, if selected by the jury, need to understand how to introduce it during deliberations in such a way as to not get dismissed from the jury by the judge.


I got called last year. The way the prosecutor goes about weeding out anyone who may try to go with jury nullification (which is completely legal and your Right as a juror, but is detrimental to the State trying to enforce unjust law) is asking you (they asked us as a group, but I did hear a few individuals asked as well) if you can, if the State proves its case, still deliver a conviction despite any moral objections to the law in question.

If you answer no, that your conscience and morality still matter in the jury box, you're pretty much assured to be dismissed by the prosecutor (especially with a police officer whispering in her ear).
Click to expand...

Of course I can. I won't choose to do so, but I _could_!

I feel no compunction to help them create a jury of mindless drones instead of a jury of peers as is the right of the defendant.
 
Last edited:
Courts have been empowered to disarm persons through due process since 1789. The primary argument we use against RFL's is that we don't need them, there's already a legal process that doesn't violate the Bill of Rights. They might have used RFL to disarm this guy because it was expedient, but they could have done it as they always have and I wouldn't have a problem with it. Especially for a guy charged with a felony for shooting at someone.
 
I either have a misunderstanding of the law or this case. I thought RFL allowed someone to report you because they thought you were a threat but you had not done nothing wrong. In this case (if I read it right) this guy shot at a vehicle with his best friend in it. That alone is reason enuff to confiscate his guns. What am I missing here???
 
Schattenreiter said:
I either have a misunderstanding of the law or this case. I thought RFL allowed someone to report you because they thought you were a threat but you had not done nothing wrong. In this case (if I read it right) this guy shot at a vehicle with his best friend in it. That alone is reason enuff to confiscate his guns. What am I missing here???
Click to expand...
I think it may be complicated because he has not been convicted of this shooting. Agree that it’s a silly /improper application of the RFL.
 
JimB said:
I think it may be complicated because he has not been convicted of this shooting. Agree that it’s a silly /improper application of the RFL.
Click to expand...


Not having been convicted is not the same as not being charged with any crime. If he was arrested and charged then as I understand it there is no need for the RFL. My understanding of RFL is someone reports you as a threat, they seize your guns then you have to prove you are not a threat to get them back. As I see this case there is no need for FRL to be invoked.
 
bigfelipe said:
Guy is up on attempted murder charges... Tough to feel bad for him...
Click to expand...

Yes very true, but what has that got to do with red flag laws. Let's say it's a lesser charge of discharging a firearm in city limits as you put down a rabid raccoon. They could confiscate all of your guns. Every time a law is broken, it will be a opportunity to take your guns.
 
Last edited:
MostWanted said:
Courts have been empowered to disarm persons through due process since 1789. The primary argument we use against RFL's is that we don't need them, there's already a legal process that doesn't violate the Bill of Rights. They might have used RFL to disarm this guy because it was expedient, but they could have done it as they always have and I wouldn't have a problem with it. Especially for a guy charged with a felony for shooting at someone.
Click to expand...

Point of order: The Bill of Rights was not ratified until 1791.
 
Goofyfoot2001 said:
Yes very true, but what has that got to do with red flag laws. Let's say it's a lesser charge of discharging a firearm in city limits as you put down a rabid raccoon. They could confiscate all of your guns. Every time a law is broken, it will be a opportunity to take your guns.
Click to expand...


But it isn't a lesser charge... It's attempted murder. Sorry, I'm with the cops on this one. Dude gets off, he gets his guns back. Until then he out on bail and has some limits set. Same as anyone else.

I'm against red flag laws as they stand, but this isn't the same animal. Why they have conflated this case with ERPOs I don't know. Probably just as a simplification of process.

The 5 year potential for not complying is scary but only if he winds up being innocent somehow of everything else...
 
As the saying goes, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Giving up freedom, a little bit at a time, all in the name of safety and security may sound like a good idea at the time, but the net effect is bad. The stage is being set so that when one is simply accused of a "crime" (and keep in mind that today there are FAR more "crimes" than the founders ever imagined, mostly made up one with out a victim) that it becomes grounds to confiscate your property. We know that the only reason govt, the left, or anyone wants a disarmed populace is so that they can do things to them that they otherwise wouldn't be able to get away with. Sorry, but no sale on this. If the guy is too much of a danger to be allowed to maintain possession of his rightful property during the accusation phase then he's too dangerous to be allowed out.

And some folks would stand around in amazement to learn that normal, everyday, "law abiding" folks are talking about the need to hide a few tools, just in case for that rainy day. Gee, I wonder why.
 
Schattenreiter said:
Not having been convicted is not the same as not being charged with any crime. If he was arrested and charged then as I understand it there is no need for the RFL. My understanding of RFL is someone reports you as a threat, they seize your guns then you have to prove you are not a threat to get them back. As I see this case there is no need for FRL to be invoked.
Click to expand...
Obviously, not sure why you think it necessary to insert that statement.
I agree that there shouldn’t be, hence my earlier statement.
I’m not sure exactly how the RFL process works, once they’ve abandoned the rule of law I lose confidence in ever getting things returned.
Agreed, see my earlier post.
 
JimB said:
Obviously, not sure why you think it necessary to insert that statement.
I agree that there shouldn’t be, hence my earlier statement.
I’m not sure exactly how the RFL process works, once they’ve abandoned the rule of law I lose confidence in ever getting things returned.
Agreed, see my earlier post.
Click to expand...


Simply mulling over my confusion about RFL. Obviously "innocent until proven guilty" applies but having been charged is enuff to confiscate his weapons so why is RFL even an issue in this case?
 
Schattenreiter said:
why is RFL even an issue in this case?
Click to expand...
bigfelipe said:
. It seems like a conflation of unrelated legal instruments...
Click to expand...
bigfelipe said:
I'm against red flag laws as they stand, but this isn't the same animal.
Click to expand...
Goofyfoot2001 said:
Yes very true, but what has that got to do with red flag laws.
Click to expand...
JimB said:
Agree that it’s a silly /improper application of the RFL.
Click to expand...
MostWanted said:
. They might have used RFL to disarm this guy because it was expedient
Click to expand...
bigfelipe said:
This isn't a red flag case
Click to expand...
rdinatal said:
o it starts...
Click to expand...

"They" are just getting "us" used to hearing Red Flag Law to justify seizure. Say it til it's the New Norm.
 
vp9c said:
it doesn’t seem like this guy’s guns were taken because of a “thought“ crime or a dumb tweet

He was shooting at someone...

i guess i’m a phudd but if he shot at me and my family i’d prefer he not have his guns.

it’s a lot easier to say he should have his guns if you only think about them shooting at someone you don’t know and don’t care about.

this is one of those situations where the “ if you’re free in society then you should have full 2A rights” is tough.
Click to expand...
If he's convicted of a violent crime is one thing, but just being charged is not a reason to take his guns.
 
BatteryOaksBilly said:
"They" are just getting "us" used to hearing Red Flag Law to justify seizure. Say it til it's the New Norm.
Click to expand...
exactly.
See how well red flag laws worked? this man tried to kill somebody so we HAD TO red flag him!!!
never mind that the attempted murder charge and locking him up would accomplish the same thing, but better. never mind that you could probably make giving up his guns and a restraining order a condition of bail...
it's the red flag laws that are saving lives!!!!11
 
gunbelt said:
If he's convicted of a violent crime is one thing, but just being charged is not a reason to take his guns.
Click to expand...

i respect your position.

if i’m the person he tried to shoot. i’m probably going to be ok w the seizure.

if he was charged w grand theft auto or embezzlement i would definitely disagree w seizure

if he just thought bad things about me and said he wanted to do bad things to me then i would not agree w seizure

truth is the real problem w this case is that he is out on bail...but freedom is a probably a bigger inalienable right than 2A...so should people charged w crimes be totally free until trial?

my head is exploding
 
gunbelt said:
If he's convicted of a violent crime is one thing, but just being charged is not a reason to take his guns.
Click to expand...
vp9c said:
i respect your position.

if i’m the person he tried to shoot. i’m probably going to be ok w the seizure.

if he was charged w grand theft auto or embezzlement i would definitely disagree w seizure

if he just thought bad things about me and said he wanted to do bad things to me then i would not agree w seizure

truth is the real problem w this case is that he is out on bail...but freedom is a probably a bigger inalienable right than 2A...so should people charged w crimes be totally free until trial?

my head is exploding
Click to expand...

The basic facts of this case are not in dispute. The man took his gun and fired it out his car window at another man. And you think he should be allowed to keep his guns for another year or two while this grinds through the courts? The law has always been that you surrender your guns when charged with a felony. Maybe if some dentist is charged with not paying his taxes, you could make the case that he's not threat to society. But letting this guy keep his guns until the formality of a trial is pretty foolish.
 
MostWanted said:
The basic facts of this case are not in dispute. The man took his gun and fired it out his car window at another man. And you think he should be allowed to keep his guns for another year or two while this grinds through the courts? The law has always been that you surrender your guns when charged with a felony. Maybe if some dentist is charged with not paying his taxes, you could make the case that he's not threat to society. But letting this guy keep his guns until the formality of a trial is pretty foolish.
Click to expand...
Those "proven facts" are yet to be decided in court. Innocent until proven guilty. Maybe the folks he shot at needed shooting. The courts will have to decide that. I'm not willing to give up any Liberty for some cockamamie idea that .gov will protect me.
 
vp9c said:
i respect your position.

if i’m the person he tried to shoot. i’m probably going to be ok w the seizure.

if he was charged w grand theft auto or embezzlement i would definitely disagree w seizure

if he just thought bad things about me and said he wanted to do bad things to me then i would not agree w seizure

truth is the real problem w this case is that he is out on bail...but freedom is a probably a bigger inalienable right than 2A...so should people charged w crimes be totally free until trial?

my head is exploding
Click to expand...
but were you asking for the bullet?
If you were pointing a gun out your window at him, and he shot first, but then you drove off, ditched the gun, and made the call to 911 first, he'd be in this same sticky situation that I don't know enough about.

I'm going to stick with my old stand-by... if he's safe enough to be out on the street, he should retain all of his rights. until he's proven to not deserve them anymore. And once he's served his time - if he's safe enough to be out on the street, he should have all of his rights restored.
That's putting a lot of hope on the prison industrial complex actually rehabilitating folks... but that's supposed to be their job. If they're negligent and putting dangerous people out on the street, we need to start watching the watchers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom