It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
with the left all to happy to oblige.
Jurors do not get to write their own laws you know. There were specific crimes laid out before them (read them above) and they do not have the option of looking at things outside the scope of that. Every law presented them was a no-brainer as to what their decision was with no wiggle room whatsoever. The jurors could not have decided differently if they wanted too. The issue isn't that he broke the laws though it's more about the mandatory sentence which does not allow a judge to look at other evidence as to the reasons why a crime was committed. In this case neither the jurors or the judge could do anything to help this man out. The law had effectively tied their hands.
Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by kro32
So protecting ourselves and our family should be left to the government?
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
Orville Wollard did not think he had committed a crime by protecting his family. He rejected a plea deal that would have given him probation and a felony record and instead took his case to court
former member of the auxiliary police force
Originally posted by kp1987
And *snip*, if your gonna just try to scare somebody have a cap gun or blanks near.
Originally posted by keepureye2thesky
Originally posted by lestweforget
This would most likely have had a different outcome had the boy been brought up on assault charges prior.
I'd like to add that he wasn't protecting his daughter he was flexing his muscle and it bit him in the ass.
Originally posted by badw0lf
So he's in prison for....
flexing his muscle.
It seems to me most of the charges laid were brought up not because he was a menace or a threat to this punk, but because of Mandatory sentencing for gun offenses.