Pregnant woman who killed intruder faces felony gun charge due to previous pot conviction

lol. Maybe someone should start a GoFundMe page for this girl and use 1/3 of it to hire a lawyer that can get her off on extenuating circumstances.

And spend the other 2/3 on pot and guns.

Did she get a felony for being in possession one time?
I would like to know more about her arrest.

Lots of people get caught with one drug or another and walk away with a misdemeanor.

As far as I know felons are not allowed to possess or live in a home with a gun.

a reply to: andy06shake

I have read a few articles where people were trying to hand out literature on the citizens ability to nullify and the state came down on these people HARD. Making up bogus claims of disrupting the peace and jailing them to silence this message.

That is when I started taking notice on this wonderful tool of the people. That is until the judges have the power to declare a wiping of the jury and installing a new panel at the mere suggestion. It should be mandatory that judges inform the jury of this right, every single time.

Why is telling jurors about jury nullification illegal but it's legal when used by jurors? Isn’t it possible that a juror may actually know about jury nullification beforehand?

www.quora.com... juror-may-actually-know-about-jury-nullification-beforehand

a reply to: Bluntone22

On Feb. 1, 2017, Noble had pleaded guilty to felony possession of marijuana with purpose to deliver and felony possession of drug paraphernalia, and was given a five-year suspended sentence that included a condition that she "not possess or use any firearms," Shue said.

The incident occurred in June 2016, ABC Fort Smith affiliate KHBS reported. Noble told the station that she was in the car with other people when police found drugs inside the car, but no one claimed them so everyone in the car received the same charges.

Actually there is a stipulation in the law that makes felons unable to possess firearms that state in the event of likely death one can indeed defend themselves by any means necessary.

We would have to search to find it but i am quite sure it is there.

But people over there are allowed to drink tons of alcohol and shoot people, no problem then.
Makes sense...

www.hillslawoffice.com...

There are, however, certain circumstances under which a convicted felon can possess a firearm. One of those exceptions is the affirmative defense of “necessity.” ... If the convicted felon meets all five prongs the defense will be available to them. Can a Felon Possess a Gun and/or a Firearm if His ... - Hills Law Office www.hillslawoffice.com/.../can-a-felon-possess-a-gun-andor-a-firearm-if-his-life-depend...

The defendant must be able to demonstrate they 1) reasonably feared death or serious injury from an imminent threat, 2) not recklessly placed himself in the path of that threat, 3) had no reasonable alternative to possession, 4) reasonably believed that possession would avert the threat, and 5) maintained possession only as long as necessary to avoid the threat. USA v. Jaffari Moore 12-6437/6437 filed October 23, 2013 (recommended for full text publication).

Not Guilty

A Felon in Possession of Firearms. ... Because of your criminal record, you cannot legally purchase or possess firearms. However, a significant other, a roommate, or a family member may want to exercise their Second Amendment rights. In many cases, they own a firearm to protect themselves and their residence.Sep 27, 2017 Can a Felon Live with Someone Who Owns a Gun? Check Your Gun ... wiperecord.com...

First, take note that possession is not the same as ownership. What’s important in these cases is that the convicted felon is not in possession of the firearm. However, you can be guilty of constructive possession if the following are true: The felon knows that the firearm was in the home The person had the ability to maintain control over the firearm

So at the worst this person could be found guilty of constructive possession. This case is b.s..

a reply to: notsure1

So is this justice?

No.


I hope there are people in the streets of arkansas protesting this.

originally posted by: Ameilia
a reply to: notsure1

I would never convict this woman were I on her jury. I mean, this is laughable. What is she supposed to do, decide "Oh well there is a gun here but I'm not allowed to touch it so I just won't and then I'll die." There is a saying for this: I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

They pick retards for jurers and instruct them that no matter how crappy the law is, was it "technically" broken. And they have to agree on that and say well yes. They aren't going to pick a jury who says "we don't care what the law says, morally you can go F yourself".

a reply to: CosmicAwakening

Absolute truth there. I was called up for jury duty on one of the first attempts to get a murder cleared for reasons of insanity in our state. The defense started asking questions and got to 'do you think a person could do certain things they are not fully aware of'. Every one of us 12 potentials agreed except for me. They pointedly asked me a couple more specific questions and then dismissed me because I basically asked them how I couldn't be responsible for my own actions, that I didn't understand how that would be possible.

Maybe I should have lied to stay on the jury but I saw what they were trying to do and it is was pure #ing BS. I couldn't even pretend. Luckily their attempts failed and I hope set precedent for years to come.

a reply to: ClovenSky

how I couldn't be responsible for my own actions,

While this is seriously off-topic, I can say from first hand experience that it's possible to do things one would not ordinarily consider normal behavior.

Some people have mental disorders that shift their perception where they may not recognize aberrant actions while performing them, and the standard rules of behavior are forgotten.

After shifting back to normal, they may then recognize, much to their horror, their erroneous and potentially aggressive behavior.

So, the question then arises: is the "normal mode" personality responsible for the crime of the "error mode" personality?

That's probably a good theme for a thread of its own...

-dex

In what way does being charged in the past for a lesser crime prevent you from stopping a worse crime?

a reply to: sean

This thread or OP to be excusea... forgive me but do and would you not protect your familair? get the snip away you pompuos fudges... lie truth in your kin, and forever fret yor hardy's

a reply to: notsure1
The man punched a pregnant woman in the stomach, so he got off laughably easy if he was only shot to death. Even if we don't consider the legal aspect of this (Which she is not-guilty in any non-corrupt court at this point), She was defending an unborn child from an intruder. The day it becomes a crime in the United States to protect the children is the day i hop on a plane to leave. It is infuriating that the corrupt legal system would even consider this. It is not even her gun, and she was in a circumstance where she feared the life of herself, but also her baby. If the jury does not agree with protecting a baby from an insane intruder they should just go to hell! Clearly i am biased towards the mother, but I cannot think of any earthly reason she should be tried as a criminal in this case. Even the marijuana charge is questionable at best.

Here's a thought:
What if people got out and protested her conviction like they did the deaths of Freddy Gray, Michael Brown or Alton Sterling?
I'm sure the silence will be deafening.

Arkansas. Clinton-land. No one pointed that out yet?

a reply to: notsure1

Typical scumbag laws, she should be held up as a hero and yet once again our useless laws are making her out to be the bad one. I mean "Nevermind" the guy broke in and could've killed her, her hubby, and the baby. It's in Arkansas well at least that part makes sense, too bad we have these ridiculous b.s. rules there and all around the country. SMH

a reply to: Bluntone22

As far as I know felons are not allowed to possess or live in a home with a gun.

The states she can not own or possess a firearm. The gun was owned by her husband and he lived there which made it so the gun can be stored there.

He was also National Guard not that it matters. The prosecution said she should have used a frying pan or bottle instead even if it meant her life.