Man jailed for wife's guns/Bremerton WA

[OttavaKarhu]

PORT ORCHARD, Wash. – A Bremerton man who refused to plead guilty to a gun crime, despite being offered a deal that would allow him to avoid jail time, was convicted by a Kitsap County Superior Court jury on Wednesday.

Luke T. Groves, 37, was convicted of two counts of first-degree unlawful possession of a firearm after a three-day trial. He contends he wasn't notified that his 1990 burglary conviction carried with it a lifetime firearms prohibition and he refused to take a plea deal offered by county prosecutors.

The standard sentencing range for the crimes he was convicted of Wednesday is 31 to 41 months in prison. He will be sentenced by Kitsap County Superior Court Judge Sally Olsen on Jan. 29.

After the verdict was read, Groves hugged his wife, Rebecca, and was hadcuffed and led away to the Kitsap County jail.

Groves called police in late November 2008 after he returned home to find a broken window in his Hewitt Avenue house. He says he told officers that his wife owned a rifle and handgun.

Nothing had been stolen from the home, but Groves was arrested for being a felon in possession of firearms. He had been convicted of breaking into a Shelton school in 1990. Groves moved in with his wife, who owned the two guns, in 2003.

~~~

More at:
http://www.theolympian.com/northwest/story/1093462.html

Sounds like this man took a highly principled stance--refusing to falsely plead guilty to save his skin in a law clearly designed to increase surveillance of families and strip people of their rights decades after they have paid for teenage mistakes.

Thoughts?

[oneshooter]

1. If she can prove ownership

by way of recites and/or registration. Then he would have a basis for an appeal.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[depakid]

4. Nope. Read the article

the issue is dominion and control of the firearms- which he certainly had.

[taurus145]

18. I'n so happy that you were there to confirm that.

Judges and juries get it wrong from time to time. I won't even go into the media fumbles I've seen.

Must be nice to sit up there on Olympus being omniscient.

[paulsby]

19. no, he doesn't

the issue was "dominion and control" not ownership.

that's the way case law in WA goes...

the prosecutor never claimed he owned the guns. the claim was that they were in the household, that he had dominion and control, and that he was a convicted felon.

those are the elements needed to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

[sharesunited]

2. Just confiscate the guns. No reason to incarcerate this man.

[OttavaKarhu]

8. The guns are legally owned by his wife.

Why should she be stripped of her rights to self protection?

[sharesunited]

12. Please explain how someone who is married to someone who can't own guns can have guns in the house.

Do you just love guns so much that this conflict can be overlooked?

[taurus145]

17. You think she should lose her rights because of his issue?

That makes about as much sense as suspending the driver's license of the spouse of a convicted drunk driver.

How about this? I don't know if you're married or not, and quite frankly don't care. We're going to make you married for now. As I recall from your profile you trade stocks or commodities. Should a broker lose his/her license because his/her spouse (also a broker) lost his/her license? That makes as much sense.

[paulsby]

20. imo, he shouldn't be. but the law differs

the issue was dominion and control.

he had it. he was a convicted felon.

thus, under the RCW and case law, the case was proven.

the jury could have nullified of course, but did not.

the prosecutor also offered him a no jail deal, which he didn't take.

[depakid]

3. Sounds like a person who took a big risk with an American jury- and lost

To convict Groves, jurors had to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of three things: that he knowingly had possession or control of a firearm; that he is a convicted felon, and that the crime occurred in Kitsap County.

Should have taken the deal.

On the other hand- a reasonable prosecutor ought to have used their discretion and simply not charged the guy (and not wasted scarce state resources on such a case). But- reasonableness is the price the nation pays for choosing to live in irrational fear.

[eqfan592]

5. Damn, you ALMOST made it

You ALMOST went an entire post without underscoring how much of an idiot your posts can make you look like at times.

"But- reasonableness is the price the nation pays for choosing to live in irrational fear."

This from the person who so shockingly in fear of his neighbors that the thought of them legally owning a firearm apparently kept him up at night. So much so that the felt he needed to strip them of their best ability to resist a violent criminal should the need arise.

[eqfan592]

6. Oh, and try giving this a read through before you decide to post again.

Since you obviously missed it the first time through.

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/austudies.html#top

[OttavaKarhu]

7. Why should he have taken the deal?

He wasn't guilty in his view. His wife was in possession of the guns.

You also gloss over a major issue, which maybe you don't know about: Kitsap County has many upscale people in power (like the prosecutor) while this man was to my best estimation just a working stiff from a navy yard town.

I don't think this is about safety or reason or fear or deals at all.

I think it's about class and control. What the jury effectively said was that because his wife chose to marry him, 13 years after he committed and paid for teenage crimes, SHE is not allowed to defend HER safety with legally owned and acquired firearms.

And that strikes me as misogynist in the extreme.

[depakid]

9. He was guilty UNDER THE LAW

and the evidence was overwhelming.

Maybe he wanted to be some sort of martyr. Maybe he was just stubborn- or just a dumbshit who thought he could beat the rap because he was cooperative.

Either way- now he's looking down the barrel at a stretch in the pokey.

Could be he'll luck out- and will have a judge who'll take his circumstances into account and grant a little mercy.

Then again- fearful voters hate those sorts of judges- and in many places judges no longer even have the discretion to depart much from the guidelines. If at all.

[PavePusher]

15. Maybe, as you so often claim, the law is bad and should be changed. n/t

[OttavaKarhu]

24. I trust we'll be seeing about that in appeal.

Clear cut case for jury nullifcation in this round...but unfortunately too many people here in Mossbackland don't know about it, and when they learn about it, it's only through the media pimping tales about assholes like Mr. Montfort.

I received jury instructions this past summer on jury duty and was stunned when the bailiff, when asked about jury nullification by two different people, completely misrepresented the case law. Why this stunned me, I don't know. Around here guys his age don't in general risk their civil servant pensions by telling the populist truth, choosing instead to say what their bosses want us all to believe.

You aren't from the US, are you, depakid? You fling a lot of assumptions about people's local issues that bear no resemblance to the realities. And you seem to relish projecting your assumptions about people and situations.

I personally don't like it when people use local issues that don't apply to them to flog whatever horse they're flogging politically, socially, etc. It's all well and good for you to air an opinion, but your judgments about the people involved are irresponsible and utter fantasy. It's also domineering, exploitive, and imperialist.

I realize of course that there can be no such thing as a domineering, exploitive, or imperialist Democrat.

:D

[SteveM]

10. Hopefully, a good appeal will be made. This is unfair...

and it happens nightly with regard "illegal drugs." Others in the household where drugs may be kept are subject to the same kind of interpretation. Sentences in these cases have reached double-digit years.

[depakid]

11. In a society ruled by irrational fear- fairness & proportionality aren't virtues held in high esttem

In fact- they aren't necessarily even considered virtues.

[eqfan592]

13. Interesting insights about your nation, depakid.

Ya know, I'm curious depakid, how often have you ever actually visited the United States? How much time have you spent with some of it's everyday people?

Because I'll be honest, I haven't visited every state in the Union, but where I live in Wisconsin, and the many states I've visited, I've never see this "fear" you claim is so pervasive in this nation. Maybe with the exception of after 9/11, when the entire nation was pretty freaked out (and understandably so I think). Even when I was part of the anti-gun rights movement (in my ignorant and misguided youth) I never thought it had anything to do with gun owners being "afraid" as others like to claim, simply that they themselves were going against the facts that the Brady Campaign had handed me (imagine my shock when I found out how full of shit the Brady Campaign is).

The gun owners I know treat it as a hobby, and as a protection against a potential threat similar to a fire alarm. They don't live in constant fear of an attack, they simply feel it's better to be reasonably prepared. Does this, to you, translate into fear?

[SteveM]

14. Which is why I hope he gets a good lawyer and appeals...

"In a society ruled by irrational fear" -- sounds like one of those voice-over trailers for a Hollywood thriller.

[taurus145]

16. The irrational fear lies with you and Australian lawmakers

On the whole, we Americans do not fear gun owners. You and your government obviously do fear gun owners. That's the only plausible reason for banning firearms.

Your turn. Whine away.

[paulsby]

23. this wasn;'t a "strict liability " offense

like the laws you mention. he had DOMINION/CONTROL.

[paulsby]

22. the issue is the REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON, which is the legislator's fault

they could change the law. they don't.

i once arrested a guy for VUFA for having a flare gun. he apparently didn't think that was a firearm under the RCW. guess what? it was.

do i think the case is stupid?

sure.

do i think the law is stupid?

sure.

but the ultimate stupidity is a defendant who clearly WAS guilty, who was offered a no jail deal and chose to gamble. he WAS guilty. his only chance was jury nullification, frankly. because the facts were on the state's side

he also, fwiw, could have petitioned YEARS ago to get his right to carry/possess BACK. it's difficult, but doable.

[paulsby]

21. the prosecutor DID use discretion in offering a no jail deal

could they have gone farther and decided to nolle pros?

sure, but a no jail deal for VUFA in WA ***is*** a large discretionary gift, and they guy CHOSE to not take the gift.

i certainly don't think it's right, in the cosmic sense, but we are talking court of law, not court of ultimate common sense and justice and what paulsby wants