Petulant Judge Returns Guns, Destroys Ammunition

Gun Watch ^ | 22 February, 2014 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

This "old"  ammunition is safe and reliable

In a well publicized case in Florida, former Marine John Rogers shot and killed a drinking buddy.  He said that he had been attacked after he asked the man to leave.  He retrieved a rifle, and said the man, James DeWitt, then charged him, giving him no choice but to fire.  The case gained some notoriety because Rogers is legally blind.  Rogers spent 22 Months in jail awaiting trail on a first degree murder charge.   Half way through the trial, the judge dismissed the charges under Florida's Stand Your Ground law.

Evidence showed that the dead man was shot from a distance of 18 inches, supporting Rogers account and casting doubt on the claim of DeWitt's girlfriend, Christina Robertson, that the shooting had been completely unprovoked.

Today, 21 February, 2014, nearly  two years after the shooting, Judge John Galluzzo reluctantly returned John Rodgers' guns.   He said that he was forced to do so, because it was the law.  From wesh.com:

 "I have to return property that was taken under the circumstance," Galluzzo said. "I have researched and haven't found case law to say otherwise."

Then, in what can only be described as a fit of petulance, judge Galluzzo ordered all of John Rodgers ammunition be destroyed.

Galluzzo did order that all ammunition to be destroyed. He said it was too old and dangerous.

The judge might not agree with what the law called for. It seems likely that John Rogers tends to be violent when drunk, and he seems to get drunk fairly often.

But he has never crossed the law far enough to be convicted of an offense that would disqualify him from owning guns. We are a nation that is supposed to be ruled by law, rather than men.

The destruction of the ammunition falls under the latter category. Judge Galluzzo, clearly piqued at his inability to deny John Rogers his property, made the unsupported claim that the ammunition was "old and dangerous". I do not see any justification in the law for destruction of such property, or any legal support for Judge Galluzzo's actions. I am sure that he knows, that after spending nearly two years in jail, on a charge that has now been dismissed, that it is unlikely that John Rogers has the stomach for a legal contest with a judge over some ammunition. It seems a case of petty spite, simply because the judge knows that he can get away with it.

The judge's actions, in my opinion, show that he is unfit for the bench. This sort of emotional fit, under the color of law, should never be seen in court. Unfortunately, it is seen all too often.

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

Link to Gun Watch

[marktwain]

How can one expect justice in this judges court? It appears to me that he indulges in petty exercise of power for emotional reasons, when he thinks he can get away with it. Is this sort of action by judges common?

[TigersEye]

Put his name on the list.

[xrmusn]

I am NOT a lawyer nor do I play one on TV but it does seem kind of strange that a person can spend 22 months in jail and have the JUDGE dismiss the case in the middle of the trial.’

Some over exuberant DA or Police should be in the process of hiring a lawyer and/or - at the very least - should be looking for a new line of work.

(I believe) it is one thing if a jury exonerates him after the trial but after so much time in custody just doesn’t seem right for it just to be dropped - without at least someone else confessing to the crime.

[marktwain]

It is not as unusual as you might think. I know of cases where people spent months in jail, because of mistaken identity. If he could not make bond... he stays in jail.

My suspicion is that in this case, once the judge saw the forensic evidence, it was clear that the testimony of the only eye witness other than the defendant, was not credible.

Given that, dismissal is understandable. The prosecution’s case, it seems, rested on that eye witness’ account.

[JRandomFreeper]

That's why, whenever you might be accused of a crime, you get the meanest son-of-a-b!$ch lawyer that you and everyone you know can afford. They stop this kind of petty bull crap.

/johnny

[Hugin]

"Yo, you don't need a criminal atorney; you need a criminal atorney!"

[xrmusn]

It is not as unusual as you might think.
= = = = = = = = = = =
Understand etc BUT this particular case is sort of weird.
NO doubt who did the shooting.
HE probably admitted it and gave full ‘confession’ especially if he felt/knew he had done nothing ‘wrong’.
I realize legally blind doesn’t mean he can’t see but he took a dude out with one shot ... How many have the cops taken out recently with one shot...even though only 18” away?

Guess what is ‘bothering’ me is it apparently wasn’t any new evidence, the shooter vs girlfriend as witness should have have been qualified or disqualified long before they got to where they were at.

This just doesn’t pass the ‘smell test’ - IMNSHO.....

Oh well he is out now and I guess he will have ‘MEAN LAWYERS’ beating his doors down now.

Dependent on the shooters attitude etc, this is a case where you just turn one of those ambulance chasers loose, shoot for the moon - guarantee him a large portion and hope the city settles long before it gets to another long, drawn out trial

[Vendome]

” ...too old and dangerous”

Uhmmm ....what?

I have ammo from WW II

Shoot it all day long and no problemos

The powder and primer are in airtight containers. They would not be subject to oxidation and deteration.

Load em up and let her rip...

[gitmo]

How much ammunition are they destroying?

[marktwain]

I do not know. It would be interesting to find out.