Best argument i've heard up to this point, but this information was not in evidence at the beginning of this thread.
So the guy wasn't convicted of a felony in the previous case, but was convicted of one in this case? Was he actually convicted, or was he just arrested and charged? Your snippet doesn't say he was convicted, it just says he was arrested.
Found the article.
"Zeigler eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge but served no jail time, court records show."
Misdemeanor charge the first time, double felony the second time. Well this more justifies it, but it still seems way over the top to me.
Assault with intent to murder without any actual assault or murder occurring? How does that work?
Then throw on a charge of possession of a firearm in commission of a felony before it has been demonstrated to be a felony?
If he beats the first charge, he automatically beats the second charge. If he's convicted on the first charge, he's automatically convicted on the second. Sounds like leverage rather than justice.
The law has it's machinations that look suspiciously like abuse to me.
I would assume he was offered some kind of plea deal and didn't take it. It's possible the DA didn't want to deal due to the previous case, as well as video evidence making it a slam dunk win. Agree (as I posted before) that the 4-10 years is a bit much. Seeing as no one was injured, 1 year in prison, 2-5 more years parole, and felony conviction resulting in loss of 2A rights probably would have sufficed.