Ex-police lieutenant wants job back after jury clears him on straw gun purchase

Tuscon Citizen ^ | September 20, 2003 | DAVID L. TEIBEL

[Mulder]

A former Tucson police lieutenant, fired after he was indicted for allegedly falsifying a federal firearms form, wants his job back after being acquitted in court, his attorney said yesterday.

Michael J. Lara and lawyer Michael L. Piccarreta hope to meet with Police Chief Richard Miranda and commanders to present evidence that came out after Lara was fired, showing Lara did nothing wrong in filling out forms when buying a .40-caliber Glock pistol for a friend, Piccarreta said.

[Mulder]

I still don't understand what the guy is accused of doing. It is not illegal to purchase a gun for someone as a gift.

I'm glad he was acquitted.

[AAABEST]

Federal law allows someone to buy a gun as a gift for another person, if that person is not prohibited from possessing a firearm, Piccarreta said.

So if I want to give somebody a gun as gift I have to do a background check on them or I could go to jail for 5 years?

[Mulder]

So if I want to give somebody a gun as gift I have to do a background check on them or I could go to jail for 5 years?

If the bastards can persecute one of their own officers, they can do it even more easily to Joe Q. Citizen.

Fortunately, the jury protected him in this case.

I hope he gets his job back and is compensated for damages as well.

[longtermmemmory]

Now starts the BS, even though he was found not guilty by and to the exclusion of reasonable doubt, he has to deal with the ambiguous and political standards.

(remember oj, criminally innocent but civily liable)

[coloradan]

It's better if you don't know exactly what the law states is and is not legal; that way, you can be held in fear of arbitrary, capricious laws, and the power is given to honorable, benficent, and merciful government agents to prosecute you or not, depending on how much money you gave to their re-election campaigns. It's for your own good.

[Mulder]

Now starts the BS, even though he was found not guilty by and to the exclusion of reasonable doubt, he has to deal with the ambiguous and political standards.

Whenever a jury finds someone "not guilty" as easily as they apparently did in this case, I wish they would issue a unanimous statement proclaiming that their belief that the defendant is also "innocent".

Furthermore, they should issue a scathing finding towards the prosecution for bringing such a pathetic case. THAT would prevent a lot of these frivilous prosecutions for political purposes. Not too many politicians would enjoy seeing the papers carry a story about how 12 jurors judged them as totally incompetent and/or vindictive.

[longtermmemmory]

prosecutors who are overly zelous use the disctinction of innocent vs not guilty. They believe EVERYONE is guilty of something ALWAYS.

In their eye the defendant is still guilty, the jury just did not see enough evidence to remove doubt.