Posted on 03/14/2005 2:58:53 AM PST by JohnHuang2
In Atlanta, Brian Nichols, 6 feet tall and a couple hundred pounds, was being escorted by a female officer, without cuffs, into court for his rape trial, when he grabbed her gun, shot her, the judge, the court reporter and, later, a deputy and a Customs agent.
Why wasn't he wearing handcuffs? Because "studies" have shown that jurors are "unfairly influenced" when a person on trial is wearing handcuffs. The "study," it can be safely assumed, was conducted by somebody who doesn't have to sit anywhere near defendants in rape and murder trials.
A jury wasn't even seated in the courtroom when the cuff-free Nichols snapped, so there are still a lot of unanswered questions. The answers to which will probably contain a phrase such as "self esteem maintenance."
After the shootings, Nichols fled and was later captured. At his next trial, Nichols will be accompanied by much more security than before. PC will perhaps, again, dictate that he not be cuffed. Instead, Nichols will be surrounded by a dozen heavily armed officers and six attack dogs – anything to avoid the sight of handcuffs unfairly influencing the jury.
By the way, the shootings occurred after Nichols, just a day earlier, tried to smuggle two homemade knives into the courtroom. The next day, still no cuffs.
Political correctness is nothing new to those places where the PC disease is terminal – the large college campus, and anywhere in the public sector. Quite often, level of stupidity in political correctness is so high that it's comical. This time, it's anything but. When PC strikes the college campus, young minds are poisoned. When PC strikes the public sector, including the courtroom, people can get killed.
How will this shooting be handled? Right now, roundtable meetings are taking place. These shootings are being studied in detail, and politicians and activists of all sorts are putting the heat on the FBI, police, security experts and others to find ways to prevent this from happening in the future – without cuffing defendants. Leave it to the bearers of political correctness to remove the cuffs from criminals, and tie the hands of everybody else.
There are two ways to address situations such as this: Business as usual, or a reassessment of procedures. From the PC end of things, it will be "business as usual." This tragic incident will not change how defendants are treated in court. From a procedural standpoint, what will happen is a call for more funding for holster technology research.
Police and security holsters have two or three separate steps involved in order to remove a weapon. Brian Nichols obviously was familiar with these steps, or else the weapon wasn't properly secured by the security officer.
Defendants will not be cuffed in court, but the holsters will be made so tough to get into that the officer will need a masters in physics and 15 minutes in order to remove the weapon. An unfortunate lesson throughout history, however, is that scumbags are often a step or two ahead of the rest of us on some issues. Nowhere does the old phrase "Necessity is the mother of invention" apply more than to desperate criminals, who will figure out how any holster works before many officers are able to.
Good luck now finding jurors for Nichols' next trial who haven't heard of this story, not to mention ones who are going to want to be in the same room with him when he's not wearing handcuffs.
A dangerous person in court, not wearing handcuffs so it won't "influence the jury" may have the reverse effect, and actually be detrimental to the defendant. PC bureaucrats, civil-rights leaders and liberal lawyers need to understand that (pause for laughter).
Brian Nichols wasn't handcuffed, and he's killed people as a result. In a politically correct quest to not influence a jury, the jury in Nichols' coming trial has been greatly influenced – and not in a good way for the likes of Mr. Nichols. So, for those who think that no cuffs in court is more fair for the defendant, consider this: Brian Nichols now faces the death penalty, instead of 20 or so years for the original crime, and four people are dead. Would making him wear handcuffs to, in, and from court have been better for him, or worse for him?
PC do-gooders assisted Brian Nichols in ruining what was left of his life, and gave him the means to destroy many others – all in the name of "fairness." I'm sure the families of the victims will thank them for caring.
PC do-gooders assisted Brian Nichols in ruining what was left of his life, and gave him the means to destroy many others – all in the name of "fairness." I'm sure the families of the victims will thank them for caring.
I wondered how long it would take to connect the stupid PC dots on this story.
These four dead people are the victims of senseless gun violence. If that Deputy had not had a gun, none of this would have happened... < /brady>
What I would love to see is one of the victims families sue the ACLU into bankrupcy over this. I doubt that will ever happen but one can dream.
The only fact you need to know is why he wasn't handcuffed in the first place.
And the forces of Political Correctness will make sure this angle of the story never makes it to the main stream media.
I can see not having the defendents cuffed in court though. Maybe they should be cuffed to the floor and a drap hung in front of the table to it's not so noticable.
The facts ARE in.......she's dead and he escaped.
don't be mean to bad guys...LOL
After all, if terrorists and dictators are people too, then aren't criminals?
The fact missing from the article is specifically what rule said that he should wear cuffs, and who made the rule. Was this a court decision? A state decision? I personally don't appreciate articles where I'm just as ignorant after reading it as before.
Writer Powers has, somehow, tapped into my brain. Everything he wrote is what I thought about this situation. That Nicols wasn't jailed after attempting to bring knives in the day before is unconscionable. That he was escorted into the court room uncuffed by a female deputy is criminal.
However, I'm not sure that I agree that the system is totally to blame for what happened. All they did was give him enough rope to hang himself. Unfortunately, he murdered four others in the process. Did the system make that decision, or did Brian Nichols?
Two wrongs were committed in that courtroom. Four innocent people AND Brian Nichols have and will pay the price of the decisions he made.
I did not get the impression that this writer was a liberal with an agenda. What facts do you feel will be revealed? The fact that he got the gun off a small woman left to guard him is the primary fact after that everything else is ancillary. I think he hit the mark rather well. You may gain details or things that were not done wrong but the cause of this was the primary fact.
"Facts" revision: Meant to read...She's shot and he escaped.
Liberal elitism at it's sickest.
My point exactly Huck. Maybe it was a stupid court decision that caused this. Or maybe there were supposed to be multiple guards, but the other guards were taking a smoke break.
The only thing that recommends this essay is that very few trees were sacrificed in its creation.
Liberal elitism at it's sickest.
"These four dead people are the victims of senseless gun violence. If that Deputy had not had a gun, none of this would have happened" Obviously it is the violent gun's fault, not the fault of a very violent and, possibly, deranged man. He was being tried for rape, itself an indicator of his antisocial violence. Maybe if the deputy hadn't been allowed to be armed this man would have been properly restrained. However, I see nothing in the anti-gun argument that prevents the senseless beating of the deputy resulting in turning this man loose to wreak havoc.
I don't think this guy is a lib. What I'm saying is that he uses liberal thinking. He draws conclusions before having all the facts
Maybe this death was cause by PC run amok. Or maybe it was cause by negligence, stupidity, or a combo of both. This guy does not give us enough facts to figure that out.
Yet he draws a conclusion anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.