Partial Transcript: Episode 69 (Yet Another Gun Discussion)
Nick: It was a random story that made it on the Reddit chains. I popped on and thought it was interesting. There was a story about a woman who shot her ex husband.
Andrew: He was a real winner.
Nick: The guy had been picked up by the police for narcotics. He was drunk, has weapons on him, and he had an order of protection against him by this woman.
Andrew: So they take him to jail.
Nick: Then he gets to his bail hearing. They grant him bail. He then, at 1:30 in the morning, leaves the jail. He goes to her house and kicks in the door intending to beat the crap out of her. She shoots him and kills him.
Andrew: Clear cut self defense.
Nick: The guy who wrote the article made it sound like a self defense pro-gun article. I read it again and wondered if it was pro-gun or that the legal system was broken. Should this guy have gotten bail? I know it’s a civil right to get bail, but the guy seemed like he shouldn’t have been let out.
Virginia: I seemed to remember another podcast where you guys gave me the whole, “innocent until proven guilty” thing.
Nick: That’s kind of what I wanted to bring up. This guy had an order of protection. He was within that range.
Andrew: I think that if you violate an order of protection, then bail should be pretty high.
Virginia: Well, he hadn’t violated it until she shot him.
Nick: The article made it sound like he was in violation where he was.
Andrew: If they arrest you for something and you violate your order of protection, then you shouldn’t be granted bail.
Leland: You presented a clear and present danger.
Andrew: For anything else, you need to give people the benefit of the doubt.
Virginia: Doesn’t that also apply to the order of protection? Wouldn’t you have to prove in front of a jury that the person violated it?
Andrew: That’s what the bail hearing is for. You go in front of a judge.
Leland: You can assume that because he’s aware of the injunction, he knows that he’s not supposed to be near her. That’s clear and present danger.
Andrew: Everyone gets the benefit of the doubt once. When you go against that, you’ve proven that you’re not trustworthy.
Virginia: As a female, I’ve always been sort of leery of orders of protection. If someone is creepy enough that you have to go to a judge to request that that person not be near you, then the creepy person doesn’t really care about an order of protection.
Nick: I kind of get that too. To have an order, you have to have done something.
Nick: Or physical.
Andrew: In which case, she should be pressing charges for those things.
Virginia: I guess she was smart to arm herself. There’s a lot of women out there who don’t, and they get in trouble. It sounds like he was trying to kill her.
Leland: We can’t make assumptions about his intentions.
Andrew: I assume, if you kick down my door at 1 am, that you’re trying to kill me.
Nick: I have a friend who is anti-gun who says, “Just because someone breaks into your house doesn’t mean that they’re trying to kill you.”
Virginia: It’s true that someone could break in to steal your stuff. But, you have to assume that they’re trying to kill you.
Nick: He thinks that guns are there only for intimidation.
Andrew: Show him the video of the woman who was beaten by that guy who broke into her house.
Thanks for reading our transcript! Check out iTunes for the full show!