6 thoughts on “Live Blog: Bremerton Man’s Unlawful Possession of a Firearm Trial

  1. Barbara, defendant is guilty of offense as charged and of not making a decision to take a fair plea offer. If you think the law on the books is wrong go to the legislature. Don’t call it a waste of money to have the laws enforced. Perhaps you think that not enforcing the laws is better for the economy and a prudent savings of money. I certainly do not.

  2. I believe his story because we would not have in his right mind called police if he thought we was not to have fire arms in the house. I believe he would have hid the guns if he new he was not to have them. Innocent but now he knows.

  3. Steven, a jury has the power, right, and moral duty to nullify a law that is fundamentally unjust as this one is. The law works only if it is perceived and accepted as being just.

  4. We all have many opinions on this topic. As one of the twelve that had the duty to weigh the information fairly it wasn’t as stressful as some of your commnts are. We listened and took notes, listened to the witnesses, as well as the judeges instructions,(also given in several pages for us to deliberate with) There were three topics the were the only needed to prove guilt.(possesion,previous convistion,resident of Wasington)That was all. This were shown numerous time by the State in the trial. Any other elements or personal opionions we could not concider regarless how we felt about the case. Many Mr. Groves may concider reading the paper before he signs his name…igornace is not bliss.

  5. I still feel that the jury should have used the nullfication rule,asthe man was calling police to HIS home about a burglury and they had no right to start asking him about his wife’s guns,which had nothing to do with him,or the case about some one elsebreaking into his whome.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Before you post, please complete the prompt below.

Enter the word yellow here: