For those who own guns

JGREGORY

Lieutenant
Joined
Jun 1, 2003
Messages
1,412
Friday, August 08, 2003<br /><br />By PETER HALL <br />The Express-Times <br /><br />FLEMINGTON -- Jayson Williams' attorneys won an argument crucial to their defense strategy Thursday when a judge ordered a gun company to provide information on accidental discharges of its weapons. <br /><br />State Superior Court Judge Edward M. Coleman also granted a request to allow Williams' attorneys to challenge the credibility of an expert witness for the state who would testify on the amount of alcohol in Williams' system at the time of the shooting. <br /><br /> <br /> <br />But during the same daylong hearing on Williams' pretrial motions, Coleman denied a request to dismiss manslaughter charges against the former NBA star. <br /><br />Williams' attorneys Joseph Hayden Jr. and Billy Martin said they are disappointed about losing their bid to have the indictment against him dismissed, but glad about the other rulings. <br /><br />"Today's rulings are a significant step in the search for the truth that will prove Mr. Williams' innocence," Martin said. <br /><br />Thursday's hearing was the second in a series of oral argument sessions as the Williams trial in the shotgun shooting death of 55-year-old Costas "Gus" Christofi moves toward its Jan. 12 start date. <br /><br />At least two more hearings are planned in September to decide on Williams' motions to hold the trial in another county and to examine state police employment records for evidence of racial profiling. <br /><br />Williams, 35, was allegedly showing off with the shotgun to a group of friends visiting his Alexandria Township mansion when Christofi died Feb. 14, 2002. <br /><br />Hayden argued Thursday that records from the Browning Arms Co. on accidental discharges will prove Williams didn't intend to fire at Christofi. <br /><br />He asked Coleman to issue a subpoena to the Utah-based company, ordering it to research the issue and send a representative to testify at Williams' trial. <br /><br />Hayden said Williams doesn't dispute that he was holding the shotgun when it fired and struck Christofi in the chest. <br /><br />The chief question is whether the gun fired because Williams pulled the trigger or because of a defect in the gun, Hayden said. <br /><br />Hayden contends the breach-loading 12-gauge shotgun fired by itself when Williams snapped it closed. He said there are at least four cases where gun manufacturers were sued for similar incidents. <br /><br />An examination of Williams' Browning Citori over-under shotgun showed the firing mechanism was contaminated with dust and wood chips and had wear that could cause an unintended discharge. <br /><br />However, Hunterdon County First Assistant Prosecutor Steven Lember said a ballistics expert was unable to make the gun fire by snapping it closed. <br /><br />"Nobody snapped the gun with the force of Mr. Williams, who is one of the strongest people in basketball," Hayden replied. <br /><br />Lember argued Coleman's order should limit the company's research to information on the Browning Citori shotgun -- the model involved in the shooting incident. <br /><br />Coleman agreed to issue the subpoena but allowed it to include all Browning shotgun models. He also said Williams will be required to pay for the company's research and added that Browning will likely fight the order. <br /><br />Martin argued for the dismissal of charges against Williams. They include aggravated and reckless manslaughter, witness and evidence tampering, unlawful weapons possession and aggravated assault and carry a maximum prison sentence of 45 years. <br /><br />Williams' attorneys tried once before to have an earlier indictment against the former NBA player dismissed. Coleman denied their motion in December, but Williams' attorneys appealed. <br /><br />The prosecution obtained a new indictment in March, heading off an Appellate Division hearing on the initial indictment. <br /><br />Martin argued Thursday that the state's presentation to the second grand jury was shoddy because prosecutors were in a rush to get a new indictment before the Appellate Division hearing. <br /><br />Martin criticized Lember for completing the grand jury presentation in a single day, using only the testimony of two detectives. <br /><br />"That might be the case in easy street crime cases. This is not a drug case. This is not something you can do in five or six hours," Martin said. <br /><br />Coleman denied the motion, saying that the defense had not shown evidence that the indictment is flawed. <br /><br />Hayden argued for a chance to discredit the state's expert witness on intoxication. <br /><br />The prosecution says Williams' blood alcohol content at the time of the shooting was about 0.22 percent, more than twice the legal limit for a driver in New Jersey. <br /><br />However, that estimate is based on a blood sample taken nearly eight hours after the shooting, when Williams' blood alcohol content was .11 percent. <br /><br />The prosecution plans to present the testimony of an expert who will explain how the estimate was reached by a process called "retrograde extrapolation." <br /><br />Hayden argued that a hearing is needed to determine whether the expert's testimony is admissible during the trial. <br /><br />He said experts for the defense say retrograde extrapolation is "speculative, unscientific and inherently unreliable." Hayden also said determining Williams' blood alcohol content at the time of the shooting is likely impossible because Williams consumed alcohol after the accident. <br /><br />Coleman scheduled a hearing Oct. 6. <br /><br />Lember said he may abandon that aspect of his case because the hearing will present an additional cost to the state. He said proving that Williams was drunk at the time of the shooting is not crucial to his case. <br /><br />What ever happen to responcible gun ownership. :mad: :mad: :mad: Like showing an UNLOADED firearm. And alway treating a weapon as if it where loaded.
 

KennyKenCan

Commander
Joined
Aug 26, 2002
Messages
2,501
Re: For those who own guns

The reason for lack of gun safety is the lack of education.<br /><br />It is no longer acceptable to have a gun club in the schools of America, where gun safety is learned, because those bleeding heart librals think that the kids will shoot themselves in the foot!<br /><br />Kenny
 

aspeck

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
May 29, 2003
Messages
19,249
Re: For those who own guns

I too am a firm believer in gun safety and education. I believe that if every young child learned to use a gun safely and saw the devistating effects a bullet can have on an animal or object, they would think twice before pointing it and would cut down on gun crime.
 

THE-TAZ

Petty Officer 2nd Class
Joined
Jan 3, 2003
Messages
163
Re: For those who own guns

Correct me if I am wrong but this "ACCIDENT" happened indoors. If the gun was open INDOORS he was either checking to see if it was loaded or he was loading it. Well if it that was his intentions if it was loaded he would have unloaded it. So it seems to me that they are trying to cloud the air with a bunch of bulls#$t to cover the real facts!!! IMHO :confused: :rolleyes: <br /><br />TAZ
 

JGREGORY

Lieutenant
Joined
Jun 1, 2003
Messages
1,412
Re: For those who own guns

Mako that is exactly what they are doing. And now Browning is being brought into the fray. Personally I think it is irrevellant that the gun might have misfired if you treat any weapon as if it was loaded and never point it at someone the most that would have happen was a hole in the floor or the ceiling. Having owned a Browning for about 25 years have never seen one go off when it wasn't loaded.<br /><br />Side Story William tried to hide evidence and coerce witnesses before the state police arrived.
 

THE-TAZ

Petty Officer 2nd Class
Joined
Jan 3, 2003
Messages
163
Re: For those who own guns

It is a shame our tax dollars have to be spent on such nonsense. :mad: :mad: You can't tell me he closed a gun with such force it caused it to fire when someone who was just showing someone a gun would have no reason to close it with such force. Then someone who is trying to do it can't. As it has been said you don't show anyone a loaded gun especially indoors. What happened is exactly what he intended to happen. I just hope the prosecuter is good enogh to make the jury see it.<br /><br />TAZ
 

JB

Honorary Moderator Emeritus
Joined
Mar 25, 2001
Messages
45,907
Re: For those who own guns

For gosh sakes! Don't let your kids learn how to safely handle guns!! They might hurt somebody!<br /><br />Buy them a PWC and a Quad instead. Then they can have nice, clean family fun while killing each other. :mad:
 

JGREGORY

Lieutenant
Joined
Jun 1, 2003
Messages
1,412
Re: For those who own guns

I think the prosecuter will be ok and Hunterdon county is a very conservitve county meaning that we probably won't fall for the c**p that happen in the OJ trial. <br />I think that is the main reason the defense attorney is trying to get the case dismissed, he know there will probably be a conviction if it goes to trial. He needs to make somebody the scapegoat.
 

bubbakat

Captain
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
3,110
Re: For those who own guns

JB hit the nail right on the head.<br />
2guns.gif
 
D

DJ

Guest
Re: For those who own guns

Ditto, Mako.<br /><br />Why the h(*& was the gun loaded to begin with.<br /><br />Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that EVERY firearm is loaded 100% of the time.
 

jimchere

Petty Officer 1st Class
Joined
Jun 30, 2003
Messages
321
Re: For those who own guns

So whatever happened to the "10 commandments of gun safety." One of those was "though shall not point the gun at anything you do not intend to kill." I guess the best word for this situation is assinine. So here goes another one. Ever wonder why a lawn mower, a ladder, a chainsaw, a coffee pot, vacuum cleaner.....list goes on...gets more expensive all the time? Well, you know why. Every time a stupid jury awards millions to a moron that invents a new way to maim themselves or kill someone with a device guess who pays? We do. Don't get me wrong...if a device is manufactured with true negligence of design or assembly such that it causes damage when used correctly (read: common sense) then a suit is warranted. We are way beyond that now. How do you think it can be stopped?
 

plywoody

Senior Chief Petty Officer
Joined
Aug 11, 2002
Messages
685
Re: For those who own guns

While I agree that this defense will not likely fly, nor should it, what would you have the defense attorney do? Give up and not present a case?<br /><br />Hey, if it were me on trial, with clear facts against me, I'd want my defense attorney to fog the issue as much as possible. Or cop to a lesser plea or something. If the attorney did anything else, he could be charged with malfeasance. At least the judge ordered Williams to pay for the Browning representative to testify.<br /><br />And under our justice system, outcomes like OJ can happen. No system is perfect. They have found tons of convicted people that have later been proved to be innocent, as well. What would you change? And what system of justice would be better than we have?<br /><br />Oh, and which liberals exactly outlawed firearm safety in schools? There are specific programs out there for firearm safety, privately run, with specialized and trained instructors, and most states to my knowledge require completion of such a course before a hunting license can be issued to a minor. Why would we want it in schools, exactly? They don't have on staff the trained instructors or the necessary insurance, or the budget for it, and why should they?<br /><br />It seems to me that all of you "smaller less intrusive government-no new tax" folks ought to applaud schools for not venturing into something where they don't belong.
 

jimchere

Petty Officer 1st Class
Joined
Jun 30, 2003
Messages
321
Re: For those who own guns

Sorry plywoody ;) . Yea, if I were stupid enough to point a shotgun at my friend, and it discharged (loaded or "unloaded") then I suppose I might wish for some help from a lawyer. But, honestly, what I think separates our opinion is that if I walked for that dumb act, along with blaming others (including the manufacturer and its employees who will suffer), I could not live with myself. You see, I believe in PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY. You reap what you sow. You go drunk driving and kill someone, you don't sue the auto manufacturer because the car allowed you to start it and drive it while drunk. Maybe the answer is to install an alcohol sensor that locks out the ignition system? If you're stupid enough to point a firearm at your buddy in the house and it discharges, then I got nothing else to say but you are deserving of punishment. I would be harder on myself than any law could be for doing something so stupid, so lacking in common sense. So, would you just want a lawyer to get you off, put the blame for your negligent stupidity on someone else, and then just go on with life like its all A-OK? I could not.
 
Top