• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

CA6: Shooting a man in the back for lawfully carrying a gun doesn’t get QI [yet D.Ct. bought it] John Wesley Hall Esq.

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,724
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
From the federal case.
Turnure attempts to rely on Redrick’s later conviction for inducing panic and indictment for felonious assault to support his argument. 2
Footnote:
2 Facing multiple felony charges, Redrick accepted a plea deal for misdemeanor inducing panic. R. 23-4, P. 207–08.
"Prosecutors dropped felonious assault charges against Redrick before trial last week. He pleaded no contest to misdemeanor inducing panic at trial."

In other words Redrick keeps his conceal carry license. And no, there was not a plea deal.
 
Top