The longtime martial arts instructor for former Orange County Sheriff Michael S. Carona was convicted Thursday of criminally threatening a golfer during a dispute that began with a wayward fairway shot.
Raymond Yi was acquitted of all other charges, including three felony counts of assault with a firearm, by a San Bernardino County jury that deliberated less than a day in a case that drew attention to Carona's troubled reserve deputy program...
The case drew headlines because Yi, sworn in as an Orange County sheriff's reserve deputy in 2002, was among friends and allies of Carona who allegedly misused their badges.
Well first of all, and unless all those movies I've watched are wrong, I'd like to know what a karate expert needs a gun for. And then I'd like to know why the "Only One" who felt compelled to use one was a pseudo-"Only One."
4 comments:
"Jurors... were not convinced that Yi's gun had been loaded. "They felt he did it," she said, "but weren't sure the gun was loaded. At no point did they think it was self-defense."
If he were not a King's Man, it wouldn't matter, loaded or not. The assumption is that every gun is always loaded.
All this over a golf ball worth less than a dollar and not receiving the respect due an assistant deputy backup deputy. I wonder what he's done on the street that we'll never know about.
[quote]
The case drew headlines because Yi, sworn in as an Orange County sheriff's reserve deputy in 2002, was among friends and allies of Carona who allegedly misused their badges. The embarrassments raised questions about whether the credentials were handed out as political favors -- an allegation Carona has denied.
[/quote]
I lived and worked in Southern California for MUCH too long, and you can believe almost any allegation of corruption you hear about Orange County in general, and their "only ones" in particular. They are well known.
Does this mean that BATFU is going to do a 5:00 A.M. no-knock raid to relieve this felon of his firearms?
It is undeniable that "we the people" are getting what we deserve. Had any other citizen hinted to Bautista that he had a gun and would shoot him, he would be convicted. The law is structured in such a way as to provide for just that eventuality.
Does anybody really think the discussion in the jury room would have centered around whether or not he really had a gun? I don't think so. The discussion would have centered around did he threaten the use of one and was the other person in fear. Then Joe Doakes would have been found guilty and carted off to prison. It has happened just that way many times. I even remember some bank robberies there where the defendant actually committed the robbery, but at no point displayed a gun. Only intimated he had one. Result: convicted of armed robbery.
Yet, here we have a case where there was no doubt there was a gun present, and in their haste to be good little untermenschen the discussion centers on whether the gun was loaded?
How, can we not say we deserve to be treated thusly, when we beg for it?
Editorial we, I would have killed the sonofabitch.
Post a Comment