A guy in my congregation has cancer. This one's gonna kill him without some sort of divine intervention. It's been 25 years or so since I was close to someone in this condition. He's my age, has a bunch of kids.
I've been thinking a bit more about the gifts of the Spirit and how they are manifested (see 1 Cor. 12). I'd guess at one time or another every Christian wonders about the gift of healing and how that works.
I've come across healers. There was one in my congregation in Detroit. I found one in my congregation here. (I keep my eye out for them as you never know when one might come in handy.)
In the LDS faith we have a prescribed way of administering through the Priesthood. I wonder though about the gift of healing. I'm sure I don't understand how that works. How, for example, does it work when a woman has that gift? What would it look like for her to exercise that gift?
I don't believe I have that gift. I'd like to have it right now.
I'd be interested in hearing stories about how the gift of healing has been exhibited.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
How did you come to know Him?
I served an LDS mission in Ohio a few years ago. It was a wonderful time. My 'purpose' was to teach people the gospel and invite them to be baptized. I met some wonderful people and I look back on those two years as a sacred time in my life. I learned quite a bit, as you might imagine, during that time. One thing I want to mention now is that I learned to love to talk with people about religion.
A couple of weeks ago I was traveling on business. I went to the hotel exercise room to run a few miles. A lady, about my age came in and did the eliptical next to me. We said good morning and went on our way. As I was leaving, I noticed that she had a copy of the Bible with her.
That morning I thought about her and that Bible a bit. I thought that says something about her that she'd bring a Bible with her to exercise in the morning. The thought came to me that I would really enjoy to hear the story of how she came to know God.
I decided that I'd start asking people, "How did you come to know him?" and start collecting stories of people's foundational experiences with God.
I'm shy by nature. I tried it the first time yesterday with a colleague. It went OK. At one point she said something like, "You're not going to like it." I said, "There's no judgment on my side whether your story is a 'good' story. I just want to gain strenght by hearing about your faith."
She told her story. I listened. I'm better for the experience.
In the LDS faith we have meeting called "Fast and Testimony Meeting." For 45 minutes or so, the pulpit is open for anyone in the congregation to come up and share their faith. It used to be my least favorite meeting. Now it's my favorite. This meeting is the congregational meeting, generally, the first Sunday of the month. If you're near an LDS building sometime, stop in. You will hear people tell of how they came to know him. You can tell your story.
I'm less interested in teaching and more interested in hearing and sharing and in gaining strength from the strength of those around me.
Peace to you on this early Wed. morning from the timeless AZ desert.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
A couple of weeks ago I was traveling on business. I went to the hotel exercise room to run a few miles. A lady, about my age came in and did the eliptical next to me. We said good morning and went on our way. As I was leaving, I noticed that she had a copy of the Bible with her.
That morning I thought about her and that Bible a bit. I thought that says something about her that she'd bring a Bible with her to exercise in the morning. The thought came to me that I would really enjoy to hear the story of how she came to know God.
I decided that I'd start asking people, "How did you come to know him?" and start collecting stories of people's foundational experiences with God.
I'm shy by nature. I tried it the first time yesterday with a colleague. It went OK. At one point she said something like, "You're not going to like it." I said, "There's no judgment on my side whether your story is a 'good' story. I just want to gain strenght by hearing about your faith."
She told her story. I listened. I'm better for the experience.
In the LDS faith we have meeting called "Fast and Testimony Meeting." For 45 minutes or so, the pulpit is open for anyone in the congregation to come up and share their faith. It used to be my least favorite meeting. Now it's my favorite. This meeting is the congregational meeting, generally, the first Sunday of the month. If you're near an LDS building sometime, stop in. You will hear people tell of how they came to know him. You can tell your story.
I'm less interested in teaching and more interested in hearing and sharing and in gaining strength from the strength of those around me.
Peace to you on this early Wed. morning from the timeless AZ desert.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
What's Important
Today was a great day. I had a great afternoon at work. Then after work I headed north and drove through the Arizona desert in the rented Solstice with the top down (I'm in Phoenix traveling on business).
It was a beautiful sunset. I was thinking about how timeless the desert seems and that led to me thinking about the timeless people in my life. Some I've known all my life others are more recent. I'm thankful for them all.
The timeless things in my life are becoming more and more important to me.
I'd like to type more, but it's slow on the iPhone and after spending all day in front of the computer at work...
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
It was a beautiful sunset. I was thinking about how timeless the desert seems and that led to me thinking about the timeless people in my life. Some I've known all my life others are more recent. I'm thankful for them all.
The timeless things in my life are becoming more and more important to me.
I'd like to type more, but it's slow on the iPhone and after spending all day in front of the computer at work...
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Scout Preparedness
This past Friday night I went with the local scout trip on an overnight campout. The topic was Wilderness Survival - so we were supposed to build shelter (no tents).
We left in a rainstorm. We drove in a rainstorm. We set up camp in a rainstorm. It rained until midnight. After that, it was beautiful. The coldest it got was about 40 degrees.
Just a couple of observations... and none will be earth shattering.
You need gear to stay dry. Three scouts ended up sleeping in a car. Their stuff got wet - they were done.
You can get by on very little. One scout slept under a tarp and in a couple layers of Under Armour and some trash bags. He did OK.
My setup was a blue tarp, bivy bag, and sleeping bag, on the ground. I was dry.
As far as clothing... I had a long Gore-Tex jacket. I was fine from head to knees. Below that, I was OK because it wasn't colder. What I'd really like to have is a good hat with a brim, a long duster type jacket, and some waterproof shoes/boots. With that and a good pair of gloves, I could spend a long time in wet 20 - 40 degree weather and be OK - I think.
The next day, under blue sky, we did orienteering, signaling (you'd be amazed how well a 2" - 3" mirror will signal at 1/2 mile), fire starting, and the like.
I think we have the best scoutmaster in the world.
We left in a rainstorm. We drove in a rainstorm. We set up camp in a rainstorm. It rained until midnight. After that, it was beautiful. The coldest it got was about 40 degrees.
Just a couple of observations... and none will be earth shattering.
You need gear to stay dry. Three scouts ended up sleeping in a car. Their stuff got wet - they were done.
You can get by on very little. One scout slept under a tarp and in a couple layers of Under Armour and some trash bags. He did OK.
My setup was a blue tarp, bivy bag, and sleeping bag, on the ground. I was dry.
As far as clothing... I had a long Gore-Tex jacket. I was fine from head to knees. Below that, I was OK because it wasn't colder. What I'd really like to have is a good hat with a brim, a long duster type jacket, and some waterproof shoes/boots. With that and a good pair of gloves, I could spend a long time in wet 20 - 40 degree weather and be OK - I think.
The next day, under blue sky, we did orienteering, signaling (you'd be amazed how well a 2" - 3" mirror will signal at 1/2 mile), fire starting, and the like.
I think we have the best scoutmaster in the world.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
The Coming Revolution (revised)
Brigham Young said the following: “Will the Constitution be destroyed? No; it will be held inviolate by this people; and, as Joseph Smith said, ‘The time will come when the Constitution of this nation will hang upon a single thread. At that critical juncture, this people will step forth and save it from the threatened destruction.’ It will be so.” (July 4, 1854, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p. 15)
As I’ve become more “aware” (maybe “awake”) over the past dozen years or so, I’ve reflected on this statement. Recently, within the past couple of weeks, I’ve come to a troubling conclusion. I’d like to share some of the key steps in this journey.
First, the current and past few US presidents have had little, if any, regard for the Constitution. First, my ‘awareness’ really flourished during the reign of Bush the Lesser. He launched wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without Congressional approval – a Constitutional requirement for waging war. He stamped on many other Constitutional safeguards. Perhaps the most troubling was his establishment of his own Praetorian Guard. US Army troops are now assigned to operate within the bounds of these United States (stationed in my backyard at Ft. Knox, KY). The list goes on and on of how Bush trampled the Constitution. I don’t need or want to go through the awful details here.
Bush’s successor, Obama the Beneficent has, in his disregard for the Constitution, put his predecessor to shame. General Motors has become Government Motors and Obama the Omniscient has determined that Mr. Wagoner is not the man to lead GM. I don’t see where the Constitution grants to the Executive Branch the authority to do this! Perhaps the most (and it’s stiff competition) insidious recent event (i.e., of these first 100 days) is the passage of the GIVE act. This act, co-sponsored by our very own Hatch the Giving, is, certainly not the first, but a huge step toward enslavement.
Just a quick note. Why, you may be asking, all the “Obama the Beneficent” type references? It’s an oblique reference to Alexis de Tocqueville’s essay, “What sort of despotism democratic nations have to fear.” It’s not too long. Google it and have a read. See if you don’t find him a prophet of sorts. But I digress…
Back to the first point. Really, it’s this. I think the Constitution is hanging by a thread. Now. Already. Right now. There’s just a thread. The Executive branch is doing whatever it wants and it has the pieces in place to cut any remaining threads at the next ‘crisis.’
You might not be there with me on this one. You might argue that there are a couple of threads. We still have free speech and the right to bear arms. OK. I’ll grant you that. However, if they can be removed at the next crisis (when you’d really need them), do you really have them?
So, for the sake of the rest of my argument, go with me for a minute that the Constitution is hanging by a thread right now.
All this happened while we (the LDS people) had well-placed government officials “on the watchtower” (so to speak). These are people who could have warned us, perhaps by providing additional information to the obvious things we can see by reading the published reports. The senator from Nevada, Hatch the Giving, and several others. They could have been sounding the warning bell – and even fighting for the Constitution. But, they have not. They have contributed to the Constitution’s downfall (perhaps the one point of promise is Chaffetz the Frugal (rumor has it he’s concerned enough about prudent use of taxpayer funds that he sleeps in his office to cut down on costs)). They voted for and promoted (Reid) the robberies (er, “Bailouts.” Note it isn’t ‘theft,’ that’s what happens when you aren’t watching. Robbery is when it’s done by force – and this was certainly done by force) and the enslavement (Hatch’s GIVE act).
I could go on here as well. However, the point is that our best placed Constitution defenders are taking it down, not rescuing it.
To review: The Constitution is hanging by a thread. The people we’d hope to be working on saving it aren’t.
Then last week I started thinking – and here’s the conclusion. The federal government isn’t going to give up its power. The only way ‘this people’ will save the Constitution is by force – by revolution. I remember reading this statement by LDS Church president Ezra Benson, “To all who have discerning eyes, it is apparent that the republican form of government established by our noble forefathers cannot long endure once fundamental principles are abandoned. Momentum is gathering for another conflict—a repetition of the crisis of two hundred years ago.” (The Constitution: A Heavenly Banner. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1986, p. 27)
Obama the Beneficent will not heed a call to return to Constitutional principles. Nor will his successor, even if it is Mitt the Merciful. By the time Obama is finished, we’ll have the US version of the Hitler Youth in place (again, see the recently passed GIVE act) as well as, it is certain, a host of other acts in place limiting our 1st, 2nd, (continue the series all the way to 10) amendment freedoms.
I’m not sure who will be behind the revolution. I suspect members of the LDS Church may expect that Church leaders would lead the charge. Maybe. Maybe not. Consider this from Ezra Benson, “Maybe the Lord will never set up a specific Church program for the purpose of saving the Constitution. Perhaps if he set up one at this time it might split the Church asunder, and perhaps he does not want that to happen yet, for not all the wheat and tares are fully ripe.” (“Not Commanded in All Things.” Conference address April 5, 1965. Please, read the talk in full.). There are people I know, in whom the light of freedom burns so brightly, who will not be able to sit idly by watching the march toward tyranny. They may be part of that revolution.
I may live to see it. My children certainly will. People are talking about it.
I don’t like reading what I’ve written. Do I have it wrong? Is there a way to reverse the tide? Without blood? I wish. I hope. I pray. But not in faith.
As I’ve become more “aware” (maybe “awake”) over the past dozen years or so, I’ve reflected on this statement. Recently, within the past couple of weeks, I’ve come to a troubling conclusion. I’d like to share some of the key steps in this journey.
First, the current and past few US presidents have had little, if any, regard for the Constitution. First, my ‘awareness’ really flourished during the reign of Bush the Lesser. He launched wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without Congressional approval – a Constitutional requirement for waging war. He stamped on many other Constitutional safeguards. Perhaps the most troubling was his establishment of his own Praetorian Guard. US Army troops are now assigned to operate within the bounds of these United States (stationed in my backyard at Ft. Knox, KY). The list goes on and on of how Bush trampled the Constitution. I don’t need or want to go through the awful details here.
Bush’s successor, Obama the Beneficent has, in his disregard for the Constitution, put his predecessor to shame. General Motors has become Government Motors and Obama the Omniscient has determined that Mr. Wagoner is not the man to lead GM. I don’t see where the Constitution grants to the Executive Branch the authority to do this! Perhaps the most (and it’s stiff competition) insidious recent event (i.e., of these first 100 days) is the passage of the GIVE act. This act, co-sponsored by our very own Hatch the Giving, is, certainly not the first, but a huge step toward enslavement.
Just a quick note. Why, you may be asking, all the “Obama the Beneficent” type references? It’s an oblique reference to Alexis de Tocqueville’s essay, “What sort of despotism democratic nations have to fear.” It’s not too long. Google it and have a read. See if you don’t find him a prophet of sorts. But I digress…
Back to the first point. Really, it’s this. I think the Constitution is hanging by a thread. Now. Already. Right now. There’s just a thread. The Executive branch is doing whatever it wants and it has the pieces in place to cut any remaining threads at the next ‘crisis.’
You might not be there with me on this one. You might argue that there are a couple of threads. We still have free speech and the right to bear arms. OK. I’ll grant you that. However, if they can be removed at the next crisis (when you’d really need them), do you really have them?
So, for the sake of the rest of my argument, go with me for a minute that the Constitution is hanging by a thread right now.
All this happened while we (the LDS people) had well-placed government officials “on the watchtower” (so to speak). These are people who could have warned us, perhaps by providing additional information to the obvious things we can see by reading the published reports. The senator from Nevada, Hatch the Giving, and several others. They could have been sounding the warning bell – and even fighting for the Constitution. But, they have not. They have contributed to the Constitution’s downfall (perhaps the one point of promise is Chaffetz the Frugal (rumor has it he’s concerned enough about prudent use of taxpayer funds that he sleeps in his office to cut down on costs)). They voted for and promoted (Reid) the robberies (er, “Bailouts.” Note it isn’t ‘theft,’ that’s what happens when you aren’t watching. Robbery is when it’s done by force – and this was certainly done by force) and the enslavement (Hatch’s GIVE act).
I could go on here as well. However, the point is that our best placed Constitution defenders are taking it down, not rescuing it.
To review: The Constitution is hanging by a thread. The people we’d hope to be working on saving it aren’t.
Then last week I started thinking – and here’s the conclusion. The federal government isn’t going to give up its power. The only way ‘this people’ will save the Constitution is by force – by revolution. I remember reading this statement by LDS Church president Ezra Benson, “To all who have discerning eyes, it is apparent that the republican form of government established by our noble forefathers cannot long endure once fundamental principles are abandoned. Momentum is gathering for another conflict—a repetition of the crisis of two hundred years ago.” (The Constitution: A Heavenly Banner. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1986, p. 27)
Obama the Beneficent will not heed a call to return to Constitutional principles. Nor will his successor, even if it is Mitt the Merciful. By the time Obama is finished, we’ll have the US version of the Hitler Youth in place (again, see the recently passed GIVE act) as well as, it is certain, a host of other acts in place limiting our 1st, 2nd, (continue the series all the way to 10) amendment freedoms.
I’m not sure who will be behind the revolution. I suspect members of the LDS Church may expect that Church leaders would lead the charge. Maybe. Maybe not. Consider this from Ezra Benson, “Maybe the Lord will never set up a specific Church program for the purpose of saving the Constitution. Perhaps if he set up one at this time it might split the Church asunder, and perhaps he does not want that to happen yet, for not all the wheat and tares are fully ripe.” (“Not Commanded in All Things.” Conference address April 5, 1965. Please, read the talk in full.). There are people I know, in whom the light of freedom burns so brightly, who will not be able to sit idly by watching the march toward tyranny. They may be part of that revolution.
I may live to see it. My children certainly will. People are talking about it.
I don’t like reading what I’ve written. Do I have it wrong? Is there a way to reverse the tide? Without blood? I wish. I hope. I pray. But not in faith.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Surprised by goodness
I'm on the scout committee for Joshua's scout troop. One responsibility that's mine is to arrange for campout locations.
Based upon a tip, I contacted someone, just outside Elizabethtown, KY, who has a cave on his property. I called him a month ago to ask if we could bring the scouts for a visit. I'd never talked with this man. He was friendly and allowed us to come camp in his cave.
We showed up this past Friday evening - 7:30ish. I was surprised. This guy is probably a bit younger than me. The goodness I encountered was surpassed by his kindness in person. He welcomed us (3 leaders and 10 or so boys) to his property and ferried all our gear out to the cave. In the morning, when he saw that we were packing up to leave, he drove out and ferried us back to our cars. He asked when he could expect us back and told us a year from now was too long.
Every part of this man to us, complete strangers, was kindness and goodness. I reflected on my experience on the drive home. I wanted to become less of who I am and more of who he is. I doubt anyone has EVER left an encounter with me thinking, "Wow, that guy is the kindest guy I've ever come across."
I suspect, in the not-to-distant future, my little corner of the world will desperately need more people like this guy. I know it's late for me, but if I work real hard at it, maybe I can be my version of this guy for people around me. Uugh. I have a long way to go and there's a lot of baggage I need to dump on the way.
Based upon a tip, I contacted someone, just outside Elizabethtown, KY, who has a cave on his property. I called him a month ago to ask if we could bring the scouts for a visit. I'd never talked with this man. He was friendly and allowed us to come camp in his cave.
We showed up this past Friday evening - 7:30ish. I was surprised. This guy is probably a bit younger than me. The goodness I encountered was surpassed by his kindness in person. He welcomed us (3 leaders and 10 or so boys) to his property and ferried all our gear out to the cave. In the morning, when he saw that we were packing up to leave, he drove out and ferried us back to our cars. He asked when he could expect us back and told us a year from now was too long.
Every part of this man to us, complete strangers, was kindness and goodness. I reflected on my experience on the drive home. I wanted to become less of who I am and more of who he is. I doubt anyone has EVER left an encounter with me thinking, "Wow, that guy is the kindest guy I've ever come across."
I suspect, in the not-to-distant future, my little corner of the world will desperately need more people like this guy. I know it's late for me, but if I work real hard at it, maybe I can be my version of this guy for people around me. Uugh. I have a long way to go and there's a lot of baggage I need to dump on the way.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Atlas and Zion
I just finished _Atlas Shrugged_ by Ayn Rand. I had listened to a significantly condensed audio version 5 – 6 years ago so I knew the plot. However, the read was worth it. Rand has some powerful ideas here, particularly in this day when, as Newsweek reported last week, “We are all socialists now.” One story she tells is of a factory where they decided that everyone would be rewarded “according to need” as opposed to effort and ability. The scene she paints isn’t, I suspect, too far from would actually would (does) happen. However, isn’t this what Zion is all about?
I think, and I’d love if someone was interested in discussing the point, we think of Zion as a place of abundance where we all have what we need and want and therefore don’t care what other people have. But, what if Zion were in a environment of scarce resources where we didn’t have what we all wanted and, in a very real way, someone else’s want made it so you couldn’t have your want.
It makes me think that perhaps the only way Zion is going to be established is when the alternative is so bad that we’re willing to give it a try.
Or, did Ms. Rand have it wrong (or, incomplete?)? Is there another way of looking at this as opposed to the path Rand projected? How would a bunch of really good people (and by that, I mean “God-like”) live together?
In a way, that’s what Rand depicts in John Gault’s society in the mountains. That is, for Rand, Zion. Maybe, that’s the more fair comparison – John Gault’s mountain society to Zion. How are they the same and how are they different?
Maybe, by getting rid of all the riff raff, you get Zion? What if, you lived in a society of good people, who had magnified their talents and had something to offer, and were willing to share. Not because they were compelled, but because they loved.
Maybe the riff raff don’t want to go to Zion and that’s a culling process.
I had a professor back at BYU who told a story about a cul-de-sac where he once lived. One guy had a snowblower. When it snowed, you walked into his garage and borrowed the snowblower. He had a little box where you could throw in a couple of bucks for maintenance and gas. The cool thing, only one person in the cul-de-sac needed to own a snowblower. You ‘could’ expand this on a grander scale. Maybe only one person needs to own a pickup truck. If you had people, who cared for each other, maybe it could work. It’s not that other people have a claim on your stuff, it’s that you can utilize what you have more effectively.
Rand, obviously, doesn’t think much of religion. In many respects (er, well, most), can you blame her? Just as an example, who are the ones most behind this atrocity we’re waging in Iraq and Afghanistan? Could Bush have committed this great evil without the support of the US Christians? You’d think Christianity would have learned something since the Crusades?
I think, and I’d love if someone was interested in discussing the point, we think of Zion as a place of abundance where we all have what we need and want and therefore don’t care what other people have. But, what if Zion were in a environment of scarce resources where we didn’t have what we all wanted and, in a very real way, someone else’s want made it so you couldn’t have your want.
It makes me think that perhaps the only way Zion is going to be established is when the alternative is so bad that we’re willing to give it a try.
Or, did Ms. Rand have it wrong (or, incomplete?)? Is there another way of looking at this as opposed to the path Rand projected? How would a bunch of really good people (and by that, I mean “God-like”) live together?
In a way, that’s what Rand depicts in John Gault’s society in the mountains. That is, for Rand, Zion. Maybe, that’s the more fair comparison – John Gault’s mountain society to Zion. How are they the same and how are they different?
Maybe, by getting rid of all the riff raff, you get Zion? What if, you lived in a society of good people, who had magnified their talents and had something to offer, and were willing to share. Not because they were compelled, but because they loved.
Maybe the riff raff don’t want to go to Zion and that’s a culling process.
I had a professor back at BYU who told a story about a cul-de-sac where he once lived. One guy had a snowblower. When it snowed, you walked into his garage and borrowed the snowblower. He had a little box where you could throw in a couple of bucks for maintenance and gas. The cool thing, only one person in the cul-de-sac needed to own a snowblower. You ‘could’ expand this on a grander scale. Maybe only one person needs to own a pickup truck. If you had people, who cared for each other, maybe it could work. It’s not that other people have a claim on your stuff, it’s that you can utilize what you have more effectively.
Rand, obviously, doesn’t think much of religion. In many respects (er, well, most), can you blame her? Just as an example, who are the ones most behind this atrocity we’re waging in Iraq and Afghanistan? Could Bush have committed this great evil without the support of the US Christians? You’d think Christianity would have learned something since the Crusades?
This made me laugh
Just read this in a book last night. Made me laugh out loud...
Alessandra froze in place and uttered a silent prayer. She had long since given up hope that any of her prayers would be answered, but she figured each unanswered prayer would add to the list of grievances she would take up with God, should the occasion arise. (Orson Scott Card, Ender in Exile)
Probably not good to say, but I've thought similar thoughts. :)
Alessandra froze in place and uttered a silent prayer. She had long since given up hope that any of her prayers would be answered, but she figured each unanswered prayer would add to the list of grievances she would take up with God, should the occasion arise. (Orson Scott Card, Ender in Exile)
Probably not good to say, but I've thought similar thoughts. :)
Monday, January 26, 2009
One Twelfth
In 2004 I served on a jury. I haven't thought about it much... until recently. Several weeks ago I read an article on lewrockwell.com where the author mentioned that all we need (or maybe the least we need) to avoid tyranny is 8.3% of the population (one twelfth) to be aware of freedom and liberty.
Here's my story and how it relates. I'm going to work on a version for lewrockwell. If you have any comments/questions/suggestions, please let me know.
Jury Duty
Wednesday through Friday of this week, I had the opportunity to serve on a jury. The experience was a significant one for me and I need to get it on paper. The narrative is divided into five sections: pre-selection, trial, deliberations, debrief, and concluding thoughts.
Pre-selection
I received the summons in the mail about a month ago. The summons specified that I’d be needed on Wednesday and Thursday of this week and that I was to record the distance from my house to the courthouse to be reimbursed for the mileage. I was asked to appear Sterling Heights, the city directly south of Shelby Township.
I arrived Wednesday morning at 8:30 along with 10 other male and 11 other female perspective jurors. We were directed to a room in the basement. As we entered the room we gave our last names and the mileage from our house to the courthouse. We were given a badge with “Juror” at the top and our last name below. The room has cable TV, a coffee machine and, for this day, three boxes of doughnuts. There are several tables in the room with chairs at the tables and other chairs around the outside of the room. The room was kind of small for 24 people (the potential jurors, our babysitter, and a babysitter in training).
Our babysitter (I’m sure she has a proper title, I didn’t hear what it was) gave us an orientation from 8:40 – 9:00. In that orientation she talked to us about the process, at a very high level, of how a case might “Go” to trial. She frequently said, “If it goes”. In Sterling Heights jury trials can happen once a month. Most cases are plea-bargained. She explained that there were about 4 cases under consideration that we could be asked to hear. She explained that she felt 90% confident that one case would “Go”.
While we were waiting, we were not to leave the room excepting for potty and drink breaks (I forgot to ask whether I’d have to specify whether it was a 1 or 2 : ) ). None of us were smokers – a first for our babysitter.
So, being the introvert I am, I pulled out the Book of Mormon and got some good reading done (and also assured that no one would strike up a casual conversation with me). About an hour later, the judge came down.
Judge Weigand (sp?) is a new judge. She was appointed by the current governor. Judge Weigand (JW) seems about my age. Previous to becoming a judge, she was on a city council somewhere. She was appointed to replace a retiring judge and will have to run for reelection soon. JW was friendly. She asked if we had questions. I think she confirmed that she expected one case to “Go.” She talked with us for about 5 minutes and left.
We remained in the room until about 10:30. When we were told we could return home. We were asked to report the next day at 9:00.
The following morning I returned. Instead of the Book of Mormon, I brought the two most recent copies of “American Rifleman” (just wanted everyone to know for sure I was Mormon – they could have thought I was just an investigator : ) ) and my journal.
Again, a little intro by the babysitter; I didn’t pay all that much attention. I penned a few lines in my journal, made it through one “AR” issue, and worked on a crossword puzzle for a few minutes. At that time our babysitter announced that one case was going and we needed to go to the courtroom.
We all trooped upstairs to the courtroom and sat down in the public seating area. The courtroom is small. There is seating for 50 people or so. When we arrived there were in the room: the judge, recorder, bailiff, two people at the defense table, two people at the prosecution table, a woman and a 20 something sitting in the public area, and two police officers in the back of the public seating.
JW asked if everyone was ready to begin. Our babysitter had prepared 22 slips of paper with the name of a potential juror on each paper. She began drawing, at random, names. The first person was called and sat in the juror box. My name was second. Five other people were called.
JW asked each one of us our occupation, if we were married, and what our spouse did. I, rather than trying to explain what I do, just said “I’m an engineer.” She asked if my wife works. I said, “We have 4 kids, she works a lot harder than I do.” This drew a courtroom chuckle.
The prosecutor asked if any of us regularly carried knives. Two people raised their hands. He asked them if they would have a problem finding guilty someone who also carried a knife. They both said no.
The defense asked that one juror be removed, her husband is a firefighter.
The replacement was asked all the same questions.
At this time, JW indicated that it was lunch time and we were given 90 minutes for lunch. The bailiff commanded “All rise” and we seven jurors were directed out the back door of the courtroom and into a much smaller room for some instructions. Our babysitter told us not to discuss the case with anyone and when returning from lunch we were not to go to the courtroom. If our babysitter was not there to meet us just inside the front door, we were to ask for her.
So, since there was a library next door, I did that. Best move of the day. They had a book sale and some person had just donated a gob of great books in mint condition. I picked up Sandberg’s book on Abraham Lincoln for $3; Ayn Rand’s _Atlas Shrugged_ (hardbound) for $3 (I had a guy offer to buy it from me before I even left); _The Libertarian Reader_ (edited by David Boaz) for $2 (this is a great book); _Suddenly_ by George Will $1.50; _A Monetary History of the United States, 1867 – 1960_ by Friedman and Schwartz; and _The Age of Federalism_ by Elkins and McKitrick for $3. I’ve been trying not to buy books lately – but for this price – I can read them and donate them.
Coming back from lunch, I made my first juror mistake. I entered the court building and didn’t see the babysitter. Instead of asking for her, I went and sat down outside the courtroom. The defense attorney was 10 feet away talking on a cell phone. He was on my bad side (my deaf ear) and I couldn’t hear what he was saying. 10 seconds after I sat down the babysitter came out, rebuked me for not calling her, and ushered me into the deliberation room.
After a few minutes, we were ushered into the courtroom. We always entered the courtroom in the order we were chosen and sat in the same seat. After we sat down, there was some informal talk about replacing a juror. I never asked, but I suspect that because of my lunchtime blunder, they were discussing me. After a few moments, they decided to take no action.
Trial
JW asked if everyone was ready to begin. Both lawyers nodded and everyone started “getting set” for the trial. I raised my hand. I asked if it was ok to take notes. JW seemed surprised by the question. She looked at the defense and prosecution. They gave an “I don’t care” look. She asked if anyone else wanted to take notes. One other juror wanted to. The bailiff left and returned in a few moments with two pads of paper and two ballpoint pens.
I raised my hand again. I asked if it was ok to ask questions during the trial. JW looked surprised at the question. She thought for a moment and responded, “No.”
I won’t go through all the details of the trial. I’ll tell my summary of the story and then list some of my observations.
The Story
The defendant moved out of his house – leaving his wife and 20-something son. Two months later, he decided to come back. He phoned his “wife” (they had started the divorce proceedings) and told her he was coming back. She didn’t want him back and told him not to come. It is the end of November, nighttime, and there is snow on the ground.
He arrived at the home with most of his belongings in the car and tried to get into the house. She wouldn’t let him in. He told her to call the cops. She called 911. She told the operator her husband was outside, acting suicidal and irrational, with knives and guns, please send an officer.
The officer shows up and parks – not right in front of the house, but at least one or two houses away. The defendant thinks the police are there to help resolve the dispute the officer thinks this guy is carrying a gun and is going nuts. The defendant starts walking toward the police car. The police officer gets out of the car, draws his gun, points it at the defendant, and tells him to get on the ground. The defendant complies.
The police officer then attempts to handcuff this man. He places his knee in the defendant’s back and gets a handcuff on his left wrist. At this point the defendant resisted. The officer calls for backup. The officer and defendant are struggling on the ground.
The officer is 23 – 25 yrs. old – my size. The defendant is late 40s 6’ 3”, 250 lbs., most of the extra weight in a big gut.
Fifteen seconds after the distress call a second officer arrives with lights and sirens and within a few seconds the situation is under control.
While patting down the defendant, they discover a pocket knife with a 3 inch blade.
The defendant’s car was searched. Included in the contents were a .22 handgun, a 30 caliber rifle, and an M1 carbine. (I’m sure most people would be horrified to hear of three guns in one car. I was thinking, “Wow. Good choice. I recommend augmenting it with a .22 rifle. Would you be interested in selling the M1?”)
My observations
Witnesses/statements and order of testimony:
- Prosecutor opening comments
- Defense opening comments
- Wife
- Son
- 2nd officer
- 3rd officer
- 1st officer
- Defendant
- Prosecutor closing comments
- Defense closing comments
- Prosecutor rebuttal
No one witnessed the struggle. The officer and defendant gave remarkably different stories. The defendant’s included pistol whipping, “grinding of handcuffs into flesh”, and glasses flying across the yard. The officer’s included this man rolling over (after the first handcuff was on) and pushing him.
The defendant was his own worst enemy on the stand. The prosecutor asked him several yes/no questions and he went off on mini-tirades. He accused the officer of lying.
Watching JW, the prosecutor, and the defense attorney during testimonies was almost the most interesting thing. They have a whole code just in the looks they give each other – especially the judge and the prosecutor. At one point, she kept giving him the “object” look and he kept returning the “not yet” look.
After all the testimony (about 2 hours), JW gave us our instructions and sent us off to deliberate.
The Charges
The defendant was charged with three items:
- Assault and Battery
- Resisting and officer
- Possessing a dangerous weapon
All are misdemeanors. Each punishable up to 93 days in jail.
Deliberation
Since the other jurors now come into the story, I’ll describe them according to how we sat around in the deliberation room. Since we really didn’t use names, I’ll give them names here. Immediately to my left was “Liberal Man” (LM). LM is mid-40s; probably with a 4-year degree. Next is “Talker”. She is in her mid-40s, probably has some college. Next to “Talker” is “Bowler”. Bowler, in his mid-40s, likes to bowl. He coaches a high-school bowling team. I doubt he has any post high school education. Next to Bowler is “Mom”. Mom is pregnant, mid-30s, quiet, probably has taken some local community college classes. Next to Mom is “Old Guy”. Old Guy is in his early 60s, maybe he finished high school, is very weak upstairs. Next to Old Guy, and immediately to my right is “Young Guy”. Young guy is in his late 20s. He’s probably had some local community college classes.
JW instructed us to first choose a foreperson. Before we even got to that, Talker started discussing the case. I stepped in and recommended Mom. Mom deferred, because she is pregnant. I next suggested Liberal Man; that stuck.
We immediately requested the knife – the only item submitted as evidence.
We were provided a sheet that listed the three charges with a box labeled “Guilty” and a box labeled “Not-guilty” for each.
We began discussing the charges. After a few minutes, we began to realize that what JW provided us on the sheet was not the complete text that she read us in the courtroom. We also began to have a discussion that led me to feel a need to explain to my cohort what is the purpose of a jury. I explained that I remembered JW reading that our decisions were to be just. I then explained that a trial by a jury of peers is a defense the constitution provides against the unjust application of law and that we must keep that in mind in our deliberations. This comment really got Talker and Mom on my side. It also influenced Young Guy. Liberal Man nodded as did Bowler. I never really could figure what Old Guy was thinking.
We sent to JW a request for her to send us a copy of the laws the defendant was accused of breaking and a copy of her instructions to us.
A few minutes later, the Bailiff returned and asked us to return to the courtroom. We entered the courtroom and sat down. JW asked if we would like to have the laws and her instructions read to us again. We said yes. She read them. When she finished, she asked if there was anything else. I said, “Are you going to give them to us?” She said that she couldn’t. I then said, “Well, you’ll have to wait for a minute while I get a pad of paper and a pen, then you’ll have to read it all over again, really slowly, so I can write word-for-word what you just told us.” JW then shot glances at both the prosecutor and the defense attorney. I then asked, “Why can’t you give them to us.” JW replied, “Because you only requested a portion of the materials and I can’t just give you a portion.” I then asked, “Can we have it all then?” JW said, “Yes.” I said, “Ok, we’re satisfied.”
We returned to the deliberation room. After a few minutes the Bailiff provided a copy of the law, the instructions, and whatever else was there.
We quickly found the defendant not guilty of Resisting an Officer. This one was easiest because the law stipulated that the officer had to be performing his duty and that the defendant had to know what the duty was. In the testimony it was clear that the officer only gave one command: “Get down on the ground.” The testimonies confirmed that the defendant got on the ground. There was no testimony given that the officer then informed the defendant that he was going to handcuff him. From the testimony, we figured that then next thing that happened was the police officer’s knee in the defendant’s back and the officer yanking on the defendant’s arm. It was never made clear to us that the defendant had any idea what the officer’s duty or intent was after the defendant was on the ground.
We, after a slightly longer deliberation, found the defendant not guilty of Assault and Battery. Our reasoning here was that this guy was face-down, in the snow, with the police officer’s knee in his back. The defendant testified that he had trouble breathing and that he tried to raise himself off his face. The police officer testified that the man rolled over and pushed him. To tell you the truth, I’m not sure what happened. I believe there was a struggle, but I’m not sure it constitutes battery. If we were to find guilty for that, we’d have to convict every fourth-grader in the country. I think you might summarize our thought with the following: we found it somewhat implausible that this guy, with one arm in a handcuff rolled face up, with the police officer still on top of him, and pushed the police officer; if he did roll over, it’s the officer’s own stupid fault because all he had to do was yank the defendants cuffed wrist toward the defendant’s head and he’d be unable to do anything.
Now, the third charge was the difficult one. We argued over it until 8 p.m. The law says something like this: it is unlawful for a person to carry on or about himself or herself any dangerous weapon, including, but not limited to: dangerous knives, long knives, or hunting knives not adapted and carried as such.
I’m sure there are poorer-worded laws, but I have yet to come across one. We debated this one for hours. We noted the obvious: if there are dangerous knives, are there also safe knives? How long does a knife have to be for it to be long? When is a knife a knife and when is it a dangerous weapon? If there are dangerous weapons, there also must be non-dangerous weapons. I was curious to know what is a non-dangerous weapon. We noted that me helping Joshua work on his pinewood derby car is technically a crime if I use my pocket knife.
It was during this discussion that liberal man really his feelings made known. At one point he said, “I don’t carry knives, I don’t allow my children to carry knives, I don’t let them associate with people who might carry knives. I know what a dangerous weapon is and that knife is not a pocket knife. It is a dangerous weapon.” For Liberal Man, this became an ideological stand.
We took several intermediate votes. I believed this was a knife, as did Talker and Old Guy. Bowler and Liberal Man felt it was a dangerous weapon. Mom and Young Guy were on the fence.
We all agreed that this is a horrible law. I pointed out that part of the reason why it is a horrible law is that it addresses a situation where breaking the law does absolutely no harm to anyone. The defendant carried this knife with him for 25 years (his wife testified that he always had it with him) and never harmed anyone. Although I didn’t say this, my attitude toward this was framed by those seminary lessons where we criticized the Jews for the fences they built around the laws during the time of Jesus. A law that protects another law, is, I believe, in most instances a bad law.
Eventually, JW got tired of waiting and sent us home.
I went home and couldn’t sleep. I was up until 2 a.m. thinking how I could convince these two jurors that it was wrong to find the defendant guilty on this point. My dilemma was that I said “knife” he said “dangerous weapon.” This comes down to a case of perception. Liberal Man, unthinking as he is (I have to admit a fault here: I accept it as a given that liberals are short on rational thought when it comes to the proper use of government and laws (see anything Ayn Rand wrote for an eloquent defense of this position)), could defend that position without thinking. I was convinced that if I could get Liberal Man to somehow agree with me, I’d get Bowler and the fence sitters.
Finally, I came up with the following. Every day the city of Sterling Heights licenses businesses to do business and inspects those businesses. In those acts, the city regulates legal activity within its bounds. If I could demonstrate that the city allowed knives like the one I the defendant carried to be sold, that is an implicit understanding that knives like that are not dangerous weapons.
So, in the morning I went to two stores. The first sells merchandise and food. I went to the sporting goods area and selected two knives similar to the one we were discussing. I went to the meat department and asked to see a butcher. I asked him if his department was ever inspected by the city. He responded, “All the time.” I purchased the knives (al la Henry Fonda in “Twelve Angry Men”). I then went to Home Depot and did a similar drill.
I even asked to guys outside the Home Depot if either was carrying a knife. One was, and I took a picture of him with the knife (I had a camera with me). I also took pictures of the knife displays.
I then went to the police office next to the court building. I carried with me the knives I purchased. I walked to the reception desk, manned by two officers, placed one of the knives on the desk and asked, “What is this?” They both responded, “A knife.” I asked, “Is this a dangerous weapon?” They both knew where I was going and began saying thinks like, if you can believe it, “Well, it depends on who you ask.” I replied, did I break the law by purchasing this knife and bring it in here this morning. One said, “Well, technically, but we’d never do anything about it unless you were doing something bad. Then we’d tack it on the list of bad things.” I then said, “Tonight, all over Sterling Heights, housewives will be breaking the law when preparing dinner.” They laughed, “Well, ‘Technically.’” I then gave them the Boy Scout scenario. They laughed and agreed.
As I finished at the police station, it was time to return to the court house. Since, technically, I was breaking the law by carrying those dangerous weapons, I immediately handed them to the babysitter upon entering the building.
After all seven of us were in the deliberation room (9 o’clock), the Bailiff told us not to deliberate, but to wait for further instructions from JW. We waited until after 10:30. At this time, the Bailiff came back and confirmed that we had made a decision on two counts. He then ushered us into the courtroom. At this point, JW informed us that the third charge had been dropped and that we were to give our count of the first two. We read them. The defendant was jubilant – of course. We left the court room for the deliberation room.
Debrief
In the deliberation room, the babysitter told us to wait for a few minutes and JW would come talk to us. She arrived in a few minutes and immediately asked, “Who’s the engineer?” I raised my hand. She said, “You brought the knives, didn’t you.” I nodded. She the explained that my actions could have brought about a mistrial. When she learned that I had bought the knives, she had several courses of action: declare a mistrial, inform us as a jury not to discuss my actions (i.e., pretend I hadn’t bought the knives), or try and get the third charge dropped. She took the last option.
I wasn’t the only offender (but certainly the worst). While we were deliberating the previous afternoon, Bowler pulled out a pocked dictionary and we looked up some of the words in the law (dangerous, long, et al.). That was also a bad. My going to the police department was very bad.
My logic in doing all this was that I was not discussing the “case” with anyone. I was trying to find out more about the law. The interesting thing is about trials, is that the jury isn’t supposed to find out more about the law while deliberating. I’m not sure how I feel about that.
So, I asked JW how she would have ruled on the case. She said that she would have also found him not-guilty on all charges.
Anyway, Talker was really interested to hear the arguments I was going to make. Liberal Man looked briefly at the knives I purchased with a sniff of disgust (I think expressing a view that such things shouldn’t be sold).
Anyway, JW thanked us for our effort and told us we were free to go. I hung around for a moment and helped clean the room.
I was the last juror to leave. The officer and prosecutor were in the lobby when I left. I went to the officer, offered my hand, and told him that I didn’t want him to think that our decision reflected badly upon him. We felt he did the right thing (that wasn’t 100% true, but I didn’t want him to feel bad) but that the case wasn’t strong enough for us to find the defendant guilty. The officer asked me to step aside and asked if he could discuss the case with me. The prosecutor was also there. We talked for 15 minutes or so. I learned some interesting things:
- The defendant had moved out to live with another woman. Apparently that relationship went south and that was why he was returning.
- This was the first time the prosecutor was in a trial where anyone on the jury took notes.
- This was the first time the prosecutor heard anyone on the jury ask if they could ask questions during the trial.
- This was the first time the prosecutor heard a jury ask for a copy of the law and the judge’s directions.
- The judge’s denial of my request to ask questions was her call. She could have said “yes.” However, every time a jurist wanted to ask a question, s/he would have to write it down, the jury would have to leave, the judge would have to discuss with the prosecution and the defense whether to admit the question and the jury would have to be readmitted.
Concluding Thoughts
If I have the opportunity to do this again, I’d do the following differently:
- I would have asked, at the beginning (even before the testimonies began), for a copy of the laws the defendant was accused of having broken, as well as a copy of the judge’s instructions.
- I would request the proceedings stop if I ever needed a moment to take some notes.
- In the deliberations, I was the one who suggested that the difference we were having on knife vs. dangerous weapon was, in part, ideology. By doing so, Liberal Man couldn’t switch without abandoning his ideology. He was too proud to do something like that.
- When I was talking with the prosecutor, I told him, “Your mistake was allowing me to stay on the jury.” He replied, “You fit the profile.” (I should have asked him what he meant by that). I replied, “You should have asked if anyone had a concealed weapons permit. You don’t want them on your jury. I’m right – but that was the last guy in the world I should have told such a thing.
Here are some other things I learned:
Selection to be in a jury pool is no longer by registered voters but by driver license number.
Liberal Man really scares me. If people like him ever have their way, we are in big trouble. At one point in the deliberation, Liberal Man said, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.” If only he knew. Somehow I need to let the citizens of Sterling Heights know that next time they go to Outback Stakehouse and pick up that knife to cut their stake, they’ll be committing a misdemeanor.
Bowler makes me mad. He’s a hypocrite. He carries in his truck a knife with a blade longer than the defendant’s. He never wavered on declaring the defendant’s knife a dangerous weapon, yet didn’t see a problem with him continuing to carry it. Liberal Man has the arrogance of the elite. Bowler the arrogance of the uninformed.
At one time in the discussion, Bowler suggested that we take a shot at rewriting the dangerous weapon law by specifying blade length and other things. I replied, “Do you really want to live in a society like that.” We need to get rid of bad laws, not rewrite them.
I’m bugged about the weapons charge. The defendant never used that knife. It was wrong of the prosecutor to charge him with that (or whoever makes the charge).
If any other juror had ever read the Constitution or any other book on political philosophy, they sure didn’t let it become known. At one point Mom said, pointing to me, “What do you think? You always have something insightful to say on the matter.” Although this is only my opinion, I led that jury. The decisions made were the ones I wanted (if we had deliberated the second day – I’d have gotten everyone but Liberal Man to “not-guilty” on the weapons charge). I believe I could have made that jury convict the defendant on all three counts had I desired it. I could have done this not because I’m particularly “strong minded”, but because I’ve read and thought about these issues. That thought and experience are powerful. I’m concerned by the ignorance I witnessed in that jury. If my peers, that serve on juries every day aren’t aware of and defending their liberties, those seeking to take away our liberties don’t have much to worry about.
Despite this, I now realize what a powerful thing a jury really is. Juries are a HUGE part of the Constitution – I did not know how important until this experience. As we were leaving the courthouse the first night, Talker said to me, “I can’t believe we’re spending this much time on this” (she was referring to the third charge). I replied, “If I were in the defendant’s place, I’d hope someone would be giving me the same consideration.” The jury is one last defense against tyranny. If my peers are uninformed, I am at risk.
I believe justice was served in this case. This entire thing could have been prevented if any number of things had happened differently – once principal even being the misinformation the wife gave on the 911 call. If she had told the truth, the police officer’s attitude would have been different, and maybe a peaceful discussion would have resulted. Our decision was the correct one.
Here's my story and how it relates. I'm going to work on a version for lewrockwell. If you have any comments/questions/suggestions, please let me know.
Jury Duty
Wednesday through Friday of this week, I had the opportunity to serve on a jury. The experience was a significant one for me and I need to get it on paper. The narrative is divided into five sections: pre-selection, trial, deliberations, debrief, and concluding thoughts.
Pre-selection
I received the summons in the mail about a month ago. The summons specified that I’d be needed on Wednesday and Thursday of this week and that I was to record the distance from my house to the courthouse to be reimbursed for the mileage. I was asked to appear Sterling Heights, the city directly south of Shelby Township.
I arrived Wednesday morning at 8:30 along with 10 other male and 11 other female perspective jurors. We were directed to a room in the basement. As we entered the room we gave our last names and the mileage from our house to the courthouse. We were given a badge with “Juror” at the top and our last name below. The room has cable TV, a coffee machine and, for this day, three boxes of doughnuts. There are several tables in the room with chairs at the tables and other chairs around the outside of the room. The room was kind of small for 24 people (the potential jurors, our babysitter, and a babysitter in training).
Our babysitter (I’m sure she has a proper title, I didn’t hear what it was) gave us an orientation from 8:40 – 9:00. In that orientation she talked to us about the process, at a very high level, of how a case might “Go” to trial. She frequently said, “If it goes”. In Sterling Heights jury trials can happen once a month. Most cases are plea-bargained. She explained that there were about 4 cases under consideration that we could be asked to hear. She explained that she felt 90% confident that one case would “Go”.
While we were waiting, we were not to leave the room excepting for potty and drink breaks (I forgot to ask whether I’d have to specify whether it was a 1 or 2 : ) ). None of us were smokers – a first for our babysitter.
So, being the introvert I am, I pulled out the Book of Mormon and got some good reading done (and also assured that no one would strike up a casual conversation with me). About an hour later, the judge came down.
Judge Weigand (sp?) is a new judge. She was appointed by the current governor. Judge Weigand (JW) seems about my age. Previous to becoming a judge, she was on a city council somewhere. She was appointed to replace a retiring judge and will have to run for reelection soon. JW was friendly. She asked if we had questions. I think she confirmed that she expected one case to “Go.” She talked with us for about 5 minutes and left.
We remained in the room until about 10:30. When we were told we could return home. We were asked to report the next day at 9:00.
The following morning I returned. Instead of the Book of Mormon, I brought the two most recent copies of “American Rifleman” (just wanted everyone to know for sure I was Mormon – they could have thought I was just an investigator : ) ) and my journal.
Again, a little intro by the babysitter; I didn’t pay all that much attention. I penned a few lines in my journal, made it through one “AR” issue, and worked on a crossword puzzle for a few minutes. At that time our babysitter announced that one case was going and we needed to go to the courtroom.
We all trooped upstairs to the courtroom and sat down in the public seating area. The courtroom is small. There is seating for 50 people or so. When we arrived there were in the room: the judge, recorder, bailiff, two people at the defense table, two people at the prosecution table, a woman and a 20 something sitting in the public area, and two police officers in the back of the public seating.
JW asked if everyone was ready to begin. Our babysitter had prepared 22 slips of paper with the name of a potential juror on each paper. She began drawing, at random, names. The first person was called and sat in the juror box. My name was second. Five other people were called.
JW asked each one of us our occupation, if we were married, and what our spouse did. I, rather than trying to explain what I do, just said “I’m an engineer.” She asked if my wife works. I said, “We have 4 kids, she works a lot harder than I do.” This drew a courtroom chuckle.
The prosecutor asked if any of us regularly carried knives. Two people raised their hands. He asked them if they would have a problem finding guilty someone who also carried a knife. They both said no.
The defense asked that one juror be removed, her husband is a firefighter.
The replacement was asked all the same questions.
At this time, JW indicated that it was lunch time and we were given 90 minutes for lunch. The bailiff commanded “All rise” and we seven jurors were directed out the back door of the courtroom and into a much smaller room for some instructions. Our babysitter told us not to discuss the case with anyone and when returning from lunch we were not to go to the courtroom. If our babysitter was not there to meet us just inside the front door, we were to ask for her.
So, since there was a library next door, I did that. Best move of the day. They had a book sale and some person had just donated a gob of great books in mint condition. I picked up Sandberg’s book on Abraham Lincoln for $3; Ayn Rand’s _Atlas Shrugged_ (hardbound) for $3 (I had a guy offer to buy it from me before I even left); _The Libertarian Reader_ (edited by David Boaz) for $2 (this is a great book); _Suddenly_ by George Will $1.50; _A Monetary History of the United States, 1867 – 1960_ by Friedman and Schwartz; and _The Age of Federalism_ by Elkins and McKitrick for $3. I’ve been trying not to buy books lately – but for this price – I can read them and donate them.
Coming back from lunch, I made my first juror mistake. I entered the court building and didn’t see the babysitter. Instead of asking for her, I went and sat down outside the courtroom. The defense attorney was 10 feet away talking on a cell phone. He was on my bad side (my deaf ear) and I couldn’t hear what he was saying. 10 seconds after I sat down the babysitter came out, rebuked me for not calling her, and ushered me into the deliberation room.
After a few minutes, we were ushered into the courtroom. We always entered the courtroom in the order we were chosen and sat in the same seat. After we sat down, there was some informal talk about replacing a juror. I never asked, but I suspect that because of my lunchtime blunder, they were discussing me. After a few moments, they decided to take no action.
Trial
JW asked if everyone was ready to begin. Both lawyers nodded and everyone started “getting set” for the trial. I raised my hand. I asked if it was ok to take notes. JW seemed surprised by the question. She looked at the defense and prosecution. They gave an “I don’t care” look. She asked if anyone else wanted to take notes. One other juror wanted to. The bailiff left and returned in a few moments with two pads of paper and two ballpoint pens.
I raised my hand again. I asked if it was ok to ask questions during the trial. JW looked surprised at the question. She thought for a moment and responded, “No.”
I won’t go through all the details of the trial. I’ll tell my summary of the story and then list some of my observations.
The Story
The defendant moved out of his house – leaving his wife and 20-something son. Two months later, he decided to come back. He phoned his “wife” (they had started the divorce proceedings) and told her he was coming back. She didn’t want him back and told him not to come. It is the end of November, nighttime, and there is snow on the ground.
He arrived at the home with most of his belongings in the car and tried to get into the house. She wouldn’t let him in. He told her to call the cops. She called 911. She told the operator her husband was outside, acting suicidal and irrational, with knives and guns, please send an officer.
The officer shows up and parks – not right in front of the house, but at least one or two houses away. The defendant thinks the police are there to help resolve the dispute the officer thinks this guy is carrying a gun and is going nuts. The defendant starts walking toward the police car. The police officer gets out of the car, draws his gun, points it at the defendant, and tells him to get on the ground. The defendant complies.
The police officer then attempts to handcuff this man. He places his knee in the defendant’s back and gets a handcuff on his left wrist. At this point the defendant resisted. The officer calls for backup. The officer and defendant are struggling on the ground.
The officer is 23 – 25 yrs. old – my size. The defendant is late 40s 6’ 3”, 250 lbs., most of the extra weight in a big gut.
Fifteen seconds after the distress call a second officer arrives with lights and sirens and within a few seconds the situation is under control.
While patting down the defendant, they discover a pocket knife with a 3 inch blade.
The defendant’s car was searched. Included in the contents were a .22 handgun, a 30 caliber rifle, and an M1 carbine. (I’m sure most people would be horrified to hear of three guns in one car. I was thinking, “Wow. Good choice. I recommend augmenting it with a .22 rifle. Would you be interested in selling the M1?”)
My observations
Witnesses/statements and order of testimony:
- Prosecutor opening comments
- Defense opening comments
- Wife
- Son
- 2nd officer
- 3rd officer
- 1st officer
- Defendant
- Prosecutor closing comments
- Defense closing comments
- Prosecutor rebuttal
No one witnessed the struggle. The officer and defendant gave remarkably different stories. The defendant’s included pistol whipping, “grinding of handcuffs into flesh”, and glasses flying across the yard. The officer’s included this man rolling over (after the first handcuff was on) and pushing him.
The defendant was his own worst enemy on the stand. The prosecutor asked him several yes/no questions and he went off on mini-tirades. He accused the officer of lying.
Watching JW, the prosecutor, and the defense attorney during testimonies was almost the most interesting thing. They have a whole code just in the looks they give each other – especially the judge and the prosecutor. At one point, she kept giving him the “object” look and he kept returning the “not yet” look.
After all the testimony (about 2 hours), JW gave us our instructions and sent us off to deliberate.
The Charges
The defendant was charged with three items:
- Assault and Battery
- Resisting and officer
- Possessing a dangerous weapon
All are misdemeanors. Each punishable up to 93 days in jail.
Deliberation
Since the other jurors now come into the story, I’ll describe them according to how we sat around in the deliberation room. Since we really didn’t use names, I’ll give them names here. Immediately to my left was “Liberal Man” (LM). LM is mid-40s; probably with a 4-year degree. Next is “Talker”. She is in her mid-40s, probably has some college. Next to “Talker” is “Bowler”. Bowler, in his mid-40s, likes to bowl. He coaches a high-school bowling team. I doubt he has any post high school education. Next to Bowler is “Mom”. Mom is pregnant, mid-30s, quiet, probably has taken some local community college classes. Next to Mom is “Old Guy”. Old Guy is in his early 60s, maybe he finished high school, is very weak upstairs. Next to Old Guy, and immediately to my right is “Young Guy”. Young guy is in his late 20s. He’s probably had some local community college classes.
JW instructed us to first choose a foreperson. Before we even got to that, Talker started discussing the case. I stepped in and recommended Mom. Mom deferred, because she is pregnant. I next suggested Liberal Man; that stuck.
We immediately requested the knife – the only item submitted as evidence.
We were provided a sheet that listed the three charges with a box labeled “Guilty” and a box labeled “Not-guilty” for each.
We began discussing the charges. After a few minutes, we began to realize that what JW provided us on the sheet was not the complete text that she read us in the courtroom. We also began to have a discussion that led me to feel a need to explain to my cohort what is the purpose of a jury. I explained that I remembered JW reading that our decisions were to be just. I then explained that a trial by a jury of peers is a defense the constitution provides against the unjust application of law and that we must keep that in mind in our deliberations. This comment really got Talker and Mom on my side. It also influenced Young Guy. Liberal Man nodded as did Bowler. I never really could figure what Old Guy was thinking.
We sent to JW a request for her to send us a copy of the laws the defendant was accused of breaking and a copy of her instructions to us.
A few minutes later, the Bailiff returned and asked us to return to the courtroom. We entered the courtroom and sat down. JW asked if we would like to have the laws and her instructions read to us again. We said yes. She read them. When she finished, she asked if there was anything else. I said, “Are you going to give them to us?” She said that she couldn’t. I then said, “Well, you’ll have to wait for a minute while I get a pad of paper and a pen, then you’ll have to read it all over again, really slowly, so I can write word-for-word what you just told us.” JW then shot glances at both the prosecutor and the defense attorney. I then asked, “Why can’t you give them to us.” JW replied, “Because you only requested a portion of the materials and I can’t just give you a portion.” I then asked, “Can we have it all then?” JW said, “Yes.” I said, “Ok, we’re satisfied.”
We returned to the deliberation room. After a few minutes the Bailiff provided a copy of the law, the instructions, and whatever else was there.
We quickly found the defendant not guilty of Resisting an Officer. This one was easiest because the law stipulated that the officer had to be performing his duty and that the defendant had to know what the duty was. In the testimony it was clear that the officer only gave one command: “Get down on the ground.” The testimonies confirmed that the defendant got on the ground. There was no testimony given that the officer then informed the defendant that he was going to handcuff him. From the testimony, we figured that then next thing that happened was the police officer’s knee in the defendant’s back and the officer yanking on the defendant’s arm. It was never made clear to us that the defendant had any idea what the officer’s duty or intent was after the defendant was on the ground.
We, after a slightly longer deliberation, found the defendant not guilty of Assault and Battery. Our reasoning here was that this guy was face-down, in the snow, with the police officer’s knee in his back. The defendant testified that he had trouble breathing and that he tried to raise himself off his face. The police officer testified that the man rolled over and pushed him. To tell you the truth, I’m not sure what happened. I believe there was a struggle, but I’m not sure it constitutes battery. If we were to find guilty for that, we’d have to convict every fourth-grader in the country. I think you might summarize our thought with the following: we found it somewhat implausible that this guy, with one arm in a handcuff rolled face up, with the police officer still on top of him, and pushed the police officer; if he did roll over, it’s the officer’s own stupid fault because all he had to do was yank the defendants cuffed wrist toward the defendant’s head and he’d be unable to do anything.
Now, the third charge was the difficult one. We argued over it until 8 p.m. The law says something like this: it is unlawful for a person to carry on or about himself or herself any dangerous weapon, including, but not limited to: dangerous knives, long knives, or hunting knives not adapted and carried as such.
I’m sure there are poorer-worded laws, but I have yet to come across one. We debated this one for hours. We noted the obvious: if there are dangerous knives, are there also safe knives? How long does a knife have to be for it to be long? When is a knife a knife and when is it a dangerous weapon? If there are dangerous weapons, there also must be non-dangerous weapons. I was curious to know what is a non-dangerous weapon. We noted that me helping Joshua work on his pinewood derby car is technically a crime if I use my pocket knife.
It was during this discussion that liberal man really his feelings made known. At one point he said, “I don’t carry knives, I don’t allow my children to carry knives, I don’t let them associate with people who might carry knives. I know what a dangerous weapon is and that knife is not a pocket knife. It is a dangerous weapon.” For Liberal Man, this became an ideological stand.
We took several intermediate votes. I believed this was a knife, as did Talker and Old Guy. Bowler and Liberal Man felt it was a dangerous weapon. Mom and Young Guy were on the fence.
We all agreed that this is a horrible law. I pointed out that part of the reason why it is a horrible law is that it addresses a situation where breaking the law does absolutely no harm to anyone. The defendant carried this knife with him for 25 years (his wife testified that he always had it with him) and never harmed anyone. Although I didn’t say this, my attitude toward this was framed by those seminary lessons where we criticized the Jews for the fences they built around the laws during the time of Jesus. A law that protects another law, is, I believe, in most instances a bad law.
Eventually, JW got tired of waiting and sent us home.
I went home and couldn’t sleep. I was up until 2 a.m. thinking how I could convince these two jurors that it was wrong to find the defendant guilty on this point. My dilemma was that I said “knife” he said “dangerous weapon.” This comes down to a case of perception. Liberal Man, unthinking as he is (I have to admit a fault here: I accept it as a given that liberals are short on rational thought when it comes to the proper use of government and laws (see anything Ayn Rand wrote for an eloquent defense of this position)), could defend that position without thinking. I was convinced that if I could get Liberal Man to somehow agree with me, I’d get Bowler and the fence sitters.
Finally, I came up with the following. Every day the city of Sterling Heights licenses businesses to do business and inspects those businesses. In those acts, the city regulates legal activity within its bounds. If I could demonstrate that the city allowed knives like the one I the defendant carried to be sold, that is an implicit understanding that knives like that are not dangerous weapons.
So, in the morning I went to two stores. The first sells merchandise and food. I went to the sporting goods area and selected two knives similar to the one we were discussing. I went to the meat department and asked to see a butcher. I asked him if his department was ever inspected by the city. He responded, “All the time.” I purchased the knives (al la Henry Fonda in “Twelve Angry Men”). I then went to Home Depot and did a similar drill.
I even asked to guys outside the Home Depot if either was carrying a knife. One was, and I took a picture of him with the knife (I had a camera with me). I also took pictures of the knife displays.
I then went to the police office next to the court building. I carried with me the knives I purchased. I walked to the reception desk, manned by two officers, placed one of the knives on the desk and asked, “What is this?” They both responded, “A knife.” I asked, “Is this a dangerous weapon?” They both knew where I was going and began saying thinks like, if you can believe it, “Well, it depends on who you ask.” I replied, did I break the law by purchasing this knife and bring it in here this morning. One said, “Well, technically, but we’d never do anything about it unless you were doing something bad. Then we’d tack it on the list of bad things.” I then said, “Tonight, all over Sterling Heights, housewives will be breaking the law when preparing dinner.” They laughed, “Well, ‘Technically.’” I then gave them the Boy Scout scenario. They laughed and agreed.
As I finished at the police station, it was time to return to the court house. Since, technically, I was breaking the law by carrying those dangerous weapons, I immediately handed them to the babysitter upon entering the building.
After all seven of us were in the deliberation room (9 o’clock), the Bailiff told us not to deliberate, but to wait for further instructions from JW. We waited until after 10:30. At this time, the Bailiff came back and confirmed that we had made a decision on two counts. He then ushered us into the courtroom. At this point, JW informed us that the third charge had been dropped and that we were to give our count of the first two. We read them. The defendant was jubilant – of course. We left the court room for the deliberation room.
Debrief
In the deliberation room, the babysitter told us to wait for a few minutes and JW would come talk to us. She arrived in a few minutes and immediately asked, “Who’s the engineer?” I raised my hand. She said, “You brought the knives, didn’t you.” I nodded. She the explained that my actions could have brought about a mistrial. When she learned that I had bought the knives, she had several courses of action: declare a mistrial, inform us as a jury not to discuss my actions (i.e., pretend I hadn’t bought the knives), or try and get the third charge dropped. She took the last option.
I wasn’t the only offender (but certainly the worst). While we were deliberating the previous afternoon, Bowler pulled out a pocked dictionary and we looked up some of the words in the law (dangerous, long, et al.). That was also a bad. My going to the police department was very bad.
My logic in doing all this was that I was not discussing the “case” with anyone. I was trying to find out more about the law. The interesting thing is about trials, is that the jury isn’t supposed to find out more about the law while deliberating. I’m not sure how I feel about that.
So, I asked JW how she would have ruled on the case. She said that she would have also found him not-guilty on all charges.
Anyway, Talker was really interested to hear the arguments I was going to make. Liberal Man looked briefly at the knives I purchased with a sniff of disgust (I think expressing a view that such things shouldn’t be sold).
Anyway, JW thanked us for our effort and told us we were free to go. I hung around for a moment and helped clean the room.
I was the last juror to leave. The officer and prosecutor were in the lobby when I left. I went to the officer, offered my hand, and told him that I didn’t want him to think that our decision reflected badly upon him. We felt he did the right thing (that wasn’t 100% true, but I didn’t want him to feel bad) but that the case wasn’t strong enough for us to find the defendant guilty. The officer asked me to step aside and asked if he could discuss the case with me. The prosecutor was also there. We talked for 15 minutes or so. I learned some interesting things:
- The defendant had moved out to live with another woman. Apparently that relationship went south and that was why he was returning.
- This was the first time the prosecutor was in a trial where anyone on the jury took notes.
- This was the first time the prosecutor heard anyone on the jury ask if they could ask questions during the trial.
- This was the first time the prosecutor heard a jury ask for a copy of the law and the judge’s directions.
- The judge’s denial of my request to ask questions was her call. She could have said “yes.” However, every time a jurist wanted to ask a question, s/he would have to write it down, the jury would have to leave, the judge would have to discuss with the prosecution and the defense whether to admit the question and the jury would have to be readmitted.
Concluding Thoughts
If I have the opportunity to do this again, I’d do the following differently:
- I would have asked, at the beginning (even before the testimonies began), for a copy of the laws the defendant was accused of having broken, as well as a copy of the judge’s instructions.
- I would request the proceedings stop if I ever needed a moment to take some notes.
- In the deliberations, I was the one who suggested that the difference we were having on knife vs. dangerous weapon was, in part, ideology. By doing so, Liberal Man couldn’t switch without abandoning his ideology. He was too proud to do something like that.
- When I was talking with the prosecutor, I told him, “Your mistake was allowing me to stay on the jury.” He replied, “You fit the profile.” (I should have asked him what he meant by that). I replied, “You should have asked if anyone had a concealed weapons permit. You don’t want them on your jury. I’m right – but that was the last guy in the world I should have told such a thing.
Here are some other things I learned:
Selection to be in a jury pool is no longer by registered voters but by driver license number.
Liberal Man really scares me. If people like him ever have their way, we are in big trouble. At one point in the deliberation, Liberal Man said, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.” If only he knew. Somehow I need to let the citizens of Sterling Heights know that next time they go to Outback Stakehouse and pick up that knife to cut their stake, they’ll be committing a misdemeanor.
Bowler makes me mad. He’s a hypocrite. He carries in his truck a knife with a blade longer than the defendant’s. He never wavered on declaring the defendant’s knife a dangerous weapon, yet didn’t see a problem with him continuing to carry it. Liberal Man has the arrogance of the elite. Bowler the arrogance of the uninformed.
At one time in the discussion, Bowler suggested that we take a shot at rewriting the dangerous weapon law by specifying blade length and other things. I replied, “Do you really want to live in a society like that.” We need to get rid of bad laws, not rewrite them.
I’m bugged about the weapons charge. The defendant never used that knife. It was wrong of the prosecutor to charge him with that (or whoever makes the charge).
If any other juror had ever read the Constitution or any other book on political philosophy, they sure didn’t let it become known. At one point Mom said, pointing to me, “What do you think? You always have something insightful to say on the matter.” Although this is only my opinion, I led that jury. The decisions made were the ones I wanted (if we had deliberated the second day – I’d have gotten everyone but Liberal Man to “not-guilty” on the weapons charge). I believe I could have made that jury convict the defendant on all three counts had I desired it. I could have done this not because I’m particularly “strong minded”, but because I’ve read and thought about these issues. That thought and experience are powerful. I’m concerned by the ignorance I witnessed in that jury. If my peers, that serve on juries every day aren’t aware of and defending their liberties, those seeking to take away our liberties don’t have much to worry about.
Despite this, I now realize what a powerful thing a jury really is. Juries are a HUGE part of the Constitution – I did not know how important until this experience. As we were leaving the courthouse the first night, Talker said to me, “I can’t believe we’re spending this much time on this” (she was referring to the third charge). I replied, “If I were in the defendant’s place, I’d hope someone would be giving me the same consideration.” The jury is one last defense against tyranny. If my peers are uninformed, I am at risk.
I believe justice was served in this case. This entire thing could have been prevented if any number of things had happened differently – once principal even being the misinformation the wife gave on the 911 call. If she had told the truth, the police officer’s attitude would have been different, and maybe a peaceful discussion would have resulted. Our decision was the correct one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)