Jefferson Co. judge shoots back at attacker

[Javelin Man]

Courthouse video shows both the judge and Nate Richmond firing about five times each, said Jefferson County Sheriff Fred Abdalla.

Judge shot back, a probation officer joined in the gunfight and the original attack who shot five times at point blank range, lost.

And the motive is unknown at this time. Ask me, I'll tell you!

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/man ... li=BBnb7Kz

[Brian D.]

My first and only guess was that rape case. Lots of anger during and after the legal proceedings.

[sd790]

Are judges allowed to be armed in a courtroom?

[scottb]

The attack "reminds us all of the very real potential for violence against judges," Maureen O'Connor said. "Violence against judges represents an attack on the Rule of Law, the foundation of our country.

There is a very real potential for violence against any of us. This why we carry.

[M-Quigley]

"Whoever thought this could happen here?" Abdalla said.

This statement is why carrying all the time is so important. The town where the nurse, the STNA, and the police chief were killed probably thought the same thing. So many people who have a CHL don't carry, and say "Oh, I only carry when I think I need to." Although there are places, times, or job circumstances when your likelihood of violent crime is increased, (like being a judge) it doesn't always merely happen in "bad" towns or neighborhoods, or at night, or to judges either.

[Brian D.]

Are judges allowed to be armed in a courtroom?

Judges in Ohio seem to be able to interpret the ORC as they see fit regarding carry for themselves and selected staffers. With our current Attorney General being a nearsighted wimp who has aspirations of being Governor someday, this is how things work in Ohio.

[JustaShooter]

As noted in another thread, judges are exempt. No need to interpret the law in their favor or ignore it.

2923.123 Illegal conveyance of deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance into courthouse - illegal possession or control in courthouse.
(A) No person shall knowingly convey or attempt to convey a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance into a courthouse or into another building or structure in which a courtroom is located.
(B) No person shall knowingly possess or have under the person's control a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance in a courthouse or in another building or structure in which a courtroom is located.
(C) This section does not apply to any of the following:
(1) Except as provided in division (E) of this section, a judge of a court of record of this state or a magistrate;

[bignflnut]

"Whoever thought this could happen here?" Abdalla said.

This statement is why carrying all the time is so important.

The fact that one feels "safe" in one setting or another is exactly the edge that criminals look for in plotting their crimes (if they're capable of premeditation). This feeling is a harbinger of the need to keep and bear arms. The victim places his faith in this feeling.

"The Law" is to apply equally to all peoples, regardless of profession or State payroll, in all places. But "NO!", we willingly accept certain Rights being suppressed in certain places, while waving the Red, White & Blue and cracking an ice cold brew. In fact, we advocate FOR these null and void "laws".

I'm all for judges carrying. And lawyers, and baillifs, and stenographers, and janitors, and visitors, and reporters, and all of the adult, mature, responsible people who may ever be in a building conducting business. Perhaps not the people who enter in handcuffs, as due process is in progress.

[AlanM]

http://www.gocomics.com/workingitout/2017/08/22

[Brian D.]

As noted in another thread, judges are exempt. No need to interpret the law in their favor or ignore it.

2923.123 Illegal conveyance of deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance into courthouse - illegal possession or control in courthouse.
(A) No person shall knowingly convey or attempt to convey a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance into a courthouse or into another building or structure in which a courtroom is located.
(B) No person shall knowingly possess or have under the person's control a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance in a courthouse or in another building or structure in which a courtroom is located.
(C) This section does not apply to any of the following:
(1) Except as provided in division (E) of this section, a judge of a court of record of this state or a magistrate;

Okay, so the judicial branch asked for and got this from the legislative branch, then it was signed off by the executive branch. Still a case of holier than thou in my view.

[djthomas]

I'm all for judges carrying. And lawyers, and baillifs, and stenographers, and janitors, and visitors, and reporters, and all of the adult, mature, responsible people who may ever be in a building conducting business. Perhaps not the people who enter in handcuffs, as due process is in progress.

And the trouble is the people who enter in handcuffs (and their victims) often have large cheering sections of family and friends that repeatedly show themselves unable to follow the basic rules of courtroom decorum let alone what they might do if allowed to possess a weapon there. Courts are unique in their ability to concentrate large groups of immature, irresponsible people from opposing sides into a small room and make life altering decisions about their bros 'n (a useful gardening tool).

I have absolutely no problem with courts and jails being statutorily off limits to all but certain personnel when they provide security screening. I believe the respective presidents of OFCC and BFA are even on record more or less agreeing with that too.

[Notasmiff]

You couldn't pay me enough to be a judge without being armed !!

[bignflnut]

I have absolutely no problem with courts and jails being statutorily off limits to all but certain personnel when they provide security screening. I believe the respective presidents of OFCC and BFA are even on record more or less agreeing with that too.

One can't advocate for the camel's nose to enter the tent, but then disapprove when the rest follows.
One exception begets another...eventually we're a society of first and second class citizens.

[WestonDon]

I have absolutely no problem with courts and jails being statutorily off limits to all but certain personnel when they provide security screening.

I would agree 100% IF They would provide secure storage at the point of security screening.

[djthomas]

One can't advocate for the camel's nose to enter the tent, but then disapprove when the rest follows.
One exception begets another...eventually we're a society of first and second class citizens.

That's an interesting historical perspective, because normally the "camel's nose under the tent" analogy is used to describe the progressive erosion of something. Judges have been allowed to carry deadly weapons in courthouses long before concealed carry was legal in Ohio, so no exception has been added for judges. It has pretty much always been there; if anything the camel's nose is private citizens' carry rights being continually expanded.

There's also the constitutional issue of separation of powers. If a judge believes that carrying a firearm within his courthouse is a necessary and proper exercise of his court's inherent authority to operate itself, how is the the Legislature's prerogative to interfere?

I would agree 100% IF They would provide secure storage at the point of security screening.

That system works well in Pennsylvania. Ohio law allows courts to do so as well, but I'm not aware of any that do with the exception of the Supreme Court. Almost every judge in Ohio is elected, so what's stopping you from lobbying them as you would your legislator? You know, make it a campaign issue, refuse to donate to judges who don't support the idea, etc.