"Little did he know what awaited him..."

"...when he called 911 that day."

"What convinced us is that he admitted he took the police to the guns," said juror Darci Baker-Spicer of Bremerton.

So 20 years ago, when he was a teenager, Luke T. Groves committed an act of burglary at a local school. His felony conviction for that crime carried a lifetime ban on possessing or "controlling" any firearm, but state law did not require that he be informed of that prohibition. The state never denied that he was not, in fact informed.

In November of last year, he came home to find a broken window in his house. He called 911. First mistake.

In response to a question from one of the "responding" police officers, he said that his wife had a pistol and a rifle. Second mistake.

In response to a request from the police, he led them into the bedroom and showed them the guns - a .380 pistol and a .22 rifle. Third and last mistake.

He did all this in the wide-eyed trust that, since he had done nothing wrong, he had nothing to fear. His trust didn't save him from being led away in handcuffs. Oh, yeah, the cops never did learn (or even try to learn) who broke the window. But they got their man, all right. Hooah!

Groves was charged with being a felon in possession of firearms. In his trial, his defense was forbidden to enter certain facts into evidence, such as that the guns belonged to his wife who had owned them before they were married over seven years ago, that he was never informed that he wasn't allowed to even be in a house that contained firearms, and that he was a firefighter certified in the use of high explosives. None of that was relevant.

To convict Groves, jurors had to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of three things: that he knowingly had possession or control of a firearm; that he is a convicted felon, and that the crime occurred in Kitsap County.

As is so often the case in our world-class "justice" system, the charge was narrowly tailored to fit only things that were beyond contestation, whether or not the "crimes" were actually a danger to any person or property. The jury being so hamstrung, and kept so ignorant of any other facts, the verdict was predetermined.

"What convinced us is that he admitted he took the police to the guns," said juror Darci Baker-Spicer of Bremerton.

I must say that Groves' wife, now a single mother, is an understanding soul.

"They did exactly what they were told to do," she said.

But she still can't understand her husband is in jail because of guns she owned before they even met.

"I did not become a felon by marrying him," she said.

But hey! All's well that ends well, right?

She'll soon head to the local Department of Social and Health Services office to apply for benefits on behalf of their 4-year-old daughter, Sophim. As a child of an incarcerated parent, the state will pay for housing, Besherse believes.

RTWT

If you're in a really masochistic mood, check out the comments below the story and learn why this sort of madness will never, ever end:

Well, gee, maybe this criminal should have considered the ramifications for his actions, and the fact that he'd face life long consequences of his actions. Why the surprise at being held accountable?

What part of 'no guns' is confusing? No guns means no guns. Dude gave up that right when he chose to become a criminal. Those of us who don't commit crimes and get convicted of them are good to go.

His wife's decision to marry and associate with known felons has consequences. If you want to bring that into your home, well, you brought it into your home, no one forced her to sleep with a thief.

I've said it before, and no doubt I'll say it again: Mr. Policeman Is Not Your Friend. And neither are the idiots who support him.