Ohio
Gun Owner is Acquitted.
The trial of Garry Swirsky
Reported
by William Smith
March 27, 2001
I�ve just spent a week
watching the trial of Garry Swirsky in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga
County, Cleveland Ohio, for the charge of carrying a concealed weapon in
violation of the Ohio revised code. I don't know Mr. Swirsky personally, but I
have a sense of what he has gone through, and I am outraged at just how
something like this could happen in America.
Mr.
Swirsky, the only defense witness, was
acquitted by a jury of his peers of any offense against the people of the
State of Ohio. The jury agreed that he acted within the law when he admittedly
carried a concealed weapon while transporting firearms and cash when arrested at
his bank on November 26th, 1999.
(See past
article for background.)
In
order to give you the barest of glimpses into this fiasco, a few highlights of
what I saw follow below.
The
jury selection was in itself an enlightening sight. Even those who admittedly
disliked the idea of guns in the hands of the average citizen, or guns at all,
ultimately agreed that it was not the gun that killed or injured, but the person behind it.
The
bank personnel identified that he did indeed have sufficient funds in his
accounts to cover the certified check he wanted to cash; that he had been
banking there 2 or 3 times a week for several years;
that the manager did have the authority to cash his check if she wanted
to for �established customers�, but did not acknowledge that he was an
established customer; that as of December 1st, all funds in his
accounts had been released but that as of Dec. 15th, he still had not
gotten his money back from the bank. (All of these had bearing on the
case. Again, see past
article for background.)
Officer
#1 testified that he entered the bank alone, did not address Mr. Swirsky but did
grab his arms from behind. One of several contradictions arose when Officer #2
testified that he came into the bank and heard officer #1 tell Swirsky to place
his hands on the railing before grabbing him.
Officer
#1 also testified that the gun taken from Swirsky (.45 Colt Officers - Series
80) did not have the manual safety on. But then he testified that he �didn�t
notice that the hammer was cocked and the safety off until he took
it back out of his pocket�.
There
were other contradictions in testimonies given, as well. It felt like these guys
were making things up to try to get a conviction against Mr. Swirsky, rather
than let the facts speak for themselves.
The
detective read what he testified was Swirsky�s statement, which stated, �he
has been informed by the police that the bank manager said he threatened her
with a shotgun�. Swirsky denied making any such comment in his statement.
Mr.
Swirsky testified to the following:
-
He
was transporting firearms and cash.
-
It
was common knowledge that he did so as a self-employed businessman and avid
target shooter, (whose gun was registered making it public record.)
-
He
considered it reasonable and prudent to go armed under the circumstances, as
Ohio law allows and as the jury agreed was legal.
Garry
Swirsky was found NOT GUILTY of carrying a concealed firearm illegally -- in the
corrupt anti-rights state of Ohio whose state constitution says,
"The
people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but
standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be
kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power."
-- Ohio Constitution Article I, Section 4
and
also says,
"All
men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights,
among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring,
possessing, and protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and
safety." -- Ohio Constitution Article I, Section 1
but
where decent people with no criminal record must invest tens of thousands of
dollars to defend the very rights outlined above.
Pathetic.
Garry
Swirsky did nothing wrong -- and certainly did nothing to deserve the wrath of
the oath-breaking non-Americans in badges who trampled his rights. Have you seen
the Oath of Office for Ohio public servants? If not, you
should look at it -- and so should our fearless "protect and
serve" coppers and their bosses in our state.
Let's
be glad the jury did the right thing by acquitting an innocent man while cops
were giving conflicting testimonies about the case and doing their best to put
him in jail for carrying a gun to protect his life and property. My
patience level has been tested about as far as it can go, and I'm not the only
one, believe me.
Related
Reading:
Abused
Ohio Gun Owner Tells His Story -- The Garry Swirsky Interview
