It was the design of Angelo Ricci and Joe Czanek and Manuel Silva to call on the Terrible Old Man. This old man dwells all alone in a very ancient house on Water Street near the sea, and is reputed to be both exceedingly rich and exceedingly feeble; which forms a situation very attractive to men of the profession of Messrs. Ricci, Czanek, and Silva, for that profession was nothing less dignified than robbery.
Boy, Lovecraft sure hated immigrants.
Indeed.
I noticed they were carefully diversified though.
I think I get what you’re saying in general, but am not sure. Are you saying that the jury should (or does anyway, notwithstanding their charge) engage in some level of normative deliberation during the trial phase? And that, sorry to put it crudely, they needed killin’ isn’t just relevant to the sentencing part of the trial (if at all), but also to the fact-finding part?
Does that mean that in every criminal trial, the defendant should have the right to call the victim to the stand to testify about any past conduct that has an arguable similarity to the one the defendant is on trial for?
It might be…IF he knew who it was coming down the stairs.
He had no way of knowing who was coming down the stairs when he shot them. It seems he did not care. His statement was that he fired when he could only see them from the waist down. That was made clear by the audio, which I really wish I did not listen to.
And at least he didn’t throw in an ape-like black man amongst the Italian, Pole, and Spaniard.
I’m not an atty so you’ll have to explain what you mean by “normative deliberation” here.
No. I’m not saying anything like that.
No. I’m not saying anything like that.
I’m saying that the jury should get all the relevant facts. If those kids did some unrelated crime years ago or were promiscuous or something that wouldn’t be relevant. But the fact that they had been recently robbing houses and had in fact robbed this particular house is certainly relevant in a case where someone is on trial for shooting them during a break in.
Maybe.
But it would also be relevant to what was going on in his head if someone else had robbed his house recently that wasn’t those kids.
Just the simple fact that someone had recently broke in to his place is certainly relevant to what he was doing and thinking.
Everyone seems focused on the revenge angle, but that’s not the only reason that the history matters.
The audio that I tried was 30 mins long. Did you guys really listen to all that? Is there a version that at least has notes about where major events occur? I don’t think I can sit through that much of this guy breathing.
Of COURSE the jury should get all the relevant facts. The question, of course, is what’s relevant, what’s irrelevant, and what’s prejudicial. The jury is the decider of fact, and the judge decides which evidence is prejudicial. IANAL, but based on my decades of watching Law and Order, I’d say that a victim’s prior criminal activity that was unknown to the defendant at the time of the crime is pretty clearly inadmissible because it’s prejudicial. I wish **Bricker **were here, because he’s an actual law-talking guy and this is one of those issues that he’s extremely consistent about on these boards, most recently during the Trayvon Martin threads.
eta: Here’sthe audio cut down to 5 minutes of relevant stuff. It’s disturbing.
Without having read anybody else’s response to this I’ll state that I think it’s a bit of both. But I will state this, as well: that the guy who did the shooting sounds like he’s got some kind of mental problems, perhaps undiagnosed.
I would argue that the defense could introduce the fact that the defendant’s house was recently burgled by someone, i.e. not a specific person.
That’s a good summary, yes, but I think you really get a sense of the pre-meditation if you listen to the longer 29-minute audio linked earlier.
This guy was hunting.
Yow. That’s quite a recording.
Two cases of terminally stupid.
One case of criminally nuts.
Three tragedies, all avoidable by the people involved.
FWIW, the unanimous opinion on a gun carry board that I participate on is that this was murder and the guilty verdict was justified.
It was, and it was.
If he had not taken that “finishing shot”, if he had not waited until the next day, if he had only shot the two of them, waited a bit out of fear there could be more of them, then called the police, I might be able to call it justifiable.
But no, he deliberately set out to kill those kids, made sure to do it, and didn’t make any effort to cover for his own actions.
Two finishing shots, actually. Neither burglar was killed outright.
Howdy! My name is Typo Negative. Howya doing?
Now that we are acquainted, you now know someone who, as a teen, did the very things the two teens were killed for.
I gotta tell ya, it’s a little disconcerting to read people in this very thread say I deserved to die for this. (I know you didn’t) That my death would have been OK with them.
Yes, I burgled. I burgled quite a bit. I burgled the same houses several times. I was a teen-aged addict and thief. I broke into houses and cars. I did this until I was 22. Then I got clean. I made amends to the people I stole from. I never assaulted anyone. I have been a law abiding, tax-paying member of society for the last 27 years. I find it difficult to believe that some people feel these two teens were beyond redemption, that their lives had no value because they were like me. Doesn’t seem very Christian, as I understand it anyway. I guess YMMV.
Far more disconcerting is hearing the *glee *this home-owner took in killing these two teens. I guess I did not fully understand that when I clicked on the audio link, I was going to listen to two human beings die. If you have not listened to the audio, I suggest you leave it that way.
I am very, very grateful that I never ran across such a home-owner in my lawless years.
I am a gun owner.
I have said more than once that if someone broke into my home to steal property, I would call the police and not confront the burglar…I don’t own anything that is worth taking another human being’s life.
But you must realize, Typo, that your teenage self was absolutely risking being shot. You must realize that society is generally prepared to accept that when you invade another person’s home with the intention of stealing, society is prepared to grant a great deal of credence to the claims of that homeowner that he feared for his safety. In this case, the homeowner’s conduct was so egregious that he destroyed that presumption, true. But you cannot hold out your teenage conduct and say that your survival was anything other than fortunate.
Previous break-ins at the defendant’s house are relevant, and were introduced at the trial (per the link about the conviction):
Other burglaries the teens may have committed at other houses are not relevant. Other burglaries of the defendant’s house by the teens are less clear, I’ll defer to a lawyer on that point.
If you are in your own house, I don’t think “lying in wait” is the term to use. Why not say “In your home”?
Life is hard. Two stiffs. If they had been in their own homes, it would have been murder. Instead, they were committing a felony, and lo, and behold…