IANAL, and I usually stay out of threads like this, but my read on the OP is that that’s the reason why he said, “Fuck the jury.”
I shouldn’t presume to speak for the OP, but I got the sense that he felt like the jury shouldn’t have believed him. That the defendant shouldn’t have been protected under the self-defense laws, because he doesn’t believe that the defendant’s actions met with the standard for self-defense (primarily, because he doesn’t believe that the defendant was telling the truth when he testified that he was acting in self-defense), and he doesn’t think that the jury should have believed it, either. Therefore, fuck the jury.
So, he knew there were squatters (because upthread it’s mentioned the cops had not responded to some undisclosed but related complaint) already in the house. He goes in armed–apparently expecting them to be rough-necked scallywags. Effectively picks a fight, and opens fire. And gets acquitted under SYG? That doesn’t seem to be the intent behind that kind of law. It’s always struck me as “you don’t gotta be nice to folks who invade the space you’re living in.” Do I not understand correctly?
Because under the same circumstances it seems the squatters could have invoked the same right and justified them killing some guy with a gun who wandered in on them. I don’t know how to feel about the story because I wasn’t privy to the same info as the jury had, but my non-confrontational self, were I 74 years old, would have entered the premises armed with a brace of stout but level-headed lads, determined only to convince the squatters to clear out in an amicable and urgent manner. As he entered armed and without potential witnesses, I’m much more inclined to think him a cantankerous sort, intent on exterminating some vermin.
Snowboarder Bo, I ask this in the least antagonizing way possible: What would you think of that alternative ending? Would the squatters be able to credibly invoke SYG and beat an armed intruder to death with a flashlight?
IIRC, a standard component of stand-your-ground laws is that the person invoking the defense must be in a place “where they have the right to be”, so presumably a squatter illegally occupying property they don’t own and don’t have permission to be on would not be covered.
But if you are, then I wonder why his idea that the accused was lying is entitled to more deference than the jury’s idea that the accused was telling the truth. Snowboarder Bo read a news story about what happened, but the jury got to see, on tape, the accused’s interview with detectives in which he described what happened.
The accused said on tape that he saw, in the darkness, the victim point what he thought was a gun at him, and that’s why he fired. Under the victim’s body, a black flashlight was found.
The jury was told that in order to find the accused guilty, they had to find that the state had proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused did NOT fear for his life. In other words, the jury needed to believe that the accused was lying, and not just slightly believe it, or even probably believe it. In order to convict, the jury needed to be so certain that the accused was lying that there remained in their minds no reasonable doubt about the issue.
To me, that’s the problem: that the law requires the state to prove such a thing. But since they do, that’s what the jury was told.
So if, as you propose, Snowboarder Bo thought the jury should indeed have been so convinced that the accused was lying, even though there was a flashlight light there that could easily have been mistaken in the dark for a gun… if that’s true, then why? What’s the insight that he has that the jury did not?
From where I sit, the problem is with the standards the law created, and not with the jury’s decision. Educate me.
I agree. And also look, I’ll bet the Op read a story, maybe two, and even a blog. The jury sat thru weeks of evidence. They simply had the full story & all the facts, while the Op simply does not. I’ll bet a nickle he hasnt even read the transcript.
The Jury followed the law, they did what was right- under the Law. They had all the info, which the Op has not.
Now sure- Stand Your Ground is controversial. The Op has a good point in that this case (along with others) may be a reason to reconsider Stand Your Ground. But- until we do- it’s the Law.
Unless it’s nullified by a jury. That’s the Law too.
[QUOTE=Claverhouse]
Wasn’t there a case a few years back when some chap went down into his basement and wasted a few kids ?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, it’s even alluded to at the tail end of the OP’s article - I, too, thought both cases were one and the same.
The circumstances were different though : in that story, the chap in question deliberately set the kids up for a murder (driving away to make them believe the house was empty, hiding under the stairwell to catch them by surprise etc). And he’d recorded his thoughts on the matter at lengths, then the deed. Because S-M-R-T.
AFAIK *that *guy was convicted of first degree murder, as should be.
How would jury nullification even work in this case? Given that that the law acts in favor of the defense, you would either have to have the entire jury agree to nullify the defense and agree to call him guilty. Or else hope that the prosecutor is willing to retry the case and hope that that jury nullifies as well.
This is an entirely different kettle of fish from defensive jury nullification in which one person on the jury who disagrees with the law can thwart prosecution.
In high profile cases like the OJ trial, the nation was and still is gobsmacked with the jury’s verdict. I think most of us really think OJ did those things he was accused of doing. Whether or not the jury remained unconvinced after everything is their prerogative, of course, but I think a “fuck the jury” was an appropriate response there.
At the risk of injecting reason into a Pit thread, I wonder how Nevada views residency of long-term squatters. I know it doesn’t take long to change your address on a driver’s license, but one the methheads did. That seems to imply she felt she had been there, and intended to remain there, long enough to consider the place a feasible residence. I think everyone has heard horror stories about trying to evict a roommate or very delinquent tenant–at least under certain circumstances it seems the law tends to favor the occupant over legal ownership
Well, actually Jury Nullification is not the Law. It’s legal, but there’s no Law allowing it, afaik. It’s de facto, not de jure. You can even be removed from a jury for stating/showing beforehand you intend to nullify the law.
And that’s not how Jury Nullification works, either.
He didn’t defend himself. He shot people because he was afraid. The correct thing to do was to draw his weapon but back away, or fire a warning shot and back away. Get out of the building, call the police. But that’s probably not macho enough for you so yeah, I guess he had to murder them
Unless you are aware of some provision of Nevada law to which the prosecution was not acquainted that requires the firing of a “warning shot”, then I don’t see how this is a valid claim.
The point wasn’t to do what was legally valid and create the most harm, the point is to prevent harm to yourself while also trying not to harm others. Its legal, he won the case, but it would have been a better outcome had he tried to defuse the situation less Rambo style
Yes, OJ was responsible for her death, as is shown by the wrongful death suit. BUT the DA brought in some damn racist witness(es), at least one of whom very well could have planted evidence. Thus, the Jury quite properly thought there was reasonable doubt as that tainted too much evidence. However, the civil suit only had to jump a much lower doubt threshold.