You live in a strange and fascinating albeit batshit insane world, Steo.
Absolutely!! Fuck that jury.
They sit through all of that pesky testimony and evidence, but arrive at a different conclusion than I did after reading an article, fuck those idiots.
At least the shoot-ees weren’t black otherwise, pandemonium.
People only fire warning shots in movies. You don’t shoot them in the leg either, can we please stop with that nonsense.
That’s a good point.
The one possible flaw in that is whether the methhead would have a less defensible position because he and the landlord had never entered into any kind of agreement which gave him legal use of the property.
Isn’t a jury required to rule according to the law? Wouldn’t failure to do so be grounds for appeal by the losing side?
There is a school of thought that if its dangerous enough that you need to fire a warning shot, then its dangerous enough that you should just shoot at them first.
Which can lead to the opinion that firing a warning shot was just you being a reckless dick.
Which I tend to think is circular logic baloney.
But, I guess my point is that firing a “warning” shot might actually get in trouble legally.
So, if you MUST fire a warning shot, just aim poorly and later claim you missed. Non of this blatant into the air or ground stuff.
Well… remember that a jury that acquits has delivered a verdict that can’t be appealed. So (at least theoretically) a jury that acquits in violation of their oath avoids judicial review. A jury verdict of guilty that is unsupported by the evidence is vulnerable to being set aside by the trial judge on his own motion, or on a motion by the defense. And the defense can certainly appeal to a reviewing court as well.
Not in the case of an acquittal, due to double jeopardy laws. In the case of a conviction, yes, but the judge should overrule the jury before it even gets to that point. That’s why in practice a jury can nullify a law that says something is illegal, but can’t make something illegal that isn’t, as long as they don’t tell anyone about it.
I almost don’t want to ask but I am afflicted by a morbid fascination. Are you saying backing away and calling police would be illegal? Your ideas are fascinating to me
I think its fairly obvious that I don’t subscribe to that school of thought.
I would take being a dick over being a murderer
Then just point the gun at them and back away
Is your analysis and decision not to subscribe to that school of thought based on any training or experience, or study of the issue?
The point is you shouldn’t be threatening people in the first place. You don’t use force (armed or otherwise) except to defend yourself against an imminent threat (someone running at you with a heavy flashlight would count as that). If you have time to brandish a weapon threateningly or fire a warning shot, you’re either not in imminent danger, not in sufficient danger that you need to use lethal force, or you’re an idiot who’s gonna end up either seriously injured or dead.
If you fire a warning shot that accidentally hits someone, or accidentally fire whilst threatening someone, you’ve shot someone who was not an imminent threat. What’s being advocated by people who say you should do those things precisely what people claim is happening - the injury or death of innocent people.
But some people think you WON"T fire no matter what. Hence the theory of the warning shot in some circumstances.
I’ve done one. Right after the guy said I didn’t balls to do it he found out otherwise (off the top of my head I forget his exact phrasing).
But that can be circular reasoning in some circumstances. If someone wants to waste their first shot as a warning shot thats their business IMO (no wise IMO, but neither is total passivity in the name of non violence as an example).
Yeah, on the don’t brandish a weapon unless you damn well need to.
The suggestion was, as I understood it, to threaten them with a gun whilst backing away and calling the police - it’s the threatening them that’s illegal.
Here’s wiki’s very brief summary. You may disagree with this sort of law, but it’s well known enough that I know about it from a continent away. Most probably from reading “what Hollywood gets wrong” type articles.
Yeah, iknowwhatyoumean, I mean, some guy probably even read a* blog*:eek: and watched a Youtube video!:eek: Obviously, he knows more that those dupes who sat and listened to weeks of testimony. :rolleyes:
I don’t think your assertion is correct, given that the hypothetical property owner would have been, in effect, making a citizens arrest and detaining people for the purpose of turning them over to the police. Feel free to prove me wrong with citations, tho.
I did a slight search of squatters rights in Nevada - most of the random bits seemed to be about the fact that there are a ton of empty properties, and the cops consider squatting to be more of a civil nature than that of criminal trespass (but maybe that is just my fault for not going deeper into local articles).
However - that does not necessarily match all experiences in the Vegas area:
So it sounds like Vegas has issues, and isn’t always able to handle it.
So you have a depressed area, with a fair number of squatters, the cops don’t seem to be overly concerned, so homeowners end up patrolling their own properties. Not a good situation.
That’s arguably true, but citizen’s arrests are problematic in that, if they did not actually commit the crime, then it’s a false arrest - unlike the police, who have protection from making mistakes, and only need probable cause to arrest.
It’s also unlikely that holding someone at gunpoint to arrest them who’s not yet threatened you would count as excessive force. Thewiki page says that force must only be that necessary to apprehend the offender and prevent the continued commission of crime.
Holding someone at gunpoint only works if they believe you’ll shoot them, and even the police aren’t allowed to shoot someone who’s fleeing.
If anyone has cites to the contrary, that private individuals are allowed to hold people at gunpoint, I’d welcome them. I still think it’s a foolish thing to do - if they’re not a threat, you’re putting them at risk of you shooting accidentally, and if they are a threat you’re putting yourself at risk by not shooting them.
The reason the police are allowed to point guns at people is that they are allowed and encouraged to get close to threatening people in order to use force to restrain them, deliberately putting themselves at risk
This actually looks far more like a killing that was ultimately caused by the police, albeit by inaction, than many of the ones in the other thread…
I’ve got some questions about how jury nullification works.
It’s state by state, right? I know that in NH jury nullification is specifically allowed, or at least it was until this ruling by the State Supreme Court.
Is it allowed in NV?
The way I always understood jury nullification to work wouldn’t cover this scenario, though. It’s usually juries deciding they don’t agree with a law and declaring someone innocent based on this disagreement, even if the law was broken. Right?
I think pot should be legal. This man was arrested for possession. I acquit him because I disagree with the law even though the evidence showed he did possess it.
I don’t think we ever want jury nullification to work the opposite way, right?
I think people shouldn’t have the right to self defense. Someone defends themselves. I vote for a guilty verdict based on my disagreement with the law.
This seems like a really bad idea no matter what you think of stand your ground laws.