The idea I had was I’m packing my Glock and I come home after 1 month’s vacation. As I walk in, there is someone in my home (unbeknownst to me, a squatter) that may be coming after me aggressively as he thinks I’m breaking into “his” home. Why wouldn’t the Castle Doctrine let me shoot him?
ISTM that as soon as you call the cops, the squatter has more property right to your house than you do.
Because if they just don’t want to , they don’t have to - and it doesn’t matter what the law says.
That is too dismissive when DAs manage a 98% or better indictment rate and this was nowhere close to a slam dunk case of some poor guy being harassed by the state.
It might, under those circumstances - but the original scenario didn’t mention anybody “coming after you aggressively”
I’m not talking the original scenario. That’s probably why the mod split this off.
It definitely wasn’t a slam dunk case of some poor guy being harassed by the state - it was a case where someone shot two burglars ( as far as I can tell, there was no dispute over that). There are lots of people who don’t think someone should go to jail for that, as long as they were in fact burglars.
That makes Joe Horn a vigilante. Is Texas ok with vigilante justice?
The DA has ALL the power when it comes to grand juries. If they nullified it is because the DA let it happen or was terrible at the job.
Right, but the grand jury panel can also nullify, right?
Hasn’t it always been?
I meant that this
and this
don’t mention anyone coming after you aggressively. That’s what might justify force - the person coming after you aggressively. Not just refusing to leave saying it’s their home.
Or that group of individuals disagreed with the law and decided to send a message.
Again, the DA has all the power during a grand jury.
Despite the notion behind a grand jury the fact is they are a rubber stamp in today’s judicial system. DAs only lose there when they want to or are terrible at their job (which is unlikely since they probably would not have gotten the job in the first place if they were bad at it).
Can grand juries nullify? Sure.
How often does it happen? And when it happens, would you say the DA was diligent in getting the indictment?
And more…what was the grand jury nullifying here if that is what they were doing? What law was the grand jury opposed to?
Read the paper I linked to. It happens and there are examples given. Rare? Sure. But it happens. The DA cannot force jurors to indict.
ETA, from the link;
A grand jury in northern California refuses to indict a community activist for federal narcotics offenses even though the activist admitted distributing free marijuana to AIDS patients at a local clinic.
A grand jury in the District of Columbia informs an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) that it will not return an indictment in any nonviolent drug offense case until the AUSA investigates a high- ranking city official whom many community members believe to be taking bribes from a large public works contractor.
A grand jury in Texas refuses to indict for past nonviolent prop- erty crimes a twenty-five-year-old community college student who has recently broken ties with his gang, made restitution, and turned his life around.
A grand jury in Colorado refuses to indict a decorated Desert Storm veteran for a firearms possession crime stemming from his use of a banned, modified weapon during a family hunting trip.
Each of these hypothetical scenarios exemplifies the grand jury’s power to exercise its discretion whether to indict on bases other than sufficiency of the evidence. These portrayals, in which a grand jury moves beyond the function of determining whether probable cause
exists to proceed to trial, sit in stark contrast with the familiar percep- tion of the modern grand jury-a body that, after passively receiving from the prosecutor just enough evidence (usually in the form of un- challenged hearsay testimony) to satisfy the probable cause threshold, reflexively and without critical analysis votes to indict, just as the pros-
ecutor requested.
Your home is your place of refuge. It’s one of the few spaces where you are free, save under specific circumstances, to exclude all others as you are the only person who has a right to be there. i.e. It’s the one place you unambiguously belong and intruder does not. I think most Americans view the home as the ultimate safe space and treat it differently from most other spaces. Almost every state in the union has some sort of castle doctrine law in effect. Even California. I find it odd that anyone would think a person should have a duty to retreat in their own home.
See the little number “1” next to your link? That was me.
And you have not really answered the questions I posed. Can a grand jury nullify? Sure. But that tells us nothing in a given case.
A few anecdotes compared to the thousands of grand jury cases every year that get indictments? It’s like saying the lottery is a good investment because we have examples of a few people winning.
Other than obtaining and reviewing transcripts of the grand jury (Is that even possible?) I can’t see how I’d criticize the DA.
Have you ever been on a grand jury? I have. And the DA mostly controls which witnesses testify and instructs the grand jury on the law but does not control their vote. I remember one case, where the defendant testified (which is rare) and admitted to committing the felony assault he was charged with. He testified that his daughter told him the victim had assaulted her - and enough of the grand jurors believed him and thought he shouldn’t be charged that there was no indictment even though it wasn’t even claimed to be a case of defending his daughter. The DA did nothing wrong - in my state, the defendant has a right to testify before the grand jury as long as immunity is waived.