Colorado Victim Might Go To Jail

[Leo]

Maybe he could ask for judge Roy Bean. "Sir, the fool needed killin' for the good of the civilized folks in these here parts"

 

[gregkl]

Examples like this are why I repeatedly recommend TFTs Indiana Gun Law class. Too many think that knowing how to shoot is sufficient. Knowing when to shoot and what to expect afterwards is just as important.

Yup, me to. I took it and I think every gun owner at least should take it. There is so much BS being spread around by people who think they know what they can and can't do. Guy cuts through all of it.

 

[Paul30]

Jury Nullification. As a member of the Fully Informed Jurer's Association, I would vote Not Guilty and not lose a minute sleep over it. The guy could always state the man stole his car, and was a danger to society as he was driving away recklessly and had already shown he is a danger to society as he just robbed a guy and tied him up.

To quote the case from Indiana's past "We find him not guilty, and he can keep the stolen cow".

 

[Dirtebiker]

When the person is fleeing and no longer an imminent threat, it is not self-defense or justice. It's vengeance. If that's what happened, he should​ be prosecuted.

Self defense? No
Justice? ......Sure it is!

 

[T.Lex]

My friend,
This:

As a member of the Fully Informed Jurer's Association

is why you are unlikely to have the opportunity for this:

I would vote Not Guilty

 

[Roland of Gilead]

I think Texas might allow it. But I don't know if it is official or not.

Made me think of this. He didn't shoot them, but he sure as didn't let them get away.

[video=youtube;I3UFIkqx3Jg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3UFIkqx3Jg[/video]

 

[actaeon277]

Made me think of this. He didn't shoot them, but he sure as didn't let them get away.

[video=youtube;I3UFIkqx3Jg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3UFIkqx3Jg[/video]

If he shot them and I was on the jury, I'd have a hard time convicting.

 

[IndyDave1776]

My friend,
This:

is why you are unlikely to have the opportunity for this:

Interesting point. How would that come to be known unless the prosecutor, defense attorney, or judge were watching INGO, or are you saying that the screening process is devised to weed out anyone who can't be led by the nose?

 

[Roland of Gilead]

Interesting point. How would that come to be known unless the prosecutor, defense attorney, or judge were watching INGO, or are you saying that the screening process is devised to weed out anyone who can't be led by the nose?

He has proven that prosecuting attorneys do in fact read INGO, and there is probably others that have google.

 

[jlutzcurtis]

I don't think that homeowner is guilty for whatever he has done.

 

[seagullplayer]

"Your honor he threatened my life over and over, tied me up, robbed me and said he would be back."

"Bragged about how many people he had killed and the cops where to stupid to catch him."

Only one side to this story.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Only one side to this story.

Darn straight!

Prosecution will have to be on all four corners with their jury selection on this. Will be shocked if he is convicted of anything more than misdemeanor murder.

 

[KittySlayer]

"Your honor he threatened my life over and over, tied me up, robbed me and said he would be back."

"Bragged about how many people he had killed and the cops where to stupid to catch him."

Only one side to this story.

"He took all my keys and said he knew where my daughter lived."

 

[miguel]

Jury Nullification. As a member of the Fully Informed Jurer's Association, I would vote Not Guilty and not lose a minute sleep over it. The guy could always state the man stole his car, and was a danger to society as he was driving away recklessly and had already shown he is a danger to society as he just robbed a guy and tied him up.

To quote the case from Indiana's past "We him not guilty, and he can keep the stolen cow".

Can you tell us more about the group?

 

[Gary119]

"He took all my keys and said he knew where my daughter lived."

This! We don't know the whole story. Suppose he saw a picture of your granddaughter/ daughter/wife. Found out where they worked/lived. Stated something about paying them a visit next. What would you do?

 

[T.Lex]

Interesting point. How would that come to be known unless the prosecutor, defense attorney, or judge were watching INGO, or are you saying that the screening process is devised to weed out anyone who can't be led by the nose?

A little of both. (As noted by RoG, there is some historical precedent there.)

The jury selection process is geared to find out if people are going to have certain presumptions about the case. That's called fairness. In my trial experience (which is far less than others here), I seriously doubt someone espousing jury nullification values would make it.

It isn't that I disagree with the inherent right contained in "jury nullification." Indeed, it is fundamental to our system.

Rather, rightly or wrongly, adherents to the "jury nullification movement" are regarded a certain way. They have a certain reputation. They are likely to answer certain questions "wrong." So, the judge will either strike them from the pool, or one of the parties would.

Again, I'm not saying whether that's right or wrong, just saying it is reality.

 

[IndyDave1776]

A little of both. (As noted by RoG, there is some historical precedent there.)

The jury selection process is geared to find out if people are going to have certain presumptions about the case. That's called fairness. In my trial experience (which is far less than others here), I seriously doubt someone espousing jury nullification values would make it.

It isn't that I disagree with the inherent right contained in "jury nullification." Indeed, it is fundamental to our system.

Rather, rightly or wrongly, adherents to the "jury nullification movement" are regarded a certain way. They have a certain reputation. They are likely to answer certain questions "wrong." So, the judge will either strike them from the pool, or one of the parties would.

Again, I'm not saying whether that's right or wrong, just saying it is reality.

I understand that sorting out identifiable biases is part of the process, so taken to its ridiculous extreme, the guy who shows up in his robe and hood for a hate crime trial is probably going to be excused, but my more serious question is the extent to which the process weeds out people who are inherently unsuited to give the case a fair hearing and the extent to which it weeds out people likely to think for themselves rather than taking spoonfed instructions without question to the extent of presenting prospective jurors with 'if, then' questions that would not be allowed for, say, confirmation hearing for judges, with the largest caveat being, 'if we prove that the defendant did X, will you vote to convict?' in a complete vacuum of context in which you can find problems with the charge relative to intent, the nature of the law in question, or the application of the law.

 

[ghuns]

Made me think of this. He didn't shoot them, but he sure as didn't let them get away.

[video=youtube;I3UFIkqx3Jg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3UFIkqx3Jg[/video]

How'd I miss this story when it happened?

To randomly shoot some guys dog in Texas is really rollin the dice, but to shoot that guy's dog? They are lucky to be alive.

 

[level0]

printcraft on jury would NEVER convict.

Sorry, occupational hazard of being a criminal.
Until it is legal to rob someone (.gov excluded) the victim WINS every. single. time.

level0 on jury would never convict, either.

 

[T.Lex]

... 'if we prove that the defendant did X, will you vote to convict?' in a complete vacuum of context in which you can find problems with the charge relative to intent, the nature of the law in question, or the application of the law.

That's the main question right there.

Prosecutor: If we prove all the elements of murder, beyond a reasonable doubt, and disproved self defense beyond a reasonable doubt, would you vote to convict?
Prospective (honest jury nullification group member) juror : Maybe. If I think it is consistent with my moral code.

Probably not getting on the jury. We - attorneys, judges, and society - want jurors who follow the law. Jury trials are unpredictable enough already. It doesn't help when there are trump cards out there that we just don't know about.

Can you honestly say that you would feel comfortable with certain INGO members on a jury involving defendants from certain cultures?