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.
Self defense? NoWhen 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.
is why you are unlikely to have the opportunity for this:As a member of the Fully Informed Jurer's Association
I would vote Not Guilty
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]
My friend,
This:
is why you are unlikely to have the opportunity for this:
He has proven that prosecuting attorneys do in fact read INGO, and there is probably others that have google.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?
Only one side to this story.
"He took all my keys and said he knew where my daughter lived.""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.
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".
"He took all my keys and said he knew where my daughter lived."
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.
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]
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.
That's the main question right there.... '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.