Grand Jury Clears Texan in the Killing of 2 Burglars

[pontarae]

The point, gamerslink, is that it never went to a judge. The grand jury did not return an bill of indictment in this case

That should not be possible in a case of armed assault which results in the death of two people. If this man were black instead of white do you think he'd be free now?

[thegamerslink]

Fact of the matter is, there is a sitting judge that is there to instruct as well as oversee the grand jury, there are procedures in place to prevent complete and total injustices. Not saying it always works, but hopefully it does for the majority of the time. I would hope the grand jury finding would be the same regardless the color or religion of the shooter, or the robbers. To put it simply, whether you or I agree with it or not, the law is very clear, you have the right shoot in self defense and you have the right to shoot those fleeing. Regardless of whether he could have avoided or not avoided is not the question the Grand Jury had to address, whether he broke all applicable laws is. And with the law giving permission to shoot those fleeing he was not guilty of a criminal act as far as the court was allowed to see.
If you disagree with the law then you have to contact the state representatives and the Governor and have the law changed, the court isn't allowed to, only to interpret the laws already existing.

[pgzn]

Originally Posted by pontarae

You make my point for me.

The zeitgeist in Texas is such that the average citizen is inadequate to judge these cases. People here have a distorted view of responsibility for or protection of the rights of others.

You should read up on it. The case law is centuries old. The citizen is the only one qualified to judge both the defendant AND the law, which is the true job of the jury.

In this case, the law was judged, and nullified. The judge in the courtroom is simply a referee and has no power over the jury. They are independent of the judge, and he is their servant whether or not he acts like it, or wants to be. And he won't tell you that even if you ask, because he is the servant, and the servant's job isn't to teach his master.

All it takes is one single jurer to say "No, I think that law sucks". And there isn't a thing the judge can do (except maybe wish he was the boss).
http://www.fija.org/docs/jurors_hand..._jury_duty.pdf

[thegamerslink]

I'm not a lawyer so I don't have all the facts. But in a regular trial the Judge does have the power over the jury when it comes to guiding them on law, and if he finds that the jury is in the wrong he can get rid of jurors with cause, he can declare mistrials if he thinks the jury has been tainted, and he can even issue a ruling not withstanding completely overriding the jury if the jury goes outside the law. In the atmosphere of a grand jury I don't know if all those things stand the same but I would think they are at least close.

[pgzn]

The judge has no power over the jury decision. He can tell them they must decide on the law, and they can disregard it completely. He also cannot just kick you off the jury if you are doing your job according to the law. Read your rights, everyone should read and memorize their right. http://www.fija.org/docs/jurors_hand..._jury_duty.pdf

In fact, the power of jury nullification predates our
Constitution. In November of 1734, a printer named
John Peter Zenger was arrested for seditious libel
against his Majesty's government. At that time, a law of
the Colony of New York forbid any publication without
prior government approval. Freedom of the press was
not enjoyed by the early colonialists! Zenger, however,
defied this censorship and published articles strongly
critical of New York colonial rule.
When brought to trial in August of 1735, Zenger
admitted publishing the offending articles, but argued
that the truth of the facts stated justified their
publication. The judge instructed the jury that truth is
not justification for libel. Rather, truth makes the libel
more vicious, for public unrest is more likely to follow
true, rather than false claims of bad governance. And
since the defendant had admitted to the "fact" of
publication, only a question of "law" remained.
Then, as now, the judge said the "issue of law" was for
the court to determine, and he instructed the jury to find
the defendant guilty. It took only ten minutes for the
jury to disregard the judge's instructions on the law
and find Zenger NOT GUILTY.

As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia said that the jury has an "
unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in
disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial
judge....2
Or as this same truth was stated in a earlier decision by
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Maryland: "We recognize, as appellants urge, the
undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict
is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence.
This is a power that must exist
as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal
cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the
jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury
feels that the law under which the defendant is
accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances
justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason
which appeals to their logic of passion, the jury has the
power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that
decision."3

As a jurer you have more power to nullify a law than the government has to create it. The problem is, when you nullify it, it only applies to that one defendant. And most people don't know they even have the right. They think their only job is to decide if the person did it. The other half is to decide if you agree with the existence of that particular law in the first place!

Read the whole thing twice. It's basic ignorance of the law that gives the government power. They love that you don't know you can aquit for any reason - or no reason. You don't need a reason.

[homebizseo]

I am glad Horn's right to protect was upheld.

[South]

Here in Georgia we recently had a move in laws that brings us a little closer to the same rights of property protection Texas enjoys.

I find it a little strange that some can see this as an issue of value of stuff versus value of life. I don't believe anyone thinks that 2K in jewelry is worth killing a man over. That's not what these people were shot over. It's about a persons right to defend themselves against those with no regard for the law, others rights, life, or property. What if these people had hit this mans house the next night and his 6 year old son surprised the men? Society has the right to defend themselves against aggressors. The thieves were the aggressors. They chose to play a deadly game and lost.

[kimsonsolutions]

Originally Posted by South

I find it a little strange that some can see this as an issue of value of stuff versus value of life. I don't believe anyone thinks that 2K in jewelry is worth killing a man over. That's not what these people were shot over. It's about a persons right to defend themselves against those with no regard for the law, others rights, life, or property. What if these people had hit this mans house the next night and his 6 year old son surprised the men? Society has the right to defend themselves against aggressors. The thieves were the aggressors. They chose to play a deadly game and lost.

i think that tribunal, juges, and such have been created for a very good reason : ensuring that the law is well applied , and make it respected

what would be the world if everybody had the right to shoot people and make his own justice ?

this is why the guy was judged there , because he shot two people and nobody know for sure if he really had to do that .

I agree that Society has the right to defend itself against aggressors but I think it has no right to kill the agressors , it's way out of proportion .

[South]

Originally Posted by kimsonsolutions

i think that tribunal, juges, and such have been created for a very good reason : ensuring that the law is well applied , and make it respected

These elements are fine for what they are, but serve better as a system of justice rather than protection. They're an "after-the-fact" solution. The old joke that dialing 9-1-1 is a good way to tell the police where to pick up your lifeless body holds a lot of truth. It's beyond the capacity of the justice system to help you during crisis situation in your home. Most often it's all over by the time the police get there. People have to take responsibility for their own safety.

what would be the world if everybody had the right to shoot people and make his own justice ?

Don't confuse justice with protection.

this is why the guy was judged there , because he shot two people and nobody know for sure if he really had to do that .

That's why he stood trial. It turns out that he broke no law. This is a true deterrent. If criminals refuse to respect the law, maybe they'll respect that the homeowner they're about to violate has every right to terminate their life without legal consequence.

I agree that Society has the right to defend itself against aggressors but I think it has no right to kill the agressors , it's way out of proportion .

What force would you allow for defense then?

[kimsonsolutions]

what's making you own justice for you in that case ?

i mean killing people is somehow ... extreme no ?

for me protection is defence without killing , and to answer your question i believe in lethal weapon and police forces (the only one that should have the right to bear weapons in my opinion)

[South]

Originally Posted by kimsonsolutions

for me protection is defence without killing

So again I ask, you're faced with an intruder or multiple intruders that you know nothing about. They have enough disregard for right and wrong to have violated an unsuspecting person with the intent of disrupting that persons life. What defense are you suggesting. You gonna pepper spray three 200 lb men? You gonna try to taze them? Ask them to leave?

A man or men considering intruding themselves on others NEED to know that they're taking their lives in their own hands.

[kimsonsolutions]

Originally Posted by South

So again I ask, you're faced with an intruder or multiple intruders that you know nothing about. They have enough disregard for right and wrong to have violated an unsuspecting person with the intent of disrupting that persons life. What defense are you suggesting. You gonna pepper spray three 200 lb men? You gonna try to taze them? Ask them to leave?

A man or men considering intruding themselves on others NEED to know that they're taking their lives in their own hands.

they are facing jail sentences that can be life long , i think they already know that

and if i ever face an intruder i try to call the police first , i think having a gun is the best way to get killed , not to protect yourself

[thegamerslink]

Originally Posted by kimsonsolutions

they are facing jail sentences that can be life long , i think they already know that

and if i ever face an intruder i try to call the police first , i think having a gun is the best way to get killed , not to protect yourself

First off, I don't currently own a gun, I have in the distant past but I don't know. I do expect and appreciate the right to do so if I wish. I have served time in the military to help protect that right. So with that out of the way....

If someone is breaking into your home and threatening you and your children, of course you call the police if you have the chance, or you expect that your wife is going to as you set up a perimeter of defense. How do you defend? You have no idea what type of threat there stands before you. pepper spray and a tazer I can tell you from fact, and you can ask any police officer this, doesn't affect 100% of the people. And if they happen to be in your home looking for things to sell to get their next drug fix because they have just used the last of what they had, or they have a severe mental problem massive chemical imbalance, who knows....there are sometimes you simply are faced with no alternative but to die or kill, or worse yet watch your wife or kids suffer and die before you die, or be killed. And criminals know they may face a prison sentence? Well they also know that if they get to you fast enough you won't be able to call the police and give the info to get them to you so they won't likely get caught and then don't have to worry about the prison, or they'll be in and out before the police get there so they have at least a 50/50 chance of whether they get caught or not. However if they know there is likely a gun in the house and the owner will shoot if threatened they will more likely be stopped in their tracks and move on to a place they think is safer for them, simple survival and ease of completing an act. Just like a burglar is less likely and usually doesn't burglarize a house that is also home to multiple unknown dogs versus a home known not to have any.

I agree deadly force should be used only as a last resort. But if I feel I'm threatened I have to tell you, whether it's sending my dogs in to assist with a distraction as I disarm, or a sneak attack disarming and disabling, or whatever it is I have to do. I'm going to protect myself and my family by any means at my disposal and my not having a gun in the house isn't going to prevent me from killing the intruder I see as a threat, it may however make it more dangerous for me to do so. And quite possibly make the intruder suffer more as I do it.

[kimsonsolutions]

a long post ! ^^

well you're not wrong and i particularly agree on the "deadly force should be used only as a last resort"

but the thing is that you choose really extreme case , that can happen , but are really really not likely to happen .

moreover you tend to forget the side effects of allowing guns purchase , i can admit it can save your life in such a situation , but how many people are killed by those very same gun supposed to help people defending their lives .

if you had to get a liscence to own a gun i would not say anything as you would have proved you are responsible enough to own one , but it's not the case and everybody can own a gun for good reason ( like the one you mentionned) but also for bad one .

all i would ask for is more control , because people can't be trusted , once they have a freedom they always tend to abuse it

[South]

Originally Posted by kimsonsolutions

all i would ask for is more control , because people can't be trusted , once they have a freedom they always tend to abuse it

Perfect. You just nailed the defining difference between conservatives and liberals.

Liberals believe that people can't be trusted with freedom and the government must therefore control & regulate people "for their own safety".

I believe that once you remove government from the equation most things will work themselves out for the better.

The American government has bankrupted Social Security, destroyed Medicare, destroyed generations of lives through its welfare system, created a disgrace of a tax system, and I could go on and on. The bottom line is that the government has a steady track record of absolute incompetence in ANYTHING beyond it's constitutional scope. So why is it that liberals continue to think that they should be given more authority rather than less?