Minnesota: Man Charged in Deaths of Intruders

[Evan Thomas]

Yep... got that, Madcap. I just wanted to belabor the obvious, for the benefit of folks like sfwusc, who don't seem too familiar with the facts of the case.

... even if he could slip out of one noose he'd still be hoist by his own petard.

While shooting himself in the foot.

[Sure Shot Mc Gee]

Since this trial wasn't moved to begin with to a different county. Perhaps one or some of the jurists know exactly what was going on in Little Falls concerning burglary's and break-in's. After all it is a vacationing area. Lots of cabins and visitor's all Summer long. And being a tight knit little 8300 person community/ town. Everybody personally knows or hears about everybody and their kids too. So Reputation/s perhaps may play or have some small roll in influencing this jury's decision. {Can't loose focus who the victim is and the perpetrators were.} If by chance this trials jury finds Smith guilty. Knowing of Meshbesher's and his Associates Law talents. I highly suspect there will be a Appeal filed.

Reported by:
Associated Press

Meshbesher told Judge Douglas Anderson that the judge's pretrial rulings about what jurors can't hear about the teens have severely restricted his case.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Acquila Blanca: If the Chief Justice said that the jury shall be the triers of the facts and of the law, and no Supreme Court has reversed that in over 200 years, I will conduct myself accordingly.

It is true that juries can decide upon matters of law, though only through nullification, which means that they can refuse to convict a defendant even when the facts indicate that the defendant's acts contravened the law, that does not mean that they should necessarily do so. In the words of John Jay,

It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumbable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.

(Emphasis added.)

Case law is the combined "wisdom" of what judges have said the law means ... which may or may not coincide with what the law says.

"What the law says" is a combination of what a statute says (if indeed there is a statute in the first place) and legal precedence established by rulings of superior court judges on questions of law raised during appeals of trial court decisions .

Going back to the days before Geoffrey Chaucer penned "The Lawyer's Tale", "the law" was the Common Law. All laws in England, except the Magna Carta, were based on "the combined wisdom" of learned judges. And when it comes to most matters of use of force law, that remains true in the Commonwealth of Virginia today.

And in most other states, "what the law says" is a combination of relevant statutes--there may well e more than one to consider-- and precedential judicial rulings.

...there is no way the language of the law as written allows them to get where they got.

In our system of government, and in many others, the (superior) courts interpret the law. They may establish legal precedent, which would establish the law as it is to be applied to cases involving similar questions of law within the jurisdiction of the court. The law "as written" is just part of the overall fabric of established law, and if a law has been declared unconstitutional or inconsistent with laws that have higher precedence, the law "as written" says nothing at all.

And again, in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the law in a case such as this one would be defined only by legal precedent.

Ergo, if I were sitting on a jury and charged with judging a case based on this law, I would have to look at the case law precedent and ... ignore it. I would have to.

Morally, I would have no other choice, because the law does not support the ruling.

The wording of the original statute may not seem in your mind to "support the ruling." So what? How would you have conducted yourself on a jury in one of the jurisdictions in which state law was based on the English Common Law as it existed at the time the states was admitted to the Union? There were no statutes at the time. There was nothing other than prior rulings to "support the rulings" that made up the law at the time. The law was "the ruling."

Yes, you could vote to acquit; would that be a "moral" thing to do? But that is the only thing that you could do to object to the established law as it exists today. And while a jury decision along those lines would result in failure to convict the accused, it would have absolutely no precedential authority in other cases.

Personally, I cannot understand why anyone in his right mind would conclude that it should be lawful for a citizen to employ deadly force in a manner that is not reasonable.

[tipoc]

The fella who did the killings may get off. The trial is taking place in the same area he lives in and sentiment may run high against folks breaking into and robbing other folks homes. His neighbors may hold a high opinion of him, maybe. That does not make what he did right or even legal.

There is a long record of juries and courts letting some folks off due to sentiment. Or of convicting them due to the same. Legal lynchings aren't uncommon neither is vigilantism.

There is also a record of folks killing another and walking on what was an avoidable killing pleading self defense.

In this case a man decided that the penalty for breaking into his home was death. Society and the law doesn't call for that but he did and he set it up for that.

tipoc

[OldMarksman]

The defense has rested its case. Smith did not testify. Closing arguments are scheduled for tomorrow.

If anti-gun groups and opponents of castle doctrine laws ever wanted publicity favorable to their causes, Byron Smith has given them more than they could reasonably hoped for.

[zxcvbob]

Personally, I cannot understand why anyone in his right mind would conclude that it should be lawful for a citizen to employ deadly force in a manner that is not reasonable.

The thing is, "reasonable" is a moving target. After being burglarized 4 or 5 times and the police won't do anything (or they just say "it's a civil matter" whenever you report any crime), setting a trap and laying in wait with a rifle makes a lot of sense to me.

Moving the bodies, executing a mortally-wounded bad guy who was no longer a threat, waiting a couple of days to call the police -- I think these are inexcusable, but his neighbors (who have probably also been victims before and experienced the same attitude from the police) might feel differently. That's the beauty of the jury system.

I expect him to be convicted of murder but get a relatively light sentence for that -- pretty sure that's still a long time. (the light sentence might be out the window now with the media playing him up as a racist)

[OldMarksman]

Posted by zxcvbob: The thing is, "reasonable" is a moving target.

The reasonable person standard is well defined in law.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

Personally, I cannot understand why anyone in his right mind would conclude that it should be lawful for a citizen to employ deadly force in a manner that is not reasonable.

But the question is not whether or not it should be lawful for a citizen to employ deadly force in a manner that is not reasonable, the question is whether or not it IS lawful. And if the law does not say it is unlawful, then it is lawful.

And the way this particular law is written, it is not unlawful. The fact that a prior appellate court ruling read into the law something that clearly is not there doesn't impress me.

Several years ago I went head-to-head with a state official who had statutory authority to interpret the administrative regulations promulgated by his department. In the case I was involved in, this official issued a formal, written interpretation that resulted in a regulation [purportedly] meaning the exact opposite of what it said. He even admitted that ... his reason was, "We made a mistake when we wrote that section." Even his own department's lawyer told him he couldn't [legally] "interpret" a regulation to mean the opposite of what it said, but he went ahead and did so anyway. My client elected not to take it to court; another party did take it to court, and won.

Words have meanings. When ordinary people can't look up a law and conduct themselves in accordance with what the law says, we do not have a nation of laws. The law in question has two exceptions to a prohibition on the taking of a human life. The first exception mentions "reasonable." The second exception does not. The appellate court decision read into the law something that is not there.

Mr. Chief Justice Jay's comments tell us that jurors should respectfully consider what a judge tells them the law says. I'm okay with that. But when a judge's instructions run contrary to what a law plainly says, I do not think a juror is legally or morally bound to follow that judge's instructions. I can respectfully consider what the judge says, and decide that the judge is wrong.

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

The wording of the original statute may not seem in your mind to "support the ruling." So what? How would you have conducted yourself on a jury in one of the jurisdictions in which state law was based on the English Common Law as it existed at the time the states was admitted to the Union? There were no statutes at the time. There was nothing other than prior rulings to "support the rulings" that made up the law at the time. The law was "the ruling."

That's a non sequitur. The case didn't take place at a time and in a location where the law wasn't written down. The incident occurred in a location where there is a statute, and the language of the statute has been quoted. How I or anyone else might view the case in a jurisdiction where there isn't a written law doesn't matter. The defendant will be judged under the law that's in effect, and that law is written down.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Aguila Blanca: But the question is not whether or not it should be lawful for a citizen to employ deadly force in a manner that is not reasonable, the question is whether or not it IS lawful. And if the law does not say it is unlawful, then it is lawful.

True.

The fact that a prior appellate court ruling read into the law something that clearly is not there doesn't impress me.

You clearly do not understand the law--at all.

The court did not "read"" anything "into the law." The superior court reviewed the statute as originally enacted by the legislature in the course of ruling upon questions raised by an appellant, and made a ruling on how long-standing legal principles apply.

That is the proper role of the courts, and it has been for centuries. And rulings of that kind are authoritative, unless and until they are changed by rulings rendered at a later time, by higher courts, by changes to the statutes (which, of course, are always subject to judicial review), or by constitutional amendment.

No statute that has been properly questioned in an appeal defendant is immune from clarification or from being stricken from the statutes altogether.

The law is defined by (1) what all relevant statutes say, taken in combination, and (2) all relevant precedential rulings on the law.

That "something" may have been "clearly not there" at one time, but it most certainly is now.

Several years ago I went head-to-head with a state official who had statutory authority to interpret the administrative regulations ....

Completely irrelevant.

Words have meanings. When ordinary people can't look up a law and conduct themselves in accordance with what the law says, we do not have a nation of laws. The law in question ....

...is, as a matter of law, made up of a statute, or statutes, and precedential rulings by a higher court...

Mr. Chief Justice Jay's comments tell us that jurors should respectfully consider what a judge tells them the law says. I'm okay with that.

But were they based on "the law" as you insist on defining it?

(Ans: Yes. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.)

But when a judge's instructions run contrary to what a law plainly says,....

Unless the instructions are in error, they will not. And "what "the law plainly says" is not defined by the wording of a single statute, taken in isolation, as it was written when it was enacted.

That should be patently obvious to you, since our system of jurisprudence dates back to a time in which states adopted the Common Law and there were no legislated statutes at all.

[zincwarrior]

Quote:
Posted by steve4102:...the teens were still committing the crime until they were dead.

It's that type of thinking and some trying to defend his actions that give gun owners a bad name. Ok they shouldn't have being in his house does that justify a death sentence and a self appointed executioner. I am sure there self defence shootings that people should defend the actions of the person that protected themselves this is not one of them. That's not forget that two teenagers died here they were in the wrong but most right thinking people do not like to see another person killed unless absolutely necessary. I personally would not pull the trigger unless absolutely necessary its something I would have on my conscience the rest of my life even if I had no choice.

In no jurisdiction I know of in the US can someone shoot attackers, then keep them around for awhile (not calling the police) and then eventually execute them. This is malice aforethought and if not Capital Murder, then the next best thing depending on the local statute. This guy is toast.

[Evan Thomas]

OK, we're just going around in circles at this point, and some folks are getting a bit hot under the collar. I'm going to leave this open, but please don't post anything further until both sides' closing arguments in the case are over; at that point, if anyone has comments about those arguments, the discussion will be open again.

Further posts of the "Is too!"/"Is not!" variety will lead to permanent closure of the the thread and deletion of new ones on this subject.

If anyone wants to continue the discussion of statute vs. case law, take it to private messages.

[Evan Thomas]

At this point, the Strib has no more information than we do about Mr. Meshbesher's closing statement, as closing arguments are set for tomorrow morning. Since any more discussion is merely speculative until after those arguments, please don't post anything further until then.

[Safestuffer]

guilty on all four counts of first degree murder after three hours of deliberation.

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2014/0...-murder-trial/

No lone holdout from the single NRA juror member. Thankfully the prosecutor ("I would try this case in front of 12 NRA members") had more faith in the ethics of the average NRA member than many actual NRA members who I saw hoping for the lone holdout.

I see many people who posted in this thread who should seriously be reevaluating their home defense strategies based on their comments, in light of this conviction.

[zxcvbob]

How did they get 4 murders with 2 victims?

[Spats McGee]

Lesser-included offenses is my guess.

[zincwarrior]

Exactly. Convicted of two counts of first degree and two counts of second degree.

[BarryLee]

I’m not surprised he was convicted and actually believed he should have been found guilty of some offense. However, as a layman I’m just curious what the legal basis of this verdict is? It seems he would have been justified in the initial shooting of the first burglar, but obviously I’m missing something.

[manta49]

Justice. At least he had a trial and was able to defend himself something he denied the two he murdered.

layman I’m just curious what the legal basis of this verdict is? It seems he would have been justified in the initial shooting of the first burglar, but obviously I’m missing something

See below.

3) Was the use of deadly force reasonable under the circumstances in light of the danger then to be apprehended?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Three hours, takes longer to read the thread on TFL! Haha!

[overthere]

I am surprisingly relieved by the conviction. Besides this being a just and morally correct outcome based on the facts known, I also believe it is the best possible outcome for gun owners and RKBA proponents.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by BarryLee: I’m not surprised he was convicted and actually believed he should have been found guilty of some offense. However, as a layman I’m just curious what the legal basis of this verdict is?

At the risk of stating the obvious, none of the jurors believed, based on the totality of the evidence presented, that there was reasonable doubt about his guilt in committing murder in the first degree:

609.185 MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.
(a) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of murder in the first degree and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life:
(1) causes the death of a human being with premeditation and with intent to effect the death of the person or of another;

It seems he would have been justified in the initial shooting of the first burglar, but obviously I’m missing something.

If it had been immediately necessary and reasonable, apparently so. But knowing and willful actions indicating premeditation would mitigate against that.

I don't want this to sound at all personal or critical, but several of the staff here have said many times before that the question is not whether one can shoot, but whether one must shoot.

If one really must shoot, after having done nothing to create the situation in the first place, the question of justification will revolve entirely about one's ability to present evidence supporting his or her position.

[Evan Thomas]

He's been sentenced to life in prison without parole, which is the maximum sentence in Minn. (The prosecutor asked for consecutive sentences, but the judge said, pretty much, that would be pointless.)

Right verdict, right sentence, IMO.

The Star Tribune story is here.

[Mike1234]

He got less than he deserved but at least he can't duplicate his crimes.

[Tom Servo]

He had the benefit of due process, which is something he denied his victims.

This case is a cautionary tale for those who think the law allows them to shoot first and worry about the consequences later.

[tipoc]

I’m not surprised he was convicted and actually believed he should have been found guilty of some offense. However, as a layman I’m just curious what the legal basis of this verdict is? It seems he would have been justified in the initial shooting of the first burglar, but obviously I’m missing something.

The article linked to from the Star Tribune explains it...he set himself up and waited for them.

He knew they were outside his home and looking to break in. He remained quiet and allowed them to easily enter. He waited quietly in the basement for them to enter. When they did, 10 minutes apart from each other, he shot them. Then he shot and finished the girl off. He set a trap for them. He lured them to the salt lick and shot them.

tipoc