Unbelievable Misjustice

[VNVPrairiefire]

You Won't Believe This............

On or about Dec 9th, 2008, at 1:00 in the morning, a Vietnam Vet and his wife were suddenly awakened by noise outside there secluded rural home. He got up, hurridly dressed, and grabbed his handgun, which is licensed and he has a concealed weapon permit, went out into the dark to investigate. It should be noted that they live at the end of a dead end road and the nearest neighbor is about 1/8th mile away. They have no yardlight and choose this peaceful area for reasons many veterans would understand.
He encountered a man trying to load his daughters car onto a flat bed truck. He approached and asked, "what's going on", at that moment the man at the truck hollored to him. 'STOP'. and pushed him abruptly on his right shoulder, enough to compel the veteran to draw his handgun and defend himself. At that moment he saw another man on the other side of the truck and instantly saw a metallic twinkle off something in his hand. The veteran swung his handgun onto that man and ordered him to drop it immediatly. He then crossed over the bed of the truck and held that man at bay with his handgun. He ordered the two men to unload the car, which they did. and then he ordered one man to get in the truck and drive down to the gate of his property as he escorted the second guy along side. When they got to the gate about 150 feet down the drive. He asked the one guy to read the sign, plainly posted next to the gate, He complied and read the No Trespassing sign out load. The vet then told them to get in the truck and 'don't come back'. He holstered his handgun and walked back to his house. when he got to the place they had been he noticed a shiny silver ' Red Bull' can on the ground. He just left it lie there and went inside.
He questioned his adult daughter who had less than a month earlier had returned to live with them while she attended nursing school. She assured him that she was not late or delinquent on any payments and in fact had mailed a payment just the previous Friday.
At that time (5-7) minutes later a deputy pulled up. The veteran went outside and a rather heated conversation between the two occurred, when the Deputy, drilled the veteran on rather he had drawn his gun, The Response was three times yes, I was defending my property. The deputy placed the homeowner under arrest. When they left his property they met the 2 guys in the truck about 1/4 mile down the road. The deputy stopped and talked with them a few minutes and assurred them that 'the threat had been removed'. He also instructed them that since they didn't have any paperwork it would probably be wise they return to town and get some before returning to try and repo athe car. Then the deputy drove off and with the veteran screaming that he wanted his family protected, watched as the 2 guys turned around and went back on the property.
The veterans wife and daughter were terrified as the 2 men knocked on the back door, they apologized for the incident and told both of them, "they would not file charges if they would just give them the keys". The wife was crying and the daughter threw thr keys at them. They drove off with the car.
The veteran was driven to the county seat and arrested for 2 counts of Felony Aggravated Assault. The bond was stiff enough, but his family luckily was able to raise the money and get him out. He pled not guilty and insisted on a Jury trial. 9 months later, after 2 delays because of a judge dismissing himself and 2 prosecuting attorneys dismissing themselves on conflict of interest. Then Friday, before Labor Day he was called by his public defender attorney and instructed the trial was set for Tuesday morning. It started at 9am.
a full day of testimony was taken, there were only a couple people able to attend, but one was the newly elected Sheriff,
On the second day, after a very confusing trial, the jury was sent to deliberate. 1 hour and 15 minutes later they were done, They found the homeowner, Guilty on both counts.
What the Hell, Even the Judge shook his head in disbelief, when he read the verdict. No one in the courtroom, except the Prosecution (and the idiots on the Jury) even found a shred of evidence to convict on. What has happened to the system?
Is this a sign of the future for gun owners? What about self-defense rights? After all, the homeowner did nothing more than any rational man in the similiar situation would have done. Probably a lot less than most. By the way, the deputy, refused to listen to or grant to the Vet his rights to press charges against the 2 men, There was witnesses to this fact and that evidence was suppressed as irrelevant.
And to make it even worse, They tell him he can't Appeal. No Grounds,
We have to get this out to every Veteran, Homeowner, Gun Owner, Red Blooded American and Gerry Spence that we can before he is put away. He is facing 10 years in prison and 10K fine. Probably won't get that much, but no one thought he would be found guilty either.
This is real, not a made-up fairy tale. Check it out if you want.
3rd District Court, Owyhee County.
Forward to everyone and if you want to help or comment:
email to: [email protected]
or email Mark directly @ [email protected]

[Dragon55]

Owyhee county??

I'd be interested to read the law for that state.

[Kilrain]

So, did the two guys steal the car or were they actually repossessing it? In this account, the daughter assured her father that there were no outstanding payments due but gave the keys to the two guys anyway. Just curious.....

[zxcvbob]

Some names would be helpful.

"Forward to everyone" That tells me everything I need to know.

[Dragon55]

Excerpt............

16-3-24.
(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with real property other than a habitation or personal property:
(1) Lawfully in his possession;
(2) Lawfully in the possession of a member of his immediate family; or
(3) Belonging to a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect.
(b) The use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to prevent trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with real property other than a habitation or personal property is not justified unless the person using such force reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.


Based on this I don't understand.

I would think someone was stealing my car too. Around here a deputy shows up with the repo men. This way they won't get shot.

[zukiphile]

Though that post was long, I am left to wonder what was omitted.

He encountered a man trying to load his daughters car onto a flat bed truck. He approached and asked, "what's going on", at that moment the man at the truck hollored to him. 'STOP'. and pushed him abruptly on his right shoulder, enough to compel the veteran to draw his handgun and defend himself.

The story places great emphasis on the defendant's status as a veteran. Why?

It doesn't seem sensible to come within reach of someone who could threaten you with grave harm just by pushing your shoulder, or to fail to appeal a matter with merit just because someone told him he can't appeal.

[OuTcAsT]

Based on this I don't understand.

The answer is right in the statute you posted;

(b) The use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to prevent trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with real property other than a habitation or personal property is not justified unless the person using such force reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

I hate repo guys and their tactics but : A repossession is not criminal, nor a forcible felony.

His first mistake was rushing outside, in a dark yard, to confront whatever was going on. Had he simply made a call to the LE agency, and reported the disturbance, they would likely found the cause, and if it is a repo, no problem. If it were a theft, that is what insurance is for. If he were as genuinely concerned for the safety of his family as was claimed, he would have stayed inside with them to insure their safety.

A firearm is life insurance, not property insurance.

The man handled himself in a careless manner, and is now paying the price, no sympathy here, sorry.

Oh, and the whole "Vietnam Veteran" thing is the most gratuitous thing I have ever read, looks like another drive-by to me.

[Dragon55]

I agree definitely a drive by.... I wish I hadn't responded .... just curiosity.

Yeah the person... vet or not should have stayed inside and called the cops.

It just bothered me a little that they came through a gate marked "No Trespassing'.

[ilbob]

No idea why being a veteran is relevant.

It seems that the guy is recounting a repo that the HO responded to with a gun. If so, the HO may well be in the wrong.

Note post #1 for this guy.

I saw this on another gun board somewhere. I am guessing he is posting it anywhere he can find that he might be able to get contributions from.

Forward to everyone and if you want to help or comment:
email to: [email protected]

Google finds this is the email contact for:
http://occag.com/

[Frank Ettin]

Of course identifying the fellow as a veteran is an appeal to our sympathies. And I'm sorry that a man who has sacrificed and who has put himself in possible risk to serve our country has found himself in this sort of predicament.

It's too bad that the fellow made a number of serious mistakes that wound up costing him. He should have called the cops first thing (or at least immediately after the confrontation to make a report and get his side on record first). He shouldn't have gone out. Having gone out, he should have kept his distance. And he should have kept his gun in its holster unless the trespassers presented an articulable, manifest threat to life and limb.

This should also remind all of us that a gun is not some sort of universal problem solver. If is a last resort rescue tool. We need to understand the laws of the use of force and act accordingly. A mis-use of our guns can have tragic consequences for us and our families.

Originally Posted by VNVPrairiefire

....Even the Judge shook his head in disbelief, when he read the verdict. No one in the courtroom, except the Prosecution (and the idiots on the Jury) even found a shred of evidence to convict on. What has happened to the system?...

And what is this supposed to mean? If in fact the judge believed that the verdict was against the clear weight of the evidence, in pretty much every state, AFAIK, he would have the authority to grant a motion for a new trial. Trial judges, when they strongly disagree with a guilty verdict are usually quite good at telegraphing to the defense that they would favorably entertain a motion for a new trial. And a verdict unsupported by the evidence is grounds for appeal.

[csmsss]

And what is this supposed to mean? If in fact the judge believed that the verdict was against the clear weight of the evidence, in pretty much every state, AFAIK, he would have the authority to grant a motion for a new trial. Trial judges, when they strongly disagree with a guilty verdict are usually quite good at telegraphing to the defense that they would favorably entertain a motion for a new trial. And a verdict unsupported by the evidence is grounds for appeal.

Actually, if the evidence was so weak as to not support a guilty verdict, then the defense should have asked for, and the judge granted, a dismissal before it even presented the defense case. Judges are not supposed to allow a case to go to the jury if they don't believe the burden of proof has been met.

[mskdgunman]

Juries are nortoriously unreliable (IMO) and have returend some of the stupidist verdicts I have ever seen. Any jury trial is 50% 50% no matter how good (or bad) your case is. Juries can become confused by tactics used by both sides and, lets face it, some people are just dumb. I've seen some stupid judges too and have had it pointed out to me that, just because they're a judge, doesn't necessariy mean they know the law or are that bright.

As always in these cases, I'd like to hear the rest of the story that being the stuff that was not in the article. Sometimes, the reason for a particular decision can be found in a small, missing detail that comes out in a trial. I'm not saying that this is the case here, just that it wouldn't surprise me.

I'm not sure what the laws are on repos where the incident took place but her (FL) I believe that you have to have paperwork in your possession when you go to grab a car. The no trespassing signs aren't an issue as long as they didn't have to break any kind of fence or lock to gain access to the area/vehicle (a no no)

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by csmsss

Actually, if the evidence was so weak as to not support a guilty verdict, then the defense should have asked for, and the judge granted, a dismissal before it even presented the defense case. Judges are not supposed to allow a case to go to the jury if they don't believe the burden of proof has been met.

Or the judge could have directed a verdict of acquittal (essentially taken it out of the hands of the jury). But some judges, after having gone through with the whole trial prefer to let the question go to the jury in the hopes that the jury will do the right thing and acquit.

An acquittal by the jury has an advantage over a directed verdict or dismissal. It's not appealable by the prosecution and thus finally ends the matter once and for all. If the jury flubs it, the judge can still grant the defense's new trial motion.

[44 AMP]

then it is a curious case indeed. Perhaps worthy of discussion. However, the format used to by the OP, a fairly lengthy article, without comments inviting discussion does IMHO fall under our rules for a drive by posting, so I am closing this one.

Other mods, feel free to reopen if you believe it worthwhile.