|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 28, 2014, 10:29 AM | #176 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
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.
Quote:
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
|
April 28, 2014, 10:49 AM | #177 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 2, 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,876
|
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. |
April 28, 2014, 10:53 AM | #178 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
(Emphasis added.) Quote:
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. Quote:
And again, in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the law in a case such as this one would be defined only by legal precedent. Quote:
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. |
|||||
April 28, 2014, 11:25 AM | #179 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 11, 2004
Location: Redwood City, Ca.
Posts: 4,114
|
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 |
April 28, 2014, 11:47 AM | #180 |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
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. |
April 28, 2014, 11:47 AM | #181 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
|
Quote:
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) Last edited by zxcvbob; April 28, 2014 at 12:37 PM. |
|
April 28, 2014, 12:04 PM | #182 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
|
|
April 28, 2014, 12:17 PM | #183 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
Last edited by Aguila Blanca; April 28, 2014 at 12:27 PM. |
||
April 28, 2014, 01:05 PM | #184 | ||||||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
(Ans: Yes. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.) Quote:
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. |
||||||
April 28, 2014, 01:35 PM | #185 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
|
Quote:
|
|
April 28, 2014, 02:00 PM | #186 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
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.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
April 28, 2014, 03:25 PM | #187 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
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.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
April 29, 2014, 04:12 PM | #188 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2013
Posts: 101
|
GUILTY
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. |
April 29, 2014, 04:29 PM | #189 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
|
How did they get 4 murders with 2 victims?
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth |
April 29, 2014, 04:31 PM | #190 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Lesser-included offenses is my guess.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
April 29, 2014, 04:32 PM | #191 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
|
Exactly. Convicted of two counts of first degree and two counts of second degree.
|
April 29, 2014, 04:41 PM | #192 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 3,946
|
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.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman |
April 29, 2014, 04:45 PM | #193 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Justice. At least he had a trial and was able to defend himself something he denied the two he murdered.
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
April 29, 2014, 04:59 PM | #194 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Three hours, takes longer to read the thread on TFL! Haha!
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
April 29, 2014, 05:06 PM | #195 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2012
Posts: 290
|
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.
|
April 29, 2014, 05:06 PM | #196 | |||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
|||
April 29, 2014, 05:09 PM | #197 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
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.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
April 29, 2014, 05:13 PM | #198 |
Junior member
Join Date: June 30, 2010
Location: Alamo City
Posts: 356
|
He got less than he deserved but at least he can't duplicate his crimes.
|
April 29, 2014, 05:44 PM | #199 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
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.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
April 29, 2014, 05:49 PM | #200 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 11, 2004
Location: Redwood City, Ca.
Posts: 4,114
|
Quote:
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 |
|
Tags |
home invasion , minnesota , mozambique |
|
|