Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Helena man's homicide trial results in hung jury

  1. #1
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,082

    Helena man's homicide trial results in hung jury

    The defense has argued Henry Thomas Johnson brought his death upon himself when he broke into Stiffler's home and later threatened to hurt the homeowner. Prosecutors argued Stiffler escalated the situation by entering the home brandishing a loaded 9mm handgun.

    http://missoulian.com/news/state-and...528b1c94e.html
    Can anyone spot the absurdity? This is why prosecutors need to be held criminally and civilly liable for their malicious behavior.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  2. #2
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,261
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Can anyone spot the absurdity? This is why prosecutors need to be held criminally and civilly liable for their malicious behavior.
    Not enough information to spot the absurdity. As to the second sentence, I believe prosecutors do need to be held criminally and civilly liable for their malicious behavior.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,741
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Can anyone spot the absurdity? This is why prosecutors need to be held criminally and civilly liable for their malicious behavior.
    I see two.

    First, how the devil can I escalate a situation by entering my own home? And, how the devil can I brandish a gun in my own home? The prosecutor argument smacks of rampant socialism. I am escalating a situation by entering my own home?

    Second, the judge instructed the jury that they are the triers of the facts. Bald-faced lie by omission. The jury has the complete, unabridged right and power to decide the law as well as the facts. A jury must have that power--see Lysander Spooner's essay Trial by Jury.

    I agree that prosecutors must be held criminally and civilly liable (notice I stopped before malicious). The old excuse that they can't do their jobs if they have to worry about sanctions is such a tub of barnyard waste.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,261
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I see two.

    First, how the devil can I escalate a situation by entering my own home? And, how the devil can I brandish a gun in my own home? The prosecutor argument smacks of rampant socialism. I am escalating a situation by entering my own home?

    Second, the judge instructed the jury that they are the triers of the facts. Bald-faced lie by omission. The jury has the complete, unabridged right and power to decide the law as well as the facts. A jury must have that power--see Lysander Spooner's essay Trial by Jury.

    I agree that prosecutors must be held criminally and civilly liable (notice I stopped before malicious). The old excuse that they can't do their jobs if they have to worry about sanctions is such a tub of barnyard waste.
    The facts are that the homeowner shot the BG in the back while the BG was exiting the home through a window. Then the homeowner went outside and shot the guy running away. Those are the facts; all the facts about waving the gun and entering his home have no relevancy. The hung jury, I think, was because of jury nullification. I can see a juror saying that yes the law says you can't shoot someone in the back (running away), but he was a bad guy, not guilty.

    As to your second statement, I agree, but as I said above someone on that jury new the law, in effect not on my watch. Will someone on the second jury have the same understanding of their duties?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    2,975
    Thomas Johnson well not be committing any more crimes.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,741
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    Thomas Johnson well not be committing any more crimes.
    Oh, my! This is intriguing. Tell me more.

    No. Seriously. Spill.

    Please.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,741
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    The facts are that the homeowner shot the BG in the back while the BG was exiting the home through a window. Then the homeowner went outside and shot the guy running away. Those are the facts; all the facts about waving the gun and entering his home have no relevancy. The hung jury, I think, was because of jury nullification. I can see a juror saying that yes the law says you can't shoot someone in the back (running away), but he was a bad guy, not guilty.

    As to your second statement, I agree, but as I said above someone on that jury new the law, in effect not on my watch. Will someone on the second jury have the same understanding of their duties?
    Thanks for the additional info. Much appreciated.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    163
    I decided to check out this forum because I'm probably going to be moving to Montana in the near future.

    It sounds like you guys should steal a couple of our laws from Washington

    RCW 9A.16.050
    Homicide—By other person—When justifiable.
    Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
    (1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or
    (2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.

    RCW 9A.16.110
    Defending against violent crime—Reimbursement.
    (1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,968
    Quote Originally Posted by Jered View Post
    I decided to check out this forum because I'm probably going to be moving to Montana in the near future.

    It sounds like you guys should steal a couple of our laws from Washington

    RCW 9A.16.050
    Homicide—By other person—When justifiable.
    Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
    (1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or
    (2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.

    RCW 9A.16.110
    Defending against violent crime—Reimbursement.
    (1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.
    Or remove such laws entirely .... you have the right to defend yourself and property. No laws needed for that right -- it exists w/o any laws written.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Or remove such laws entirely .... you have the right to defend yourself and property. No laws needed for that right -- it exists w/o any laws written.
    Unfortunately, we end up with nitwits like that prosecutor in FL.

  11. #11
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,598
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    The facts are that the homeowner shot the BG in the back while the BG was exiting the home through a window. Then the homeowner went outside and shot the guy running away. Those are the facts; all the facts about waving the gun and entering his home have no relevancy. The hung jury, I think, was because of jury nullification. I can see a juror saying that yes the law says you can't shoot someone in the back (running away), but he was a bad guy, not guilty.

    As to your second statement, I agree, but as I said above someone on that jury new the law, in effect not on my watch. Will someone on the second jury have the same understanding of their duties?
    +1

    It would be interesting to know the jury vote. Was it guilty or not-guilty that was the minority position?

    Whether it was one juror, or all but one who refused to convict, probably safe to say that none of the seated jurors showed up to court wearing an NRA hat/belt-buckle or "...from my cold dead hands..." T-shirt. I bet none of them volunteered an eagerness to nullify.

    The jury box is the last peaceful means of resisting tyranny. An honorable man must answer questions honestly, even if the voir dire process is flawed at this time.

    But an honorable man recognizes his duty not to make it easy to exclude him from jury service. He doesn't avoid jury duty. He recognizes that his may be the only voice of reason in the deliberation room to prevent a gross injustice.

    One man can prevent a conviction, at least on his watch.

    One man might even be able to persuade the other members of a jury to flat out acquit when warranted.

    And on the flip side, one man might persuade his fellows that a conviction really is warranted when the state manages to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty and poses a risk to the community.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •