eye95
Well-known member
Show me where I said that you jumped to ANY conclusion!
For you to insinuate that I did is UNACCEPTABLE!
Put up or SHUT UP!
Moving on.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Here's one to watch
- Thread starter okboomer
- Start date
Show me where I said that you jumped to ANY conclusion!
For you to insinuate that I did is UNACCEPTABLE!
Put up or SHUT UP!
Moving on.
okboomer
Regular Member
You insinuate that I jump to a conclusion and that I am not rational. I find you to be disingenious at best.
Aknazer
Regular Member
You imply it by posting directly after him and with no one else in the thread to reply to. If you can't see how that is implying that he jumped to conclusions then you need to learn how to better choose your words.
But then again I've noticed this standard tactic from you. You say something that very clearly implies something and when called out on what your words imply you act offended and claim that isn't what you said/meant. Given just how often this happens it leads one to believe it is more than just coincidence and comes across as passive aggressive with your overall tone often coming off as aggressive and condescending.
^^ This ^^
JimMullinsWVCDL
State Researcher
oldbanger
Regular Member
"I think they jumped the gun on this one."
Last edited:
JimMullinsWVCDL
State Researcher
This quote was from a supporter of the defendant, who was referring to the police as "they," meaning that the police jumped the gun by arresting first and investigating later."I think they jumped the gun on this one."
okboomer
Regular Member
Sounds like the video and witness statements are not supporting the assertion of murder, but rather, manslaughter maybe? Not exactly what the prosecutor was looking for.
What :shocker:!!!! Basically telling the prosecutor that he (the judge) wants to see an indictment? A little bias showing here, your honor? That would be grounds for the defense to have him removed from future proceedings in most states, how about there?
And that has what bearing on the charges or anything else, after the fact? The only thing that matters is what Canul thought at the time and he said he thought it was a blade!
So, the man who had just committed a felony is shot while leaving the scene which just so happens to be back into a store with other potential victims to, what? hang out there and commit another felony against some other unsuspecting UNARMED citizen, who then is turned into another victim?
Canul is not out of danger yet. It would have been better if the judge had dismissed with predjudice, instead, he indicated he would definitely entertain future charges.
JimMullinsWVCDL
State Researcher
I believe Logan County Prosecuting Attorney John Bennett was "looking for" a solid case that he could take to trial and win a conviction. I give him great credit for carefully evaluating this case and deciding that it is not strong enough to try at this time. Obviously, there are things we know about this case from the public record and there are many things things that have not been publicized (e.g., statements of eyewitnesses and possibly the defendant, assuming he did not follow this sound advice). However, based on the public record, there is more than sufficient evidence to find probable cause at the preliminary hearing that would have happened today had the charges not dismissed, to indict, and to take the case to trial. However, the information in the public record would make a trial a very close contest that the prosecutor wisely and pragmatically decided he was not ready to fight.
In West Virginia, the magistrate's role in a felony case ends after a preliminary hearing, at which point a case is transferred to the circuit court (first for grand jury proceedings and then a trial if there's an indictment). West Virginia magistrates are nonlawyer judges formerly known as justices of the peace who handle most warrants, misdemeanor cases, small civil cases, preliminary hearings in felony cases, and domestic violence protective orders issued on an emergency (usually ex parte) basis. Given the facts of the case and that this case meets the threshold probable cause standard for being bound over to the grand jury and for the grand jury to indict, this notation (which was placed on the disposition sheet indicating the official record of the dismissal of the case) is of no prejudicial effect and merely indicates that the dismissal should not be construed as somehow giving the defendant a clean bill of legal health at this point in time--a little CYA for the magistrate.
At this stage, the charges could not be dismissed with prejudice. The state reserves the right to investigate further and present evidence to the grand jury until the state believes it's ready to seek and indictment and take the case to trial. As I said above, a trial in this case would be a very risky proposition. Based on the information in the public record, if I were writing an answer to a law school criminal law exam, I would probably have to reject the claim of self-defense and convict of second degree (not premeditated) murder or voluntary manslaughter. However, in a rural county where guns are owned by just about everybody who may legally possess firearms (and quite a few who can't) and there are more than a few vehicles bearing this front license plate
the prosecutor made both a wise and very pragmatic decision to not try the case at this time. While most of the evidence is set, there is the wild card of any future incriminating statements by the defendant. From the prosecution's perspective, sometimes it is better to hold on to a case that is missing a few pieces and hope for the defendant to verbally hang himself at some point in the future than take a gamble with your only bite at the apple with some gaps in your case. I believe there's a DA in Orange County, Florida, who probably wish he had not been so quick on the draw to try a certain, recent, high-profile murder case. Can you imagine how bad that DA will look if Casey Anthony ever confesses to the murder for which she has now been acquitted? Getting back to this case, we have as the defendant a 26-year-old man who is either (A) innocent and has (at least for now) been spared the turmoil of a murder trial or (B) guilty and who now has a secret to harbor for decades. For now, the state has chosen to wait and hope the defendant will incriminate himself somewhere down the road, at which point the state could always prosecute again (there is no statute of limitations on murder or most other felonies in West Virginia).
OldCurlyWolf
Regular Member
Spoken like a true L@#$er, Mr. Mullins. The following is not an aspersion on you personally, regardless of using a quote, but a comment on the general misconduct in the creation of the laws of the multiple states, by L@#$ers, and the way those laws are prosecuted/applied, by L@#$ers and the courts.
I just hope, given the misplaced zealousness of many prosecutors, the citizens of WV become well versed in the term "Jury Nullification".
The law, as written, regarding a retreating violent felon(s) is patently wrong. A fleeing violent felon is an immediate and continuing danger to any individuals he/she/it may contact and the community at large.
The person(s) who permanently stop such a felon should be getting appropriate gratitude from the community, not "if I were writing an answer to a law school criminal law exam, I would probably have to reject the claim of self-defense and convict of second degree (not premeditated) murder or voluntary manslaughter." which equates to punishing the people who protect the community.
Last edited:
SavageOne
Regular Member
Wasn't there a case earlier this year or late last concerning the robbery of a restaurant, where the employees fired on the robbers as they fled? As I recall there was an out cry from the left that the employees be charged with murder. The DA in that case chose not pursue charges and I believe one official even said something to the effect "it was self defense, how did they know the robbers weren't running outside to get a gun".
I fail to see how anyone can know(with certainty) that just because a violent robber is moving in a direction away from you, that they won't reverse direction at any moment. Therefore, the threat is still active in my mind, and should be acted upon.
I fail to see how anyone can know(with certainty) that just because a violent robber is moving in a direction away from you, that they won't reverse direction at any moment. Therefore, the threat is still active in my mind, and should be acted upon.
papa bear
Regular Member
hey JIMMULLINSWVCDL, talked to a lot of your fellow WV citizens a couple of weeks ago, at the VCDL table. tried to steer them toward contacting WVCDL to join. there were a few from Logan county.
color me cynical, i do think the DA was doing a CYA. i don't believe he was expecting so much support for Mr. Canul. i don't know the bias for anti defense in Logan. but, i get the feeling that the DA is, as you say, waiting for later. but, i believe is for the political pressures to let up. i for one would like this to have went through the process to determine weather or not a crime has been committed.
is there any opinion on your part for the defense of Mr. Canul?
color me cynical, i do think the DA was doing a CYA. i don't believe he was expecting so much support for Mr. Canul. i don't know the bias for anti defense in Logan. but, i get the feeling that the DA is, as you say, waiting for later. but, i believe is for the political pressures to let up. i for one would like this to have went through the process to determine weather or not a crime has been committed.
is there any opinion on your part for the defense of Mr. Canul?
JimMullinsWVCDL
State Researcher
Absolutely. Obviously, I got a little too deep in the weeds last night in my presentation of the other side of this case, which I felt deserved at least a minimal presentation here given that virtually all of us on this forum naturally lean more than a little on the side of anyone who is second-guessed after making a split-second decision to act in self-defense when facing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury (any sharp metal object, whether a knife or the jagged edges of keys, held to a person's throat by a robber, as was apparently the case, is sufficient in my view).
One of the key things none of us knows about this case is what Mr. Canul said to the police (and anyone else for that matter) after the shooting. If he said he was robbed, felt what he thought was a knife being held to his throat, and shot his assailant both to defend himself and defend numerous individuals around him from being attacked, and then said he was too traumatized by what happened to him to say anything else and invoked his rights to remain silent and to have counsel, and did not say anything else about the case to anyone (other than his attorney, in a private setting), his case would be outstanding. However, we do not know whether Mr. Canul's study of firearms and the law ended with his concealed carry class or whether he had the foresight to mentally prepare himself for what he would need to do if (as it turned out to be the case a month ago) he was forced to shoot someone. What if he did not know that saying anything beyond what I said in the second sentence of this paragraph would, one way or another, harm his case? What if, in the immediate aftermath of being robbed of his paycheck and being threatened with death by an armed robber, without taking time to collect his thoughts, he said he shot in revenge or pure anger and that the decision to pull the trigger was not driven by an intent to defend himself or innocent bystanders who could have been just as easily attacked? These are big variables that we do not know right now.
Based on published reports, we know there was a robbery right before the shooting. We know the assailant put a metallic object to Mr. Canul's throat during the robbery. Even if that object was later proven to be a key, Mr. Caul was justified in believing that anything metallic could have been used to either cut his throat or choke him. Even if it was only a key, a freshly-cut duplicate key (I've had more than a few made at the same Wal-Mart where this shooting occurred) could inflict some damage in the wrong hands. Let's also not forget this shooting happened at the grocery store side of the entrance of the Logan Wal-Mart at about 5 PM on a Monday (and not just any Monday--the first day of school in the Local County public schools) afternoon, a time when I am certain based on frequent personal experience the store and its parking lot were very crowded and numerous potential eyewitnesses were present. While I believe the physical evidence and witness statements are probably fairly settled, the remaining questions surround Mr. Canul's intent and state of mind. If his statements closely resembled what I said in the second sentence of the previous paragraph, he is in good shape. However, I cannot completely exclude the possibility that he has already or may in the future say things that could undermine his claim of self-defense. If so, this would not be the first time a victim of a violent crime destroyed his or her claim of self-defense with poorly-chosen words heavily influenced by the emotional distress following a life-threatening encounter and possibly a lower level of intelligence.
Finally, returning to the prosecuting attorney, I will reaffirm my previous statements that John Bennett appears to be trying to handle this case carefully. Mr. Bennett is a relatively new prosecutor (first elected in 2008, took office January 1, 2009, and initially worked in the office as an APA for the 8 months between his primary election victory and taking office to ease the transition) who, like most of his counterparts throughout our state, juggles a massive caseload with limited resources in which the challenge is exceeded only by those facing the public defenders who represent the vast majority of criminal defendants in this state.
Obviously, there is an open question of what happens now. As of today, Mr. Canul is a free man facing no active criminal charges. The evidence in this case will be presented to the grand jury for its evaluation. However, absent a request from the prosecutor for an indictment, there likely won't be one. Given the facts we know and the obligation of the prosecuting attorney to represent the state's interests, the recent decision to dismiss the charges without prejudice and leave the door open to future investigation and grand jury activity is a good outcome.
okboomer
Regular Member
Thanks, I understand that the DA was not ready to go to the grand jury because he didn't have a solid enough case, and we have not seen the video footage from the store to see what actually happened.
It also seems from the comments of friends of Mr. Canul that he is a somewhat mild person ... and it takes a strong person to want to push the DA into filing for the possibility of exoneration by a jury, and a lot of money.
I do hope that Mr. Canul's attorney has warned him in very strong terms about making any comments about this incident at any time in the future!
Whether he committed an act that rises to 2nd degree or manslaughter, he still has to carry the fact he shot and killed another man ... for the rest of his life. I would be concerned that he will bear a burden of guilt without the resolution a ruling from a jury might afford him. I would imagine, no matter what the actual label put on his action, he will eventually guilt himself into depression at the least.
My sympathy and condolences go out to Mr. Canul. He is in a place I never want to be, myself!
It also seems from the comments of friends of Mr. Canul that he is a somewhat mild person ... and it takes a strong person to want to push the DA into filing for the possibility of exoneration by a jury, and a lot of money.
I do hope that Mr. Canul's attorney has warned him in very strong terms about making any comments about this incident at any time in the future!
Whether he committed an act that rises to 2nd degree or manslaughter, he still has to carry the fact he shot and killed another man ... for the rest of his life. I would be concerned that he will bear a burden of guilt without the resolution a ruling from a jury might afford him. I would imagine, no matter what the actual label put on his action, he will eventually guilt himself into depression at the least.
My sympathy and condolences go out to Mr. Canul. He is in a place I never want to be, myself!
JimMullinsWVCDL
State Researcher
OldCurlyWolf
Regular Member
Mr. Mullins on this one point I strongly disagree that it is a good outcome. It is a barely acceptable outcome. A good outcome would have been dismissal with prejudice. Charges should have never been brought because the law should not have allowed charges to be brought in this or any similar case.
Dahwg
Regular Member
That is called jury nullification, and the government won't tell you when they give you instructions as a jury, it is a perfectly legal option. Just sayin'
http://fija.org/