Spokane car theft suspect shot dead: Was it proper?

[sudden valley gunner]

The Second Circuit ruled in U.S. v Thomas that a holdout nullifying juror can be removed in a federal trial...

People v Williams the California Supreme Court ruled that a juror can be unseated and replaced with an alternate for being a holdout juror, and that a mistrial can be declared if a judge learned a jury was considering nullification.

neither of these cases were seen by the Supreme Court.

About the only supreme court judge I know of who was friendly to the idea was the late William Goodloe, of the Washington supreme court and a trial judge for King County before that who wanted nullification put on the jury instructions... he's been dead for some time now.

Which we should do, New Hampshire made it law...

Thanks for the cite , when judges don't like it all the more reason to use it.

Interesting that the 2 District court was involved in indicting Heicklen, for handing out nullification pamphlets hoping to influence jurors,,,, the charges were dropped.

 

[OC for ME]

It seems that a claim of justification has been made by the accused. All the state has to do is to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the claim is not a valid claim. In other words, the accused is lying and thus was not justified under RCW. Simple.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

It seems that a claim of justification has been made by the accused. All the state has to do is to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the claim is not a valid claim. In other words, the accused is lying and thus was not justified under RCW. Simple.

Hopefully it is a fully informed jury.

Although I wouldn't shoot I as a juror would interpret that law a little differently, that a when someone is stealing your property it is a felony being committed upon you, was it "justified" I don't know enough of the facts.

 

[tombrewster421]

Hopefully it is a fully informed jury.

Although I wouldn't shoot I as a juror would interpret that law a little differently, that a when someone is stealing your property it is a felony being committed upon you, was it "justified" I don't know enough of the facts.

I would interpret it the same way. Stealing someone's vehicle is a rather large attack on their way of life.

 

[BigDave]

Jails and prisons are full of people that concur with the previous 2 post, they don't feel the laws should apply to them and then they found out one day it applies equally to all, even the ignorant.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Jails and prisons are full of people that concur with the previous 2 post, they don't feel the laws should apply to them and then they found out one day it applies equally to all, even the ignorant.

Really they are full of people who wouldn't shoot but merely discuss the legal definition of a law?

Unfortunately the jails also get occupied by many who are railroaded by prosecutors, law enFORCEment, and statist jurors who lack any knowledge of common law.

Too bad so many people are ignorant and have this faulty notion that a free people are to be ruled by law and not their government and when positiv or malum prohibitum laws are enacted they are static entities that people must suffer the consequences for breaking no matter what.

Nullify nullify nullify. It still is our right judges, police, and prosecuting lawyers who disagree be damned.

 

[BigDave]

Really they are full of people who wouldn't shoot but merely discuss the legal definition of a law?

Unfortunately the jails also get occupied by many who are railroaded by prosecutors, law enFORCEment, and statist jurors who lack any knowledge of common law.

Too bad so many people are ignorant and have this faulty notion that a free people are to be ruled by law and not their government and when positiv or malum prohibitum laws are enacted they are static entities that people must suffer the consequences for breaking no matter what.

Nullify nullify nullify. It still is our right judges, police, and prosecuting lawyers who disagree be damned.

You sure rationalize just as they do??? why is that? interesting....

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I would interpret it the same way. Stealing someone's vehicle is a rather large attack on their way of life.

Agreed. And the arguments about insurance etc...just don't hold water with me.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

You sure rationalize just as they do??? why is that? interesting....

Weak attempt at more ad hominem, based of course on unfounded assumptions.

 

[BigDave]

Weak attempt at more ad hominem, based of course on unfounded assumptions.

Actually you're wrong again, I was just making a simple observation, since I have worked in that environment, from a jail setting to a prison and observing their living condition, activities to include segregation to death row, so yes I have some insight into the thought process of those who feel the laws don't apply to them our shouldn't and they can infringe upon others at will with no regard for others.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Actually you're wrong again, I was just making a simple observation, since I have worked in that environment, from a jail setting to a prison and observing their living condition, activities to include segregation to death row, so yes I have some insight into the thought process of those who feel the laws don't apply to them our shouldn't and they can infringe upon others at will with no regard for others.

No you made an insinuation on peoples characters for having a different interpretation of the law than you.
Who said the law doesn't apply to them, who advocated infringing upon others????

I also can make "observations" about people who live off money/property stolen off other people the majority of their whole lives and their statist viewpoints.

Nullification....is still our right whether you like it or not, this means we get to judge as jurors the law itself.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Regarding all this, I'd like to point out that, in principle, most states' self-defense laws are good. It's not wise, in my opinion, to go "all the way" and legalize shooting someone who tries to steal property. There are too many "border" cases where shooting might be encouraged for reasons other than strict defense of self or property. I know we wouldn't do this, but I would expect to see a great many aggressive shootings suddenly become "self-defense" when there is some convenient inanimate object (unable to be a witness) at stake.

However, and I know this is a difficult concept for some, the mere existence of a law (and its violation) does not justify or require its enforcement. It is perfectly acceptable to have laws which are not enforced much of the time they are violated.

Imagine some 90 year old grandma shooting a guy stealing her only car, vs. a young gang member having one of many cars stolen who decides to shoot the guy. I see no problem with accepting that both committed a crime, but that nobody (including society) benefits from actually prosecuting the grandma for hers.

Jury nullification comes into play when the citizenry feel the punishment does not fit the crime (among other circumstances). I see no reason why a jury shouldn't nullify this particular shooting, being that the state has elected to prosecute it.

The result of this would be a system which did not encourage shooting over property, but would make allowances so as to not destroy the life of someone who did for valid reasons.

Good points Marshaul.

 

[golddigger14s]

Similar event in Alabama:
http://www.wsfa.com/story/22512996/customers-fire-shots-at-shoplifter-running-from-prattville-belk

 

[gsx1138]

Well the original OP's question was, "Was it proper?" So far I've seen a bunch of was it LEGAL answers. For some people the car is their life line. Not everyone has public transportation or financial resources to withstand missing work. As someone who has experienced this I'm ok with what the shooter did.

 

[golddigger14s]

In this case you would probably lose the car any way (at least for a while), since it would probably be impounded as evidence.