Just wondering what you guys think

[Okla-homey]

Hypothetical situation.

A guy runs a business. No criminal record. He sells a used car to a guy.

That buyer is a thug. Big time thug.

The buyer decides he wants to return the car. The seller says no.

Months go by. Various encounters and threats from the thug. Thug won't relent and persists he wants his money back, all the while driving the crap out of the car. In fact he ends up blowing the engine.

Finally, the thug shows up at the guys business. Demands his money back or an a$$-whippin' will ensue. Business owner shoots him. dead.

Business owner convicted of first degree murder, sentenced to life without parole and goes to Big Mac. 17 years in as of today -- and will never, evar get out.

Question: Is that justice?

[soonerbrat]

did business owner report the harassment?

[Okla-homey]

did business owner report the harassment?

let's assume he did, and the police said, "until he actually does something, we can't do anything. After all, you are both men, and one man threatening to hurt another man is not the sort of thing we have the time to get involved in."

[sooner_born_1960]

I think "life without parole" is bad law. The parole board should be allowed to do its job. Each case has its own unique circumstances, that need to be evaluated.

[Okieflyer]

It's not justice from what you said. But does he try to handle this through the legal system first? What 'Brat said.

[Okla-homey]

I think "life without parole" is bad law. The parole board should be allowed to do its job. Each case has its own unique circumstances, that need to be evaluated.

I hear ya bro. And I agree. But, the good people of this state have repeatedly stated they want "life" to mean life.

[Okieflyer]

let's assume he did, and the police said, "until he actually does something, we can't do anything. After all, you are both men, and one man threatening to hurt another man is not the sort of thing we have the time to get involved in."

Sorry late post.

I don't see that it's justice. But that's me.

[Okla-homey]

It's not justice from what you said. But does he try to handle this through the legal system first? What 'Brat said.

Like I said. You call the police where you live and tell them someone is threatening to beat you to death and see what they tell you.

[soonerbrat]

No, it's not justice. I'm not sure what the law was 17 years ago but now i'm pretty sure you're allowed to protect yourself if there is a perceived threat of bodily harm. That perceived threat is definitely subjective

[Okieflyer]

I think "life without parole" is bad law. The parole board should be allowed to do its job. Each case has its own unique circumstances, that need to be evaluated.

I agree. We get frustrated with the idiots that are on the parole board. But they should still have the say.

[sooner_born_1960]

Did the business owner have a decent lawyer. Even without a lawyer, I think I could tell the story where it sounded like a spur of the moment decision to use deadly force against a percieved threat. Manslaughter should have been on the table.

[Okla-homey]

Did the business owner have a decent lawyer. Even without a lawyer, I think I could tell the story where it sounded like a spur of the moment decision to use deadly force against a percieved threat. Manslaughter should have been on the table.

Let's assume a plea deal was offered in which the guy could cop to manslaughter but instead, he decided to proceed to trial because he thought he could beat the rap. No previous record. "Thug needed killin'" (implied of course), that sort of thing. As a result, the prosecution went balls to the wall.

[Okieflyer]

Did the business owner have a decent lawyer.

Isn't that like saying "Good Longhorn"?:confused:

I guess it's in the context you use it.:D

[Okieflyer]

Let's assume a plea deal was offered in which the guy could cop to manslaughter but instead, he decided to proceed to trial because he thought he could beat the rap. As a reult, the prosecution went balls to the wall.


This is why they will never let me sit on a jury.:O

[sooner_born_1960]

Did the man testify in his own defense? Did the jury have the option of lesser charges?

[Okla-homey]

Did the man testify in his own defense? Did the jury have the option of lesser charges?

question one: no. question two: don't know.

Do know: the business owner had previously filed a grievance against the trial court judge in an unrelated civil matter. Trial court judge refused to recuse himself in the murder trial.

also, guy has been a model prisoner. No "bad time" since he hit the jug.

[TUSooner]

You already know what I think: No.

[proud gonzo]

No, that isn't justice.

[sooner_born_1960]

That is one problem I have with plea agreements. If the prosecution feels justice would be served with the sentence that goes with manslaughter, then justice was not served with life without parole.

[Sooner_Bob]

No freakin' way that's justice IMO.

Even worse since you mentioned the previous issue with the judge.

[sooneron]

That is one problem I have with plea agreements. If the prosecution feels justice would be served with the sentence that goes with manslaughter, then justice was not served with life without parole.
Same here. I think the guy at the MOST should have gotten Man 1. The prosecution and the judge should be vilified. repeatedly. publicly. How can the guy not get an appeal out of the circumstances with the judge, anywho? Sounds like grounds to me.

[IB4OU2]

Did he sell him a Mitsubihi....if he did he can rot in jail as far as I'm concerned.

[Okla-homey]

That is one problem I have with plea agreements. If the prosecution feels justice would be served with the sentence that goes with manslaughter, then justice was not served with life without parole.

It does seem rather inconsistent doesn't it?

That said, I believe they would justify the switcheroo based on the notion the plea deal is made more attractive to the accused by the fact it involves a lesser charge than the state is capable of effectively prosecuting. I guess it's mostly about saving everyone's time.

I wonder, however, how much bluffing by the prosecutor is involved when they offer a deal?

[Okla-homey]

Did he sell him a Mitsubihi....if he did he can rot in jail as far as I'm concerned.

I do believe it was a Camaro.

[sooneron]

I do believe it was a Camaro.
That can't be true, thugs only drive firebirds.:texan:

[Hamhock]

methinks there is more to the story.

[sooner_born_1960]

methinks there is more to the story.
There always is.

[StoopTroup]

Even though he might not get out....

Is he from Tulsa and does he like to write love letters?

Jerk knows someone in need.

[Okla-homey]

methinks there is more to the story.

There's honestly not much more to it, except the fact the guy's son, a witness, prolly lied when he testified the thug pulled a gun on his dad when the thug showed up to administer the a$$-whippin'. IMHO, that's what PO'ed the jury.

[Hamhock]

There always is.

kinda like the guy from muskogee who "shot a guy invading his house"

shot a guy.....in the back....as he was running away.....at the end of the driveway.....while his wife was in the house....trying to get her clothes back on....


i realize that stupid stuff happens in the legal system all the time, but i gotta think that a thug repeatedly threatens me, he shows up to damage me, and i shoot him, 9 outta 10 folks are gonna let me walk.

[Whet]

No, that is not "justice," from what you provided. But there are always questions, like: What were the extenuating circumstances to go with the Murder 1 charge? Was the victim shot in the back? Multiple times? Was the victim inside the premises of the shooter? Who represented the shooter? Was the attorney compentent? Or, was it a PD? Have all of his appeals been denied? Most importantly, did this happen in Atoka County?


So many questions......

[Okla-homey]

kinda like the guy from muskogee who "shot a guy invading his house"

shot a guy.....in the back....as he was running away.....at the end of the driveway.....while his wife was in the house....trying to get her clothes back on....


i realize that stupid stuff happens in the legal system all the time, but i gotta think that a thug repeatedly threatens me, he shows up to damage me, and i shoot him, 9 outta 10 folks are gonna let me walk.

agreed. But, if you are not a lifelong member of the small rural community where you're tried, and the dead thug was, you might just get bent over like this guy. Especially if there are "inconsistencies" in eye witness testimony.

[M]

Most importantly, did this happen in Pontotoc County?

Fixed.

:rolleyes:

[Okla-homey]

No, that is not "justice," from what you provided. But there are always questions, like: What were the extenuating circumstances to go with the Murder 1 charge? Was the victim shot in the back? Multiple times? Was the victim inside the premises of the shooter? Who represented the shooter? Was the attorney compentent? Or, was it a PD? Have all of his appeals been denied? Most importantly, did this happen in Atoka County?


So many questions......

Shot in the front. One hit. Center of mass (chest) from about 9 feet. .32 fired from a gun kept under the cash register. Deed done inside the premises. Thug walked out after being shot and died in the parking lot. Represented by a competent private atty. Appeal as of right was made and denied. And no, not Atoka County.

[rufnek05]

The Thunderdome is the only true form of justice anymore.

[olevetonahill]

He shoulda just takin his asswoopin like a man .
Or just hid the body .

[sooner_born_1960]

frankensooner should make a poll out of this.

[TexasLidig8r]

Premeditation may have been a huge issue.

The question is... when was the gun purchased? If it was a recent purchase, the jury could have inferred that the gun was specifically purchased to use against the thug, and therefore, the requisite mens rea necessary for murder in the first degree was present.

If not, am curious as to what evidence was introduced to establish the killing was premeditated.

Oh.. and obviously big mistake for the now convict not to testify on his own behalf. If one of your defenses is that you feared for your own safety, you better make a compelling witness on the stand.

For a jury to let a defendant go on a crime such as this, the jury has to first like, or at least have some understanding of the defendant and then want to let him go. Strategic mistake and makes me wonder... why did the mouthpiece not put the convict on the stand.

[StoopTroup]

You know...it's tough being in that situation.

I'd hope that all of us learn from this guys unfortunate situation.

Do you kill a guy like that? Do you shoot him in the knee and call the law so that later he and all the rest of his bangers can continue to harrass you to no end? Do you keep an unregistared back up handgun to put in said perps hand after he dies in the parking lot? Do you put you faith in our legal system and protect yourself and the business that supports your Family?

Tough call.

I know Homey has talked about the Carry Laws in OUr State and how if you pull your gun, you better be in harms way...

But after seeing things like this...do you pull it and do you pull it in time after you think what might happen if your wrong.

Opps...you hesitated...your dead.

Awful stuff.

[Okla-homey]

He shoulda just takin his asswoopin like a man .
Or just hid the body .

Tru dat bro. I bet he's told himself that every day since he became a guest of the state. If he lives another 20 years, he'll get to tell himself that 7,300 more times.

He's 57 now. This happened when he was 40. He's since lost his home, business and every dime he had paying lawyers for failed discretionary appeals. His wife divorced him after he went inside.

Ten years ago, they wouldn't even let him out for a few hours to go this mother's funeral when the family offered to cover the state's expense in transporting and guarding him.

[Hamhock]

Do you kill a guy like that? Do you shoot him in the knee and call the law so that later he and all the rest of his bangers can continue to harrass you to no end? Awful stuff.

IMO, if another person sees your gun, you had better be planning on ending his life. Trying to shoot someone in the knee is a good way to get a gun taken from and fed to you. If you pull a gun on someone, you had better start firing at the center mass until said person stops being a threat.

but, i'm hard like that...'cause i'm from the street.

[Vaevictis]

Hypothetical situation.

A guy runs a business. No criminal record. He sells a used car to a guy.

That buyer is a thug. Big time thug.

The buyer decides he wants to return the car. The seller says no.

Months go by. Various encounters and threats from the thug. Thug won't relent and persists he wants his money back, all the while driving the crap out of the car. In fact he ends up blowing the engine.

Finally, the thug shows up at the guys business. Demands his money back or an a$$-whippin' will ensue. Business owner shoots him. dead.

Business owner convicted of first degree murder, sentenced to life without parole and goes to Big Mac. 17 years in as of today -- and will never, evar get out.

Question: Is that justice?

Assuming the facts as you presented them are documented and true:

1. If I'm on the jury, I nullify.
2. If I'm in a position to pardon, I pardon.

It's not justice. Guy threatened him multiple times, followed him around, etc. You threaten someone enough, sooner or later, you're going to get yourself shot. And you're going to deserve it.

[Okla-homey]

Premeditation may have been a huge issue.

The question is... when was the gun purchased? If it was a recent purchase, the jury could have inferred that the gun was specifically purchased to use against the thug, and therefore, the requisite mens rea necessary for murder in the first degree was present.

If not, am curious as to what evidence was introduced to establish the killing was premeditated.

Oh.. and obviously big mistake for the now convict not to testify on his own behalf. If one of your defenses is that you feared for your own safety, you better make a compelling witness on the stand.

For a jury to let a defendant go on a crime such as this, the jury has to first like, or at least have some understanding of the defendant and then want to let him go. Strategic mistake and makes me wonder... why did the mouthpiece not put the convict on the stand.

I don't think there's any question the guy hated the thug as a result of all the harassment and threats and was happy to shoot him. I also believe the thug would not have been shot had the thug left him alone and had NOT forced the showdown when he turned up to open the can of whoop-a$$. I'm not saying the guy is innocent, I'm just of the opinion LWOP is waaay over the top here.

I also think 17 years is plenty under the above circumstances.

I don't know why the guy didn't take the stand. I do know some defense guys try mightily to avoid putting their guy on the stand period. Might be because he generally comes off as a bit of an a-hole -- because he's so angry about the mess and honestly felt justified -- thus very indignant about it all.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Here's a question for you law daddies.

John Q. Jailbird gets popped on X felony offense. John Q. Jailbird is tried and sentenced before a jury of his peers and gets a one-way ticket to Big Mac. John Q. Jailbird goes through the appeals process and at every turn, gets shot down. He's in the poke, and there's no getting out. HOWEVER, in a flash of brilliance fifteen years later, the state legislature decides to pass law that makes X felony, in the exact same circumstances John Q. Jailbird committed this felony, legal. Or even a lesser charge. However it shakes out, X felony is no longer X felony because the legslative body of the state passed it as such and was signed into law.

Does John Q. Jailbird have any recourse? Being his appeals in this hypothetical are gone, but according to the law NOW, he's no longer guilty of X felony, can John Q. Jailbird do anything? Or is he stuck with the sentence thrown down fifteen years ago?

[Vaevictis]

Do you shoot him in the knee and call the law so that later he and all the rest of his bangers can continue to harrass you to no end?

No. If you're not intending to kill someone, leave the gun in its holster.

[47straight]

Here's a question for you law daddies.

John Q. Jailbird gets popped on X felony offense. John Q. Jailbird is tried and sentenced before a jury of his peers and gets a one-way ticket to Big Mac. John Q. Jailbird goes through the appeals process and at every turn, gets shot down. He's in the poke, and there's no getting out. HOWEVER, in a flash of brilliance fifteen years later, the state legislature decides to pass law that makes X felony, in the exact same circumstances John Q. Jailbird committed this felony, legal. Or even a lesser charge. However it shakes out, X felony is no longer X felony because the legslative body of the state passed it as such and was signed into law.

Does John Q. Jailbird have any recourse? Being his appeals in this hypothetical are gone, but according to the law NOW, he's no longer guilty of X felony, can John Q. Jailbird do anything? Or is he stuck with the sentence thrown down fifteen years ago?


Stuck like Chuck. Though I've heard of governors giving clemency/pardon in such cases.

[Okla-homey]

Here's a question for you law daddies.

John Q. Jailbird gets popped on X felony offense. John Q. Jailbird is tried and sentenced before a jury of his peers and gets a one-way ticket to Big Mac. John Q. Jailbird goes through the appeals process and at every turn, gets shot down. He's in the poke, and there's no getting out. HOWEVER, in a flash of brilliance fifteen years later, the state legislature decides to pass law that makes X felony, in the exact same circumstances John Q. Jailbird committed this felony, legal. Or even a lesser charge. However it shakes out, X felony is no longer X felony because the legslative body of the state passed it as such and was signed into law.

Does John Q. Jailbird have any recourse? Being his appeals in this hypothetical are gone, but according to the law NOW, he's no longer guilty of X felony, can John Q. Jailbird do anything? Or is he stuck with the sentence thrown down fifteen years ago?

You know how you can't be charged with breaking a law if what you did was legal when you did it? It works both ways. If what you did is subsequently made legal, you're still guilty of breaking the law when you did the deed.

[Whet]

The shooter should have had a throw-down!

The only remaining alternatives are: 1-Governor commute sentence, or 2-Donate heavily to Clinton, hope she gets elected and then make a deal for a pardon, like in the wanning days of the previous Clinton administration

[MamaMia]

.......

Months go by. Various encounters and threats from the thug. Thug won't relent and persists he wants his money back, all the while driving the crap out of the car. In fact he ends up blowing the engine.

Finally, the thug shows up at the guys business. Demands his money back or an a$$-whippin' will ensue. Business owner shoots him. dead........

Question: Is that justice?
Its seems like self defense to me.

[sooner_born_1960]

The shooter should have had a throw-down!

The only remaining alternatives are: 1-Governor commute sentence, or 2-Donate heavily to Clinton, hope she gets elected and then make a deal for a pardon, like in the wanning days of every administration
fixed.
And I'm not a Clinton fan.

[Sooner_Bob]

Would this be a good time to bring up Joe Horn (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=145182)?

[jeremy885]

Would this be a good time to bring up Joe Horn (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=145182)?


That guy needs to go to jail.

[Okla-homey]

Would this be a good time to bring up Joe Horn (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=145182)?

the thug was, and my cousin is, white.

[Sooner_Bob]

That guy needs to go to jail.


I respectfully disagree.

Should he have stayed in his own house? Probably.

Should he have let the thieves possibly move on to another house and continue stealing from others in his neighborhood? Heck no.

[jeremy885]

Then why do we need cops? 911 told him to stay, but he went out and did it anyways. When did death become the penalty for burglary?

[Vaevictis]

Unless you believe someone is actually in danger, I don't think lethal force is warranted.

[StoopTroup]

What if you catch your Poke neighbor stealing your OU Flag...

Can you shoot to kill?

[sooner_born_1960]

What if you catch your Poke neighbor stealing your OU Flag...

Can you shoot to kill?
Worse case of suicide I ever saw.

[1stTimeCaller]

"We live in the deep South," he said. "And in the deep South a white man killing a black men is as common as apple and cherry pie."

:rolleyes:

[Sooner_Bob]

Then why do we need cops? 911 told him to stay, but he went out and did it anyways. When did death become the penalty for burglary?

I completely understand where you're coming from, but cops can't provide protection 24/7. Would it have been ok if he used the exact same level of force to prevent/stop a rape?

[Sooner_Bob]

What if you catch your Poke neighbor stealing your OU Flag...

Can you shoot to kill?


Can you? Sure.

Should you? Probably not.



:P

[Sooner_Bob]

:rolleyes:


kinda what I was thinking.

[jeremy885]

I completely understand where you're coming from, but cops can't provide protection 24/7. Would it have been ok if he used the exact same level of force to prevent/stop a rape?

I understand that and I thought the guy should be in jail before the racial part came up, however, this isn't a case of rape or protecting another person. He saw some guys stealing a stereo and decided to take the law into his own hands. In this case, he is guilty of manslaughter or murder. If he saw the guys raping a woman or threating to kill a neighbor, then he probably would have been ok.

[1stTimeCaller]

Was it smart of him? No. He should have stayed inside.

While apprehending the criminals they lunged at him (in his mind at the very least) and he protected himself.

It sucks for the criminals that Joe is a better shot than they were citizens.

[Sooner_Bob]

I understand that and I thought the guy should be in jail before the racial part came up, however, this isn't a case of rape or protecting another person. He saw some guys stealing a stereo and decided to take the law into his own hands. In this case, he is guilty of manslaughter or murder. If he saw the guys raping a woman or threating to kill a neighbor, then he probably would have been ok.


Race should have never been brought up by anyone on either side. From listening to the 911 call Mr. Horn would've probably popped the guys regardless of their skin color.

I can see charging him with manslaughter, but I just can't see the charges actually resulting in a conviction. But who knows.

[TexasLidig8r]

I don't know why the guy didn't take the stand. I do know some defense guys try mightily to avoid putting their guy on the stand period. Might be because he generally comes off as a bit of an a-hole -- because he's so angry about the mess and honestly felt justified -- thus very indignant about it all.

I don't do crim defense so can't really comment on that.... but, I do know that if there is no dispute as to who shot whom (and in this case, there doesn't appear to be any dispute), unless there are some skeletons in the closet (i.e., prior unrelated convictions which may come in should the defendant testify), you have to try to win the jury over that 1st degree is not mandated.

Rule No. 1 of civil litigation law is, First and foremost, sell yourself first! Get the jury to like you.. to trust you. If they trust you, they are more apt to trust your message.

I would think in crim defense that still applies followed by "have the jury see your defendant as a person.. humanize him." If the facts of the crime are not in dispute, the only way to do that... take the stand.

[KC//CRIMSON]

Unless it was self defense it was justice. If you're going to shoot someone, plan on going to jail/prison.

[Ike]

The original question: Is it justice? Not no way, not no how.

The guy probably should be serving some time. But it's my opinion that the two harshest penalties we have, life and death (no pun intended) should be reserved for those that are considered to be continual threats to society. This man does not seem to be such a guy.

[Okla-homey]

The original question: Is it justice? Not no way, not no how.

The guy probably should be serving some time. But it's my opinion that the two harshest penalties we have, life and death (no pun intended) should be reserved for those that are considered to be continual threats to society. This man does not seem to be such a guy.

That's my sense too. Frankly, barring some gubernatorial miracle (commutation) he'll never get out of there except feet first on a funeral home gurney.

In this case, were he released, I'd bet a ton he'd leave the area (that county for sure) and never return. I also would not expect him to run afoul of the law, jsut as he hadn't before this mess. Finally, I feel the half a million or so the state will spend on maintaining him over the next twenty years or so is a collosal waste of limited resources.

[1stTimeCaller]

I find it amazing that a shot from a .32 at any distance > point blank is lethal.

Who knew?

[Okla-homey]

I don't do crim defense so can't really comment on that.... but, I do know that if there is no dispute as to who shot whom (and in this case, there doesn't appear to be any dispute), unless there are some skeletons in the closet (i.e., prior unrelated convictions which may come in should the defendant testify), you have to try to win the jury over that 1st degree is not mandated.

Rule No. 1 of civil litigation law is, First and foremost, sell yourself first! Get the jury to like you.. to trust you. If they trust you, they are more apt to trust your message.

I would think in crim defense that still applies followed by "have the jury see your defendant as a person.. humanize him." If the facts of the crime are not in dispute, the only way to do that... take the stand.

I hear you, his record was spotless, but I don't think that Hooterville jury was disposed to ever like a guy, originally from out of town, who "killed one of their boys." Even though their twenty-something "boy" had a rap sheet as long as your arm and was indisputedly hell on wheels.

[Okla-homey]

I find it amazing that a shot from a .32 at any distance > point blank is lethal.

Who knew?

you can kill a man with a well-placed .22 short. I seem to recall the round nicked some artery and he pretty quickly bled out. That, and it took the ambulance about 20 minutes to get to the scene -- this was 18 years ago and out in the stix.

[IB4OU2]

you can kill a man with a well-placed .22 short. I seem to recall the round nicked some artery and he pretty quickly bled out. That, and it took the ambulance about 20 minutes to get to the scene -- this was 18 years ago and out in the stix.

An accurately placed .22 shot at the temple works as well.

[yermom]

I find it amazing that a shot from a .32 at any distance > point blank is lethal.

Who knew?

it's not necessarily going to stop him from doing what he was going to do you you, but it could eventually kill him

but as others have said, you can't just shoot someone in the leg like in the movies, if you miss, or don't incapacitate them, they are going to be rather angry and the stakes have been raised.

same thing with brandishing, say, a shotgun.

[StoopTroup]

OK...between the legs?

Seriously...some of you really need to get to the firing range and practice.

[yermom]

i'm not a bad shot actually... of course, i've never had to shoot an attacker under duress. hopefully i never get into that position

[StoopTroup]

I used to have to make money drops of $10 - 30,000 back in the day.

I would have shot you right between the eyes then.

Given the same circumstances now....

I'd shoot you right between the eyes.

I think I'll take my chances in Court.

If your going to own a gun for protection like the guy in jail had...you might as well just save the money IMO.

I wonder what might have happened if the guy had died right where he stood?

I sold guns for 8 years and if I had to do anything differently...I would have bought every one of those babies at cost and stockpiled them for sale at the Gun Shows we now have.

I hope the guy in prison gets out and gets a chance to live out his life on this side of the prison walls.

[Sooner_Bob]

Heh . . .


Legendary Hollywood actor and N.R.A spokesman Charlton Heston has slammed the association for what he calls a "gun loving" attitude.

Speaking during a remarkably bizarre rally staged in Augusta, Georgia, Heston, while apparently stoned out of his head on drugs, said :

"Must we be so gun loving? Are we that inhumane that we ignore the plight of our fellow man? Where is the tower of strength, the communal care, the flying monkeys? Are we not men?"

The speech was greeted with cheers from the assembled masses who laid down their weapons and pledged to bring love to the world through yoga and seafood cooking.

"He spoke what I was thinking all along", said NRA member JD Calvin Cuttle, "my heart was beating so fast while he spoke I surely thought it was gonna explode. And the flying monkey reference really rang through with myself and my family".

Mr. Heston exited the building on a flying monkey accompanied by a talking mouse and a sheep, according to N.R.A eyewitnesses gathered at the L.S.D table.

Linky dinky (http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i24500)