Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Toad on December 17, 2002, 09:36:24 AM
-
Jury clears man who shot priest he accused of abuse (http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/12/16/priest.shot.trial.ap/index.html)
I'll hold my comments so as not to prejudice the thread before it starts.
Just read it and post your first reaction.
-
My first thoughts:
Anyone who uses a firearm for other than self defense, sport shooting or target shooting should spend jail time for using it on another human.
My second thought is: Our jury selection process in this country needs an overhaul.
-
As horrible as the initial crime against the child may have been, no justice was served with this verdict. They didn't even find him guilty of a simple assault charge? I agree with Rip.
-
He should have been found guilty. He went there with a gun to confront his alledged abuser?
Yeah, that's called vigilantism.
Peace officers have authority to use physical force in the course of there duties. They get this authority from our representitives, who get their authourity from us, the citizens.
If this system of authority breaks down you get yourself anarchy.
-
My first thought...."I'd" go find a gun if a priest touched my child in a sexual way.
My second thought....sounds like an temporary insanity defense.
My third thought....mistrial, the jury was acting on emotion and not rule of law.
My fourth thought...anyone who lets their kids be an alter boy should think twice.
-
I almost agree with Rip (eewwwwww).
This guy should have to pay for the assault. Maybe a lenient sentence, but not acquittal.
The gun should definitely be incarcerated though! :p
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The gun should definitely be incarcerated though! :p
ROTFLOL! Thanks, I needed a smile this morning. :)
-
The fact is, as a prosecutor myself, I wouldn't want to try and convict anyone of doing anything to a priest that might've abused them. Especially if the "victim" is going to plead the 5th. That screams "Yes, I porked the kid!" at the jury. And everyone and their dog is getting real fed up with the Catholic Church and these stories.
My question right now is who called the priest to the stand? Since this was the victim, the prosecutor must have known he would take the 5th and not testify about any allegations of sexual molestation. So, if the state did call him, the prosecutor did it for one of two reasons; 1. They had to call him to make their case about the shooting, or 2. The prosecutor knew the priest would take the 5th, look like toejam and the kid would get off and did it on purpose.
Either way, the state had to know the defense would hammer the priest on the defendant's allegations of molestation and the jury would end up dissapointed the kid didn't kill him.
I've interviewed the victim's of child molestation for trials before. I've seen up close the damage this does to them. There is a sadness and....for lack of a better word hole, something missing to them that breaks your heart. I can't imagine how much worse it must be to have that done to you by someone you trust. It is my deep and true desire that every priest who molested one of these children spend a long time in jail. And the same goes for anyone who covered up their crimes and unleashed them on some other unsuspecting congregation. I don't care who goes down for, but I want them all to pay and dearly.
-
Lawyers don't really want college graduates on a jury. They're hard to confuse and are able to recognize "spin."
I also firmly believe that it is very easy to "plant" a friend or associate on a jury. The only jury I ever served on was in a man-slaughter case. All the prospective jurors were asked by the judge if they knew any of the principals involved in the case. All said no. During the course of the trial the husband of one of the jurors sat in the courtroom and loudly rooted for the prosecution. During deliberations, she was the most vocal supporter for conviction of one of the plaintiffs. I was a lot younger then, and naive about some things. If I had it to do over again, I would report it to the judge.
Shuckins
-
This case has nothing to do with gun laws, if he had used a baseball bat the handsomehunk jury would have still let him go.
-
Originally posted by H. Godwineson
Lawyers don't really want college graduates on a jury. They're hard to confuse and are able to recognize "spin."
I also firmly believe that it is very easy to "plant" a friend or associate on a jury. The only jury I ever served on was in a man-slaughter case. All the prospective jurors were asked by the judge if they knew any of the principals involved in the case. All said no. During the course of the trial the husband of one of the jurors sat in the courtroom and loudly rooted for the prosecution. During deliberations, she was the most vocal supporter for conviction of one of the plaintiffs. I was a lot younger then, and naive about some things. If I had it to do over again, I would report it to the judge.
Shuckins
Actually, I would say that you're wrong. Today much of the evidence used by the prosecution is scientific. We want educated people in the jury box to be able to understand it. And of course there's spin in a trial. That's all the opening and closing arguments are. Each side spins the facts presented as they want them seen. It is up the jury to decide who they believe.
And I'm sorry you feel juries can be planted. You say the jurors said they didn't know one of the principles. Then you say that one of the jurors' husbands was in the gallery, rooting for the prosecution. Did he have a stake in the prosecution side? Did he know someone on that side? Or did he just like the prosecution's evidence better. You also said that she vocally supported a guilty verdict. How did you vote? How about the rest of the jury? Was she swiming upstream or did you all feel the defendant was guilty?
-
Dune,
Uh...You've never tried a case in ARKANSAS, right? They tend to want the elderly and/or the illiterate. There were both on my jury. One could barely write his name. There were a lot of technical arguments associated with the case that I feel went right over his head.
The jury was split in opinion, at least at first. The lady I mention earlier held out the longest for conviction of one of the plaintiffs. (The case involved the killing of one child by another, with a parent's loaded shotgun. The parents of the slain child sued the parents of the child that killed him. The parents of both children sued Mossberg gun company, the manufacturer of the firearm. They also sued the Western Auto store chain for selling the firearm. They were asking for a total of $4 million dollars in damages.) The juror in question wanted Mossberg to be convicted. The reason, in retrospect, was obvious. Mossberg had the deepest pockets. Both families stood to make a large profit from its' conviction. Their motives and those of their lawyers were obvious to all on the jury, except her.
That trial beat anything I've ever seen in my life. To that little southeast Arkansas town came the owner of Mossberg, a member of the Warren Commission, and one of the top firearms experts in the field of law enforcement. They came to give testimony in a case that eleven of the members of the jury agreed should never have been brought to court.
I'm sure there are many lawyers who take their jobs seriously and are motivated by a sense of justice and fair play, but all I sensed from that group was greed.
Shuckins
-
Well, you also have to take into account that many times those are the people who can't figure out a way to get off the jury ;)
And it sounds like this lady had a real beef against gun companies and saw this as her oportunity to make a stand. :rolleyes:
That happens. Obviously she lied when she was asked if she could be fair and impartial. There isn't anything the judge or attorneys can do about that.
-
We have 'professional' jurors here.
Very few frivolous lawsuits end up giving the claimant any money, and BS tactics used to lawyers is often recognized as that.
It works.
That guy should go to jail. The priest is not on trial and whatever happened doesn't alter the fact that the young man shot the priest. That's against the law no matter what the priest had done, except if it had been self defense which it clearly was not.
Hm, any racial tensions in the US that the state wants diminished? I couldn't help to notice that the defendant is black.
-
The victim was black too. Most likely the jury was too.
-
The priest deserved to be shot....for going outside unarmed. If he had the good sense to carry a gun, he could have killed the kid the instant he felt threatened, then dragged the body into his house.
End of problem.
-
I don't think this falls into the "gun debate" toad.
This is a situation where the jury (public) is flooded with "Priests have gotten away with rape for so long.... they deserve whatever they get" mentality. I have to admit... it would have been a tough decision for me to make.
AKDejaVu
-
The priest was innocent until proven guilty. It would be hard to convince me that the attacker did not plan violence. If he just wanted an apology, why did he carry the pistol with him? Undoubtedly, since he is accused of multiple firearms violations, he did not have a carry permit for what was probably an unregistered weapon. Every citizen is entitled to his day in court, there to be tried by a jury of his peers who will render fair and impartial judgement.
Then you take him out and shoot him. ;)
Regards, Shuckins
-
This is an outrage! The shooter should have been sentenced to mandatory re-training at the gun range. ;)
-
I don't think this has anything to do with guns. My first thought was... great.. A high profile case where a gun was used to essentially commit murder.... course... then I thought... great... this one will go under "gun was used to kill someone you knew".... an aquantinence as they say... Like it was a friend or something and your gun chased the poor innocent 'aquaintenance' down and shot him for no reason...
As to the crime of killing and.... the jury.... well... best that the child molester is dead.. they don't ever get cured. put him out of his misery and not inflict him any longer on the rest of us... Other than that... the jury did a good thing... wrong according to the law but.... just. Letting the shooter go isn't going to endager anyone else... this guys murdering days are over IMO. I don't feel threatened by him.
lazs
-
The victim survived, the charge was attempted murder.
-
I like the decision. If the powers that be are not going to deal with the priests and send a message, then I would as a jury member.
Besides, not that this is anywhere near as bad as jailtime, but he did get a substantial amount of house arrest, what 18-36 mos wasnt it?
Nim
-
This is an outrage! The shooter should have been sentenced to mandatory re-training at the gun range
Agreed!
Next, they should Cardinal Law in prison for life for his role in allowing those sexual predators of the Catholic church to be allowed continued access to children. Let him do time with some with big mean dudes given him some of their loving, see what he thinks of forced homosexual rape.
Should a person be able to shoot a clergy member who abused him? No, but I would be in favor of allowing the guy to beat this living crap outta the Priest, followed by mandatory castration of the Priest.
If anyone had done this to one of my sons, I cannot promise you I wouldn't have killed him myself.
dago
-
Guys, don't confuse the two crimes. They are to be tried independently.
So that would mean that the question is: do you think it's right that someone shoots another person out of revenge?
The Vikings had sort of that view. Read the Icelandic sagaes to figure out how well that worked...:)
-
oops... I broke the first rule... I didn't read it.
lazs
-
Well, thanks.
Missed Beetle and Nashwan in here though.
This was my first thought:
What sort of message did our society/legal system just send? That it's fine to shoot someone if they have wronged you in a way that is currently a "sympathetic" hot topic?
For those of you that say this isn't a "gun problem" I totally disagree.
We DO have more murders per capita than most other industrialized nations. This verdict gives a type of authorization for more of the same.
The priest should "get his" from the legal system if the charges can be proved.
The guy that shot him should definitely "get his" because the charges are proven..... they just let him go though.
I think it sux, sorry.
-
Ok.. new take.
I don't think he should get off scott free.. I also think that the real problem is that there is a lack of confidence in the justice system.
If the shooter, or any of us, could have been assured that a child mollester would be sentenced to a reasonable time in prison... life without possibility of parole... then this would not happen ... I also think that a mandatory sentence for crimes of violence commited with firearms would be of benifiet too.
lazs
-
I didn't post because I don't think it's a gun issue.
I think the shooter should have been convicted, and sentenced accordingly. He was probably abused by the priest, but I'd rather trust the legal system than vigilanties and lynch mobs to make that decision. Even if he was abused, it doesn't make him not guilty of the crime, although it might offer some mitigation.
-
Sorry Toad... the gun was not the issue. He could simply have beat the man too.
The decision of the court is the issue, and had little to do with the instrument used to commit the crime.
As for the decision and the whole situation... it somewhat reminds me of "A time to kill". I still think that it is easier to sit back and say what should have happened to the defendant when you don't have to think "what would I have done if it was my child".
AKDejaVu
-
Like I said, it sends the message that using a gun against a person is "ok" and not punishable.
Why do we have a higher gun homicide rate than other industrialized countries?
There's one reason, I think.
-
Toad,
Are you suggesting that this case, the case of a child molestee shooting the molestor, is justification to have stricter gun control?
Nim
-
Not at all.
I'm suggesting that ANYONE that uses a firearm to shoot another person in an "after the fact" situation needs to be punished. Severely.
For example, if this guy had killed the priest..... months or years or whatever after the alleged molestation... would they still let him off the hook for murder?
The only difference here is that he failed to kill the priest and only wounded him.
I can see a woman shooting a guy in the act of raping her.
I can't see a woman finding a guy who raped her and shooting him a year later.
-
Sorry Toad, you have stopped making sense.
The fact that a gun was used does not matter here. Its that simple. The fact that he tried to kill someone does.
Its somewhat ironic actually. Less strictness was used due to the circumstances of the crime due to the molestation of a child, where as you feel it should have been worse simply because he used a gun.
No message is being sent other than "leave our children alone".
AKDejaVu
-
As far as the gun control issue, the NRA has pushed for enforcement of existing gun laws...which afaik from reading the story, hasn't been done in this case. The man showed up with a gun in hand to confront someone who he says molested him. That is a separate case entirely, and should have been run through the legal system to prove it one way or the other, as far as the legal system is concerned. Then punish accordingly, if proof is forthcoming to a conviction. Very hard to prove molestation claims..one person's word against the other most of the time, unless there are witnesses or other victims come forth to testify. Seems like it would be a long, nasty court hearing, with the victim ultimately losing for lack of convicting proof, i.e. the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. There is also the possibility the shooter was simply lying about the molestation part, to justify an attack on the priest for other reasons.
If the man was molested, then it's to his credit he didn't kill the priest. He did take the law into his own hands however, and that was wrong too.
There was a case years ago, where a man killed his 15 year old son's karate instructor, who had molested his son. The actual shooting was shown on TV, as the father stepped out from behind some lockers at an airport as the defendant was being escorted by police for transport. Some of you may remember seeing this on one of those Court TV shows, as the father stepped out with a .38 revolver and shot the molestor in the head from behind at point blank range, killing him as he was being escorted by two police detectives. The molestor had a smug grin on his face as he looked at the camera...and never knew what hit him. It was similar to when Jack Ruby killed Oswald, in that it was captured on film. I never heard what happened to the father as a result. He probably got some prison time, but don't know how severe. Certainly the circumstances would seem to justify the father's actions. If I was on the jury, I would not have pushed for any prison time, as I would feel the man was justified in the shooting. The damage done to a molestation victim lasts their entire lifetime, sometimes causing extreme psychological damage.
The real truth is, we don't know the circumstances just by reading the paper or watching the news. You would have to be on the jury to hear all the evidence. In the case of the priest, it would be understandable why the shooter confronted him, if indeed the priest did molest him. Could be the priest had a reputation for molesting alter boys, and that may be why the jury was sympathetic toward the shooter. I'm also of a mind that the community where this happened, should handle it as they see fit.
What do I think? Imo, the boy was lucky he didn't kill anyone. He should have to face the music for his assault on the priest. Whether that means jail time or strictly supervised probation for breaking gun laws. Like I said, we don't know the entire circumstances, and it would be a tough call for an uninformed outsider. Either way, it is vigilantism, and it is said, he who lives by the gun, dies by the gun. In that respect, I hope the shooter has a sense that justice has been served. He does need some supervision and guidance in his life, and should not get away with a pat on the back for doing a good job. He did wrong, and needs to know it. It is a job for strong and respected community leaders to handle.
Les
-
"Jury clears man who shot priest he accused of abuse "
Hmmm liberal dilemma. Hatred of clergy vs. fear of guns. Can't decide. :)
-
What ever happend to that wonerfull feeling of beating the crap out of someone?
I mean really a gun was too easy and painless for the padre!
:eek:
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
The fact that a gun was used does not matter here. Its that simple. The fact that he tried to kill someone does.
.....No message is being sent other than "leave our children alone".
AKDejaVu
Disagree. Either way, in fact BOTH ways, gun use and attempted murder should not be given a societal "look the other way".
I don't think that is the primary message that was sent. I think the primary message is "in molestation it's OK to take the law into your own hands."
I think it says some "reasons" make it ok to be a vigilante. Society encourages vigilantism at its own peril. It is most definitely a two edged sword.
-
Get ready for Death Wish 5.
-
I believe that there should be a seperate and mandatory sentance for violent crimes committed with a firearm. I believe that it would do a lot to stop gun crime... I also believe that there should be less restrictions on owning guns... you can own em.... you can carry em... you just can't comit crime with em. Perhaps the mandatory gun sentance would not apply in this case due to temporary insanity?
as for child molesters... The reason we see so many people attempting to kill child molesters is because the law doesn't. Child molesters either need to be put away forever or executed.. they can't be "cured". People have no respect for a legal system that allows these sick fuks to continue ruining childrens lives. I know of only one person who had a relative that was molested.. the molester is out now. Ask ten people if they think that child molesters should be let back out on societey then look at the sentences give to child molesters.
I think the main point of the story is that, at the very least, in the case of child molesters... people have no faith in the justice system.
lazs
-
Man gets 12 years in prison for 23rd-floor dog drop (http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/12/19/dog.tossed.ap/index.html)
NEW YORK (AP) -- A man who threw his girlfriend's dog off her 23rd-floor balcony was sentenced Thursday to 12 years in prison for animal cruelty and other charges related to stalking the woman.
John Jefferson, 43, pleaded guilty December 5 to robbery, burglary, stalking, criminal contempt and animal cruelty. The judge said two of the 12 years were for the dog, Ribsy.
At lease we don't send mixed signals eh? Take a pot shot at someone but DO NOT drop a dog 23 floors.
-
Man toad.. are you on medication or something?
You're comparing a stalker conviction to this initial argument?
Dude... stop for a moment and think about something... The original news article had nothing to do with taking pot shots at someone. It had to do with someone confronting an aleged rapist. The defendant could have been using a knife or a baseball bat... but the charges still would have stemmed from his actions against the priest. THE GUN HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CHARGES.
Now, you bring a stalker conviction in and compare the two? What the hell are you thinking toad?
Maybe you need a break or something... because you've simply stopped making sense.
AKDejaVu
-
I'm thinking you can shoot someone and walk away totally free.
But if you kill a dog, you're doing time.
Now I generally like most dogs more than I like most people.
But that setup ain't right.
And, the way I see it, publicized judgements like these make it even easier for the twisted ones amongst us to make the leap to using firearms against other humans as if there's nothing wrong with that idea.
Beyond that, ball bats, sharp instruments, tire irons.... it's immaterial. The message is human life is worth less than a dog's. An attempt to end a human life is....... a forgettable, minor faux pas. Tout va bien! On with your life, you little scamp!
-
Toad, the person was on a restraining order that he violated, he then held a girl hostage with a knife to her throat after throwing her dog off of a balcony window. I think that the article focusses on the "crimes against the dog" speak highly for the state of the American press these days... and that you don't quite realize it speak less highly for your objectivity these days.
The judge said 2 years of the sentance was for killing the dog. That means 10 years was for everything else. He was already going to jail.
Once again... you're having an extreme amount of difficulty seeing the difference between the two cases. Haven't you wondered why you're the only one really making this into a gun issue? I mean, nobody that you typically end up arguing with has even made a showing here?
Come now Toad, you're simply out in left field on this one.
By the way... "I'm thinking you can shoot someone and walk away totally free." is partly true... all you have to do is let them rape you first. Yep, this guy got off scott free. :rolleyes:
AKDejaVu
-
Perhaps.
Perhaps a slide into vigilantism raises no eyebrows anymore.
Perhaps Michael Moore should look into this...... he could call this one "Dancing with Altar Boys".............
-
well.... vigilantism... I may sink to vigilantism if say... a child of mine had great harm inflicted upon them and.... I KNEW the justice system would fail to punish the offender. For instance... if you beat up a husband of your daughter who beat her... Are you a vigilante? yep. What if someone tortured and killed your child and got a 5 year sentence? Perhaps vigilantism is a way to promote better laws? Perhaps juries aresending a message that needs to be sent?
In Ca. a woman in grass valley (can't recall her name) shot and killed a mollester of her son roight in court.. She was convicted and sentenced to a light sentence but was released on a hardship a few years latter.. she had cancer.
I think that juries should hand out lighter sentences for vigilantes than for criminals... If I want to punish one behavior more than the other then it would be the criminal one.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Toad
Perhaps.
Perhaps a slide into vigilantism raises no eyebrows anymore.
Perhaps Michael Moore should look into this...... he could call this one "Dancing with Altar Boys".............
That would be a very disturbing movie that needs to be done...No politics...Just "exposing" the hypocrites in the Cathlic church.
-
And don't forget this little tidbit from the article:
Blackwell, 56, was called to the stand during the trial but invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refused to answer questions. Stokes' abuse allegations are under investigation; no charges have been filed.
If I read this correctly, the normal social mechanism wasn't given time to work. The shooter took the law into his own hands BEFORE the investigation was complete and charges could have been filed.
-
If he had succeeded in killing the priest, using whatever method, then the defendant in the forthcoming abuse case (the priest) would not be available.
This is literally a case of shooting first and asking questions later, isn't it.
I think the point with it being a gun crime is analogous to locksmiths who use their skills to trespass and steal.
If you are entrusted with a responsibility that gives you special 'powers' (ability to open doors / kill people at 20 paces) for the percieved common good, then you should be punished more extremely for abusing those powers, than if you had not been a gun owner/locksmith.
I'm with Toad. We try to live in a civilised society. That means having a judicial and political system instead of the rule of the strongest/most well armed.
Even if someone murdered my child in an extreme fashion before my eyes, I could not endorse sentencing leniency if I were to exact my revenge on the perpetrator.
Although as in common with other parents on this thread, I would reservere the right to exact my revenge, but I would accept my harsh sentence with pleasure.
-
I know of no child mollester who has recieved the death penalty or even life in prison for his crime (if murder were not involved). The person who shot the priest knew he (the priest) was guilty and he also knew that no matter what... the sentence was not going to be harsh enough. I would agree with that.
I would also agree with bounder that I would accept whatever punishment a jury passed out on me if I commited murder in the case of a child mine being harmed. I would further say that... If I were on the jury... the guy shooting the priest woulda got off if my only recourse was guilty or not and that I couldn't decide the sentence.
micheal moore? the guy is a buffoon. I would rather someone serious and honest and dillegent do the movie. The thought of moore trying to get a laugh out of child mollesting gives me the creeps.
lazs
-
surely the jury merely finds the defendant innocent or guilty (or not proven in Scotland), it is up to the Judge (with consideration for all parties) to set the punishment?
-
Originally posted by H. Godwineson
Dune,
Uh...You've never tried a case in ARKANSAS, right? They tend to want the elderly and/or the illiterate.
I didn't think there was anyone else besided the 2 mentioned in Arkansas!! :p
Juuust kiddin ;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
I'm thinking you can shoot someone and walk away totally free.
But if you kill a dog, you're doing time.
Did the dog ever try to hump you??? :p
-
Hm, most seem to think that the shooting was somehow justified because of molestation charges.
If he was a child molester and sentenced, the state carries through the sentence. Him being a child molester does not give a victim a right to kill or attempt to kill him.
Vigiliantism must not be allowed, simply because it is a woefully inadequate way to attempt to get justice. During this nations many years of existence it has taken place and many innocent people have been killed because of it.
You need to have faith in your judicial system, and the only way you can have that is if a man convicted of child molestation goes to jail AND if a man convicted of SHOOTING someone goes to jail.
You chaps do not find it curious that you can shoot someone and walk free, yet get two extra years in jail because you killed a dog (never mind the circumstances)?
-
Originally posted by H. Godwineson
If he just wanted an apology, why did he carry the pistol with him?
"Say your sorry or die."... Powerful persuasion
Originally posted by Toad Why do we have a higher gun homicide rate than other industrialized countries? [/B]
The US rate of homicide from blow guns with poison dart frog tipped ammo is fairly low.:p
Originally posted by Toad The message is human life is worth less than a dog's. [/B]
\
Agreed... epecially when the particular human life is.... sub human. When was the last time you threw a stick and had a child molesting priest bring it back?
-
well... I kinda believe that if they are going to let child molesters out onthe streets then the mollester should have a big CM tattooed on his forehead... the mollester loses all rights as a human and if he dies it is not investigated. It would put a stop to needless expense and tragedy.
lazs