Posted on 06/27/2009 11:08:20 AM PDT by james500
Jonquel Brooks and lawyer David Mugridge appear in court two years ago. Brooks, 21, was sentenced Friday to life in prison for killing Brant Daniels.
...
Emotions ran high as Fresno County Superior Court Judge Gary Orozco sentenced Brooks to 25 years to life in prison for the first-degree murder of Daniels, who was gunned down inside Brooks' apartment just west of the California State University, Fresno, campus.
Brooks received another 25 years in prison for using a gun.
The judge then tacked on another 59 years and four months in prison for Brooks' conviction on three counts of attempted murder in the shooting of Daniels' friends, Roderick Buycks Jr., Drew Pfeiff and Kodi Shiflett. Buycks was shot in the neck and Pfeiff in the shoulder.
...
The shooting happened May 7, 2007, at the University Village Apartments on Barstow Avenue. Brooks was a freshman studying criminal law at the time.
During his trial, which ended in April, Brooks testified that he feared for his life and fired in self-defense because he believed the four -- who were much bigger than the 5-foot-9-inch Brooks -- were going to attack him.
According to witnesses, the four went to Brooks' apartment to look for Buycks' stolen PlayStation console. Brooks testified he didn't steal the PlayStation, but the four kept arguing with him.
Brooks said he went into his bedroom and grabbed his .22-caliber revolver. He testified that he first fired a warning shot into the floor. When the victims kept advancing toward him, he said, he unloaded the handgun into the victims.
...
Friday, Brooks' grandmother, Gwendolyn Rogers, told the judge that Daniels and his friends should be held responsible because they barged into her grandson's apartment and threatened him.
(Excerpt) Read more at fresnobee.com ...
he had a trial, and the jury obviously did not believe his version of events.
Nice use of psychobabble. 150 points to the prosecutor.
Although that statement makes no sense (his wife probably talks to him and the kids that way), the dead boys did choose to create a dangerous situation and paid the ultimate price for it.
Is California one of the places without a castle doctrine? Where there is a complexity of law concerning an encounter of this kind, such as a duty to retreat if possible?
fwiw
Can you find a California jury that believes in self defense? Don’t ever tell me to lock my self in the bedroom!
The article was crap. It only gave the convicted murderer’s side of the story except for one short statement by the prosecutor that the poster here did not choose to include in the excerpt. One-sided “reporting” sucks.
But was it a Playstation 3 or just a 2?
One person died. There were apparently five people present total. One claimed sef-defense. The other three survivors presumably said something else but this article does not tell us what. The jury ruled out self-defense. On what basis are foks here concluding that the jury got it wrong?
Back here for some cinnamon and Splenda (low cal version)?
The core problem looks to be a lack of castle doctrine. Californians should try hard to get that passed on a proposition, including an amnesty.
Or life for shooting the people who came by to reclaim the stuff you previously stole from them. That's what it sounds like to me.
The California laws regarding self-defense may need improvement but I see little reason to conclude that this story is one of legitimate self-defense. The shooter and his grandmomma say it was. The jury said otherwise. Where's the evidence the jury was wrong?
Without castle doctrine it would not matter.
Since they didn't retreat and instead began engaging in a bit of vigilante justice, seems to me Brooks would have reason for a quite serious damage suit against their estates.
I doubt any one of the dead guys had bothered to say "Hey, let Brooks retreat ~ it's the law".
Based on how the case would play out in our towns.
But that would depend on the facts regarding what happened in this particular case, and those facts are almost entirely missing from the linked article and this discussion thread.
That is my point and it is a simple one.
Just because somebody is in your home, that doesn't make it legal to shoot them whenever you choose. That is true in all fifty States.
Agreed.
The only juries I've tried to "second guess" were O.J.s and M. Jackson's. We don't have the info the jury had, only the convicted killer's version.
He doesn't sound like an upstanding citizen to me:
Brooks sealed his fate long before the shooting. Brooks liked to flash a gun, deal drugs and act like "a wannabe gangster," Francis said.
“Just because somebody is in your home, that doesn’t make it legal to shoot them whenever you choose. That is true in all fifty States. “
If they enter the house without your permission, refused to leave, and threaten you, it is legal in all free states to shoot them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.