Posted on 04/10/2014 5:53:29 PM PDT by narses
Tears flowed on both sides of a Spokane courtroom Thursday as a jury acquitted Gail Gerlach of manslaughter in the March 2013 death of Brendon Kaluza-Graham.
Gerlach’s wife, Sharon, wept and embraced her family as the verdict, not guilty on both a first-degree and second-degree manslaughter charge, was read in open court. Ann Kaluza-Graham, grandmother of the man shot dead trying to steal Gerlach’s SUV, burst into tears as she said her grandson never got a chance to answer theft charges or prove himself a changed person.
“This was a tragedy,” Gerlach said in a brief statement after the verdict was read. “As Christians, we believe in redemption. The greatest tragedy is that Mr. Brendon Kaluza-Graham will not have a chance to turn his life around.”
The family of the 25-year-old said they were disgusted with the way the media has portrayed Kaluza-Graham, saying their relative was made into a “one-dimensional thief.”
“He had hopes, and dreams,” Ann Kaluza said. She added “he was made into a poster boy for the angst of the community, a sacrificial lamb. That’s not right.”
Sharon Gerlach walked into Judge Annette Plese’s courtroom gripping the hand of her husband Thursday. Ann Kaluza said her heart was pounding as a packed courtroom waited for a verdict in the controversial case that Gerlach’s attorneys said was never about property crime.
“This case should have never been filed,” defense attorney David Stevens said. “This police handed this over without recommendations for a reason. You don’t take a vote on whether to file charges.”
The jury continued to deliberate Thursday afternoon as to whether the homicide could be deemed justified. If at least 10 jurors agree that Gerlach’s fatal shooting of Kaluza-Graham was justified self-defense, the public will end up paying for the trying of the case, which Stevens and colleague Richard Lee estimated to be close to $300,000.
Prosecutor Deric Martin told Kaluza-Graham’s family he was disappointed with the verdict and thanked them for their support. Many family members were present throughout the trial, which began with jury selection March 31.
Jurors rejected arguments from prosecutors Gerlach acted recklessly when he fired his semiautomatic handgun once through the rear window of his SUV as Kaluza-Graham drove away the morning of March 25, 2013. They also rejected the lesser claim he acted with criminal negligence, a requisite for second-degree manslaughter.
They will, but only for whitey, not for anyone else.
So he probably was, in fact, turning his life around. He was dreaming of becoming a successful small businessman.
Bump!
Except in Houston, San Antonio and Austin .... they are more “progressive” there.
Steal here, die here. Works for me.
Excellent.
(and on the guy getting acquitted too)
Am I bad for laughing so hard at your comment??????
I don’t care!
Here's a link to a story that shows the basis of the self-defense claim. He said he thought he saw a weapon in the thief's hand, and thought he was about to be shot.
“the public will end up paying for the trying of the case, which Stevens and colleague Richard Lee estimated to be close to $300,000.”
How can that be? That’s absolutely ridiculous.
Give me a look at those receipts.
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-474161.html#.UVK4XfP4dpY.gmail
Here’s Washington State Law; note that it pertains to citizens, not law enforcement, who are covered in another point of the same chapter:
RCW 9A.16.020
Use of force — When lawful.
The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following case(s):
(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;
So in theory, any citizen can use whatever force is necessary to arrest (i.e. stop) a felon. However, the Tennessee v. Garner case must be taken into account for citizens as well as for LE; and the gist of that is that you need to assess and balance the risk of using force against this person vs. the risk of allowing them to escape. Are they going to harm someone? Have they already done so? How dangerous are they? That’s all Garner requires us to articulate.
There are certainly cases in which I would shoot a fleeing felon in the back, LE or not; and that decision would arise out of a conviction that they represent a totally unacceptable danger if allowed to escape. Both the Law and Garner envision and allow for this kind of possibility.
300K for a case like this? Cheap.
Jury selection began less than two weeks ago and it’s over already. Proof it should never have brought to trial.
Texas does, but it has to be at night. TX Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.
Well, you may be uncertain if the thief poses a threat at night.
Justified use of force (to arrest someone for theft) isn’t necessarily self-defense, though. I think there has to be the possibility of a threat to life to justify the use of deadly force.
Of course, armed criminals who have committed a crime (especially already shot someone) and are fleeing might still pose a threat. They could turn and shoot at any moment, or they may be fleeing to find cover and then to shoot again. I don’t think you should have to wait until they turn and take aim at you. I can see justifying shooting them as self-defense under those conditions.
You said, “As far as I know, no state allows you to shoot someone who has stolen your property but is fleeing with it, unless that person does something to indicate he’s a threat to you” and I posted proof the State of Washington has that exact issue in statute.
Now you babble about “self defense”. Why?
Actually, that has nothing to do with it. The reason given to me (by law enforcement) is that you are much less likely to recover stolen property if it is taken at night.
> Now you babble about “self defense”. Why?
First of all I’m not “babbling”. I’m writing clear, cogent sentences. And don’t mistake my motives. I’m sympathetic toward the defendant in this case. I saw nothing in the original article that had anything to do with self-defense, though. That’s why I posted a link to the second one.
As for your “proof the State of Washington has that exact issue in statute”, that would depend on whether shooting someone through the rear window of a vehicle is interpreted as “arresting”. I don’t think it would be under most circumstances. I believe the defendant was found not guilty because of the claim of self-defense (explained in the second article).
Taking a vehicle without permission? Isn’t that what used to be called theft?
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.