[steveo]

We should all know the rules by now.

[Euro-American Scum]

I would expect this to happen in California.

[pierrem15]

How fast can the defense counsel say, "jury nullification"?

[Consort]

What's the penalty/reward for burglarslaughter?

[JoeFromCA]

Last time I checked, which was probably 5 to 6 years ago, Texas allowed the use of deadly force to prevent theft of one's property (without a self defense requirement). I believe that's the only state with that rule.

[stryker]

I will predict right now, as a defense attorney with many years of experience, and generally well known, that this man will be convicted as charged and senctenced to serious jail time unless he can afford a quality attorney. Jury nullification for all intents and purposes does not exist in the United States anymore. As part of most jury instructions, most states have adopted instructions specifically addressing the nullification issue and ordering the jury to ignore their own conceptions of justice and fairness and follow the law and the facts as demonstrated and charged in the courtroom, lest a miscarriage of justice occur. They are further charged the sentencing is the time for the court to consider mitigating factors that may bear on the case, but that the jury should not find the defendant not guilty out of a feeling that what he did was right or justified if the law is otherwise. Meanwhile, the sentence will generally be mandatory because of the use of a firearm, but the jury will not be told that.

The only way to get jury nullification in such a case in my experience is to pick exactly the opposite of the usual defense jury. Pick the people that at the beginning of the trial during voir dire state that they believe your client is guilty just because he is sitting in court. Pick the most conservative, right wing jurors you can, until the judge calls you to the bench and asks if you are in your right mind and and tries to recuse jurors over your objection or makes the defendant waive on the record personally any objection to your strategy. Then, with such a jury, you will have the people with the courage to ignore ridiculous laws and acquit an innocent man.

Years and years of conservative, police loving, law enforcement loving Republicans getting their way in the courts and the legislatures have led to the point where we now find ourselves the victims of our own successes. As the state of the law now stands in most jurisdictions, a burglar can walk into your house with a U-haul sitting outside, load up all of your valuables while you watch, as long as you are not physically threatened and can run out of the door, while you are waiting on the police for a half of an hour, and you can do nothing to stop him that might cause death or serious bodily injury. He can then take off in the U-haul and leave, and there is nothing you can do but take down the license plate number and give it to the police. Your chances of getting anything back are about 10%. More than likely the police will not even pursue the case, letting the homeowner's policy cover your losses. It is a sad and pitiful situation in which we live, but it is the bed we made for ourselves. We forgot that every law we sought to enact could be used against us under the wrong circumstances, and conservatives are supposed to remember that the wrong circumstances always occur.

[DoughtyOne]

[Destructor]

The push is on to make self-defense, and defending your property a crime.

[connectthedots]

Read my post #51 and you can read the applicable statutes for yourself. A good attorney could have the charge dropped by the end of the week, or next week at the latest. This guy clearly acted within the law.

[Lancey Howard]

I am still trying to figure out why Hooker forgot to mention that the burglar yelled at him, "I am going to kill you."
The burglar did yell that, right?

If there is a conviction (highly unlikely) then there may be a small fine and probation.
Nothing to see here....

[lavaroise]

Sure, they can tell us how to behave, but we can't tell them how to behave. Makes me feel like a real sinner while they're like some kinds of virgin maries in the government. I object to this suit because of conflict of interest at the bottom line of the trial. The conflict being that the government will use this to, again, portray gun owners and bad-men killers as unworthy of such responsibilities.