Posted on 01/25/2003 10:44:57 PM PST by kattracks
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:00:33 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Thanks to Baltimore Circuit Court Judge John M. Glynn, justice finally prevailed Thursday, as two businessmen were acquitted of first-degree murder charges for killing a weapon-toting hoodlum who broke into their warehouse. Just seconds after defense attorneys finished their closing arguments, Judge Glynn pronounced Darrell Kifer and Kenny Der not guilty in the June 30, 2001, slaying of Tygon Walker, who was holding a hammer and threatening to kill them. Judging from the facts of the case
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
You missed the point -- spring traps would NOT be legal.
And we aren't debating that. You have to go back to the beginning (uhg!) of the thread to see what I was objecting to. It was the assertion that the defense of PROPERTY ALONE should be a correct basis for lethal force -- the facts of the particular case at hand were cast by the wayside.
I never assumed that, not once. I responded to a poster who asserted that lethal force in the defense of MERE PROPERTY was warranted. At that point we left the facts of the case at hand and plunged into the world of hypotheticals and statute-parsing.
Baloney. That's not the basis for it at all -- I suggest you take a look at the case law on the subject. It has everything to do with proportionality and the relative value of property versus human life. You are ABSOLUTELY wrong on this point.
That happens, for many different reasons. Cases are lost on defense counsel's motion to dismiss for failure to prove a key element of the crime --. Same speed and finality -- faulty prosecution case. Doesn't necessarily mean that there was no substance to the charge.
Well, see the post prior to yours. It lays out the moral arguments.
I certainly don't know, although the facts as stated would certainly raise the curiousity of the prosecutor. Don't know what he found. I have no reason to believe he acted in bad faith.
Your attempt to side track the discussion is only too obvious, and everyone has seen it. Why don't you quit digging deeper and deeper into the hole you have dug for yourself.
It is pointless to speculate what Texas law or other State laws would be, you don't know. I am not missing any point. Your point is that an Iowa case ruled that according to Iowa law people in Iowa can never use lethal force for the sole purpose of defending property. You also claim this applies in all States. Your claim has been proven false by counterexample. In Texas people have and still can used lethal force legally for the sole purpose of protecting property in certain situations.
If a few seconds' thought convinced the judge that there was failure to prove a key element of the crime, it is clear that the prosecutor had no evidence to back up that element, and therefore should be sanctioned for wasting the taxpayers' money and the defendants' time with a frivolous (and possibly malicious) prosecution.
Among her accomplishments in office, Jessamy lists introducing computer technology to the State's Attorney's Office, expanding its homicide division, and creating a gun unit, a wiretapping unit, and several community-outreach programs.
Not if the facts and events were hammered to fit a template. I have seen to many zealous prosecutors who, for reasons of their own vanity, political agenda or perceived "calling", will not back down even when they have a bad case. Overcharging is common in some jurisdictions for purposes of plea bargaining, as well as sending "messages" to the public that even if you are innocent we will make your life miserable for daring to use a firearm.
There is no doubt in my mind that all too often the political agenda comes first.
I heard she helped Al Gore invent the Internet too. Ho ho.
I'm sure that the State Attorney's office had never heard or used computer technology before 1995.
Well, it's not a few seconds thought. It can happen when you try (defend) a case that you realize, at some point during the prosecution's case-in-chief, that he has made a fatal error or omission. And the judge may realize it, too. And so as soon as the prosecutor rests you make your successful motion to dismiss. The judge grants it summarily because he, too, has noticed the error, for some time, and when the prosecution rests it is, at that moment, TOO LATE to correct the defect.
So a judge can grant or decide immediately -- it doesn't mean he hasn't been thinking about it all the way through the case.
But then this is the city where an individual was charged with carrying a concealed weapon while in their own home...
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.