If you were on the jury, how would you vote?

[FourDeuce]

On another thread, I posted a newspaper clipping about a guy here in Arkansas who shot somebody trying to steal his atv and was sentenced to 20 years in prison. If you were on the jury, how would you vote?

[RebelCowboySnB]

Dont know without being there to her the trial....

[Sawmill Jim]

Turn him loose and give him a box of shells

[FourDeuce]

Originally Posted by Sawmill Jim

Turn him loose and give him a box of shells

Might want to give him some money to cover court costs, too.

[Sawmill Jim]

Originally Posted by FourDeuce

Might want to give him some money to cover court costs, too.

Don't they give you the worst free lawyer in the state when you are arrested

[edcopp]

I would vote to have the shooter convicted of: Littering garbage on his own property, and suggest a fine of $15.

[JuliaAnn]

I'd have to have an understanding of the state's law, then the facts of the case. I believe in jury nullification, but without knowing exactly what the law states, and if I believe the law is just or not... Is the law unjust?

[FourDeuce]

Originally Posted by edcopp

I would vote to have the shooter convicted of: Littering garbage on his own property, and suggest a fine of $15.

Charged to the thief's estate.

[sirquack]

Can't make a valid vote without being there in court. If the law allowed a lessor charge I might be inclined to go that way. But the accused shot a man in the back leaving with his possessions. If the state law allows you to shoot a fleeing thief, then I would maybe let him go. But not living in that state and knowing what the state does and does not allow means I can't really vote in a verdict.

[Old John]

I do not know the nuances of the Laws in Arkanas. But, I think I would have to vote at least for a Charge of Manslaughter. He killed a man and I don't think he was reasonably, in Fear for His Life. So, I think it would be hard to win a Self Defense Plea.

Convict on the lesser Charge of Manslaughter and give him 5 to 8 years, or maybe 7 to 10 years. And, here in Indiana I think they get a day off of the Sentence, for every good day Served. 7 to 10 and he'd be out in probably 5 years.(I don't know about Arkanas, tho.) Not too bad.

[FourDeuce]

Originally Posted by sirquack

Can't make a valid vote without being there in court. If the law allowed a lessor charge I might be inclined to go that way.

Actually the LAW ALWAYS allows a lesser charge, but the judge often "forgets" to instruct the jury about that. The Officers of the Court don't like to give up any of their power.

But the accused shot a man in the back leaving with his possessions. If the state law allows you to shoot a fleeing thief, then I would maybe let him go. But not living in that state and knowing what the state does and does not allow means I can't really vote in a verdict.

In the American colonies the law didn't allow them to defy the King, but aren't you glad they did?

[kasilofhome]

The jury is legally able to NULLIFE. The Judge is in the court room to provide order. The Jury today are "trained" and selected do to the antisapation of their "trainablity".

[bluesky]

Originally Posted by kasilofhome

The jury is legally able to NULLIFE. The Judge is in the court room to provide order. The Jury today are "trained" and selected do to the antisapation of their "trainablity".

Huh???

[Gregg Alexander]

At my house Don't worry about the man with the gun, It's the 2 dogs in the yard. 1 Pit, 1 Plott. Come into their turf and you will draw back a nub. They don't play!!!!! Really doubt anyone would make it much past the car or truck.

[Bearfootfarm]

Huh???

They mean "jury nullification"

Jury nullification occurs in a trial when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the judge's instructions as to the law.

A jury verdict contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it; however, if a pattern of acquittals develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offence, it can have the de facto effect of invalidating the statute. A pattern of jury nullification may indicate public opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment

It's basically when the jury says the defendant is "guilty", but they disagree with the LAW itself, so they will not convict

[copperkid3]

Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm

They mean "jury nullification"

Jury nullification occurs in a trial when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the judge's instructions as to the law.



It's basically when the jury says the defendant is "guilty", but they disagree with the LAW itself, so they will not convict

**********************************************
that's how I'd vote......if I was voting......which I'm not.

However, here's an interesting twist to a possible scenerio for future cases.

Arkansas doesn't 'legally' allow a person to kill another who is stealing and fleeing from the premises,
but Texas has no problem with it. These states share a common border. What would be the
outcome to a case, that occurred in say Arkansas, in which a property owner has a neighbor from
Texas, cross over the border (fence) between their properties and then get caught stealing an
item from his neighbor. Or visa-versa; who gets away with murder or legal killing? Does it depend
on where the body is hit with the bullet......or where the bullet is actually fired? What if the
man from Ark. chased the 'victim' across the border before firing the fatal shot? Now ....the 'crime'
.....or at least a portion of it......has taken place in a different state and jurisdiction. Interesting to ponder......

[Cornhusker]

I hate a thief worse than anything but if I have to shoot somebody, it won't be in the back.

[InvalidID]

Disturbing the peace.

[Tiempo]

I wholly support one's right to use lethal force to defend one's home and family from an invader, and I hate thieves, but to shoot someone in the back, killing them for trying to steal an ATV? The idiot got what he deserves in my opinion.

[naturelover]

He shot the guy in the back and killed him for stealing a toy. I voted convict as charged.

.