(AK) Pastor who justifiably shot 2 intruders facing wrongful death suit

Just wondering how it goes from the Pastor being at the top of the stairs with the bad guys coming up into shooting one in the back and the other in the back and the heel.

Was there a confrontation? How did they get past the Pastor?

Lots of information missing. As has been proven way to often in way to many courts, beind found guilty or not guilty criminally often isn't the real story.
 
yes i am an emotional train wreck. someone hold me.


negligence? just because the plaintiff claims the defendant was negligent doesnt make it so. i'm no expert, but i think its up to the plaintiff to prove
the negligence.

which action was it that led to the plaintiffs son dying? with medical attention, the plaintiffs son would (in my amateur opinion) be alive and sitting in jail. i think this point will be the defendants best argument.

gunsnrovers, as i understand it, and i may have interpreted it incorrectly, the stairs from the basement came up either directly to, or perpindicular to, the entrance the pastor was in. they were either running up the stairs straight towards him, or across from right to left (or vice versa) and had to exit through the same entry he was in.
there is whats referred to as, an 'artic entry' where the encounter occured. it is in this arctic entry where the shots were fired.
 
A jury already cleared Mielke on this very issue. This legal perversion amounts to being tried twice for the same alleged offense.
Click to expand...

Nope not a legal perversion, a fundamental part of Anglo American jurisprudence, differnt courts, different jurisdictional bases, different legal standards.

The court in the Wrongful Death action will take 'judicial notice' of the previous acquittal on manslaughter etc. and that will no doubt be of some help.
Click to expand...

Thats a tough issue to resolve, I am not familiar enough with Alaska law to answer correctly, but under other laws there would be no judicial notice of the aquittal although the fact of the aquittal will be raised as part of the factual exploration. The Court would probably charge that the aquittal is not dispositive though since standards of proof are different.

Burglary is, under the law, an 'inherently dangerous felony' in which the occupant of the burglarized premises is usually treated by the courts as presumed to be under an imminent threat.
Click to expand...

Both wrong and irrelevant.

The reverend should answer the wrongful death lawsuit with a counter-suit of his own, claiming that the mother was 'negligent' in raising her son such that he had a history of substance abuse, couldn't hold on to a job, and completely abrogated his responsibility to his own children when he made the career choice of being a thief and burglar. If he had better values ingrained in him growing up he would never have engaged in committing an 'inherently dangerous felony' in the first place. Mom certainly had years and years with her son to teach him right from wrong. Perhaps a better upbringing could have avoided this tragedy.
Click to expand...

No such cause of action is recognized in any court, nor should it be.

i'm no expert, but i think its up to the plaintiff to prove
Click to expand...

It is the plaintiffs burden indeed

which action was it that led to the plaintiffs son dying? with medical attention, the plaintiffs son would (in my amateur opinion) be alive and sitting in jail. i think this point will be the defendants best argument.
Click to expand...

Causation spiffy, causation....its the "but for" test......but for the gunshot, the perp would still be breathing...

Economically it makes sense to settle.

WildnotdefedingtheperpbeingrealisticAlaska
 
explain how its 'wrong and irrelevant', pursuant to the following statute:

AS 11.81.335. Justification: Use of Deadly Force in Defense of Self.
(a) Except as provided in (b) of this section, a person may use deadly force upon another person when and to the extent

(1) the use of nondeadly force is justified under AS 11.81.330 ; and
(2) the person reasonably believes the use of deadly force is necessary for self defense against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual assault in the first degree, sexual assault in the second degree, or robbery in any degree.

(b) A person may not use deadly force under this section if the person knows that, with complete personal safety and with complete safety as to others, the person can avoid the necessity of using deadly force by retreating, except there is no duty to retreat if the person is

(1) on premises which the person owns or leases and the person is not the initial aggressor; or
(2) a peace officer acting within the scope and authority of the officer's employment or a person assisting a peace officer under AS 11.81.380.
Click to expand...

also note this statute regarding defense of property:
http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title11/Chapter81/Section350.htm
as well as this one:
http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title11/Chapter81/Section390.htm


remember, the entire basis of this civil suit is that the mother of the victim feels 'her son shouldnt have died the way he did'.
in essence, the mother here is pushing the responsibility for her sons action to the Pastor. as you said, he wouldnt have bled out if he hadnt been shot. take that a step further. he wouldnt have been shot (at least by pastor mielke) if he hadnt been committing a crime.
 
remember, the entire basis of this civil suit is that the mother of the victim feels 'her son shouldnt have died the way he did'.
Click to expand...

No Spiffy thats not the essense...thats what the newspapers are reporting what mmommy, a lay person is saying..if you get me the complaint, I can summarize what the essense is....

explain how its 'wrong and irrelevant', pursuant to the following statute:
Click to expand...

Some states do not have burglary as an ipso facto justification for the use of deadly force. Not sure about alaska. The word irrlevant was a misstement, I should have used the word non dispositive in the event Alaska is a brglary=shoot case.

So now we use the socratic method....

However, the essense of residential burglary is "entering and remaining unlawfully in a dwelling with the intent to commit a crime therein"...look at that definition and YOU TELL ME when a shoot would NOT be justified.....

WildservetoyouAlaska
 
check the links i posted about the justification of deadly force. you the former-attorney so you should be all like edified and such. throwing around high-falutin words like non-dispositive and whatnot. brainiac.

as i interpret it, if the suspect is in your domicile, you are justified to use deadly force when confronting a burglar. criminal tresspass, not justified. i'm guessing that CT means someone on your property but not in your home or premises.
note that under 11.81.335(a)2, the wording does not distinguish whether or not a potential robber needs to pose a threat of death or serious physical injury for deadly force to be justifiable. in my opinion, if that was the intent of that section, the qualifier "resulting from" should be part of the verbage.
in other words, a robber need not be armed to justify deadly force.
not that i'm complaining about it. just noting that i like how its worded.

i would say that if the suspect surrenders, deadly force would be unjustifiable. then again, you'll probably want to delve into the definition of 'surrender', and i got work to do today.
stop laughing! i work! or at least, pretend to.
 
i would say that if the suspect surrenders, deadly force would be unjustifiable. then again, you'll probably want to delve into the definition of 'surrender', and i got work to do today.
Click to expand...

Very good Grasshopper...so now we have an issue of fact in the shooting at hand dont we.... :D

WildnowgetmesomefishAlaska
 
AHHHH THERE"S the arguments I been a missing... :D


Wouldnt the fact that he bled out at someone's house play heavily against the mom?? Doesnt that prove that he was dodgeing the law or at least suggest it??
 
OHH btw....Highly doubful she will get much from him...My guess would be a settlement out of court foir less that 20K
 
Very good Grasshopper...so now we have an issue of fact in the shooting at hand dont we.
Click to expand...
i guess. but are you defining 'surrender' as 'running towards armed citizen trying to defend life/property'? had they surrendered and the pastor shot them, then you have a case of 'negligence' or whatever other brainy word you wish to conjure up.

the only thing that works against Pastor Mielke is that he shot four more times at Jones through a window. however, none of those shots connected (so far as i can tell from reading the newspaper articles). that is the only really negligent act i can see. jones could have given up after being shot.
 
Spiffy the only thing Plaintiff has to worry about is whether she can beat SJ....even you now see she can...

Thus it becomes simple economics...defend, pay and possibly get a verdict (probably not likely but who knows how the proof comes in)...or just pay a % and make it go away

AHHHH THERE"S the arguments I been a missing...
Click to expand...

My holster guy...come all the way across the net to visit me in exile :D

WilddollarsandsenseAlaska
 
My holster guy...come all the way across the net to visit me in exile
Click to expand...

Yuppers here I am... :D

I still agree with Wild on this one...Pay her off and she will go away and spend it on Chia Pets or some such
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top