Do juries really convict people like this?

E

Esquire M Busterbury

Moderator
While it's not entirely gun related (sorry), I would like to know, do juries convict people of murder in these circumstances? Not to openly disrespect the law, but do juries really convict people like this of murder? Or do they tend to get a 'pass'?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/31/n...rss&adxnnlx=1157069176-wASQM8dEOA/SjxPiZrDm0g

I can't say I would have done anything differently from this man. (save try to keep my kid in my sights more. Poor guy *sigh*)
 
Hmm, we have, apparently, no proof (yet) the child was molested. So Dad broke into another person's home and killed that person based, apparently, on nothing more than hearsay...

Yeah, I can see convicting him. Based on what is presented in this story...but as is SOP around here, we have just one side/article.

Now if Dad had proof and and the guy was still walking the street and Dad happened to bump into the perv on that street? THAT I'd have a hard time getting too upset about. But hey, that's just me.
 
Yeah, just not sure where to come down on this. Can't say I wouldn't do the same... well, I can say I wouldn't do exactly the same. I sure wouldn't stab the guy. I just don't know.
 
I'd vote guilty given the facts of the article.

The law had not even had time to screw up and a lawyer who has sworn, somewhere I assume, to uphold the law decided that he was above it.

On a mere accusation he ended a man's life for his own gratification.
I would have no problem voting to convict, based on the facts of the article {which appears to give both sides fairly}
 
Got to imagine that there's going to be a temporary insanity defense made, right? (I haven't read the link, but I know what story you're all talking about.)

From what I've read, it doesn't sound yet as though it's firmly enough established that molestation did take place.

Many argue that we are a nation of laws and must let the court system deal with the alleged molester. I'm inclined to agree with that, but if I found the guy in flagranted delicto, things might be radically different.

I don't think we can really allow people to go over to the home of someone they believe has wronged them and just kill the guy. That can't be permitted to be the accepted norm.

At the same time, I feel that there are some people who just shouldn't be suffered to live. (But in this PC age, it seems that child molesters are chief among them; whereas I feel anyone who has a history of committing violent crimes against anyone of any age is someone the earth needs to be rid of.)


-azurefly
 
There is a Titanic difference in standing watching with your own eyes while some gob of spit crawls through your bedroom window and killing someone because so and so said. At the very minimum the guy should have had his baby examined by a doctor and spent a least a little time communicating with her to get some kind of first hand knowledge. He said she said just isn't enough to justify killing someone. Once all is said and done and IF in fact it was substantiated the guy did it then I think some dark night he would suffer a really bad drunken episode. But that's just me.
 
TexanAmerican, I agree.

I am waiting to read something that makes plain that the guy who did the stabbing was a few planks shy of a deck. The story really doesn't make sense to me yet.

Besides, the daughter who allegedly told the mom that she was molested is said, in articles, to be TWO YEARS OLD. I am not sure if that should be considered reliable.


-azurefly
 
To answer your question, yes, juries do convict people like this.

A similar case in Las Vegas a few years back. Father comes home and sees a mark on the neck of his four-year-old daughter. Father thinks it looks like a hickie. Father routinely gives hickies to mother and kids have seen it before. Anyway, neighbor always yells at the kids for blocking his driveway with their toys. Kids don't like neighbor. Father sits daughter down and says tell me who did this. Daughter does not want to say but finally says it was the man with the black truck (neighbor). Father kicks in the door to one of the apartments (wrong guy). He was convicted of home invasion for that. Wrong guy says the guy with the black truck lives downstairs. Father goes downstairs and grabs a large cinder block before kicking in the door. He was convicted of home invasion and burglary for that. Goes inside and beats neighbor with the brick (on the head and other areas). Neighbor grabs a baseball bat (from his son) and tries to defend himself. Father takes the bat away and beats neighbor more with the bat. Neighbor spends weeks in intensive care. Father was also convicted of battery with a deadly weapon with substantial bodily harm.

Some people on the jury were crying when they rendered their verdict. But the verdict was guilty on all counts nonetheless.

In my opinion, the sister gave daughter the hickie (copying the parents). They had been seen "wrestling" before the incident and the mom was not watching them.

As for this case, if my kid told me someone molested them, I would check into it first. If I thought there was some evidence of it, and the system did not work, then I would be forced to dispense justice. But chances are, it would be hard to prove I did it... The important thing to note is that I would give the system a chance first.
 
Looks like he was operating based on hearsay. Not smart.

Prior to my visit by the FBI, I think I would have poked my nose into the situation and found out what was going on. But definitely not simply killed the guy based on someone's word.

Today is a different day. Society's kids are someone else's problem, and I'd definitely keep my nose out of it.
 
Yes, juries commonly convict home invaders of Murder and Burglary.

Under these circumstances (sudden heat potentially), the defendant may have a chance at Manslaughter. However, even if "only" convicted of Manslaughter and Burglary he is likely going to prison for a very long time.
 
Good job, dad....depriving your child of a parent for the next twenty-odd years. How well are you going to provide for her and protect her when you're in jail?

If I caught someone in the act molesting my toddler, I'd likely kill them on the spot. That said, I think this guy is an idiot who let his emotion override his reason. You don't take a life that quickly on hearsay without even investigating or waiting for a shred of physical evidence.

Child molesters are pretty much the scum of the earth, and if the guy was really guilty, he deserved to be hung from a lamp post with barbed wire. However, strength of emotion does not justify equating the accusation with proof positive of guilt...there's just too much at stake on both sides.

If I was on his jury, I'd convict.

Another point: My almost two-year-old is under constant supervision 24/7. I'm either with him at home, or I take him along with me when I run errands or go shopping. When I go to school, my wife takes over. The kid essentially has an armed bodyguard around the clock. I cannot fathom a scenario where a neighbor would have the chance to molest him.
 
I agree 100 percent with MarkoKloos.

It can't be considered self defense of another(your child) when you go out after the deed has been done and kill him then. If they passed a law that permitted this, it would seem logical in some scenerio's, but in most it would be a big problem. Speculation is one of them.

If it's true his kid was being molested then it's no loss that the perp was killed, however there were more civil ways to deal with this, one if filing a police report, having it investigated and then if it is true that he was doing such a heinous thing and then having the person punished accordingly. If he caught him doing it then drop him there.

Laws permitting this type of behaviour of going out and seeking revenge would lead to only bad things with the ignorant bunch, even if the logical bunch did something similiar that would seem justified.
 
Sure - juries convict people like that. Ever been on a jury? Try it and you might re-think the whole "judged by your peers" thing. Your peers are morons.
 
I cannot fathom a scenario where a neighbor would have the chance to molest him.
Click to expand...

I feel the same way about my kid. Unfortunately, In my experience (family therapist), most kids are molested by other relatives or step-parents and I have seen some pretty sick scenarios. I am not suggesting that "it could happen to anyone," as there are certainly things you can do to minimize the opportunity, but rather to show that most kids that are molested are not grabbed off the steet by someone.
 
By azurefly

"I don't think we can really allow people to go over to the home of someone they believe has wronged them and just kill the guy. That can't be permitted to be the accepted norm."

By Marko Kloos

"That said, I think this guy is an idiot who let his emotion override his reason. You don't take a life that quickly on hearsay without even investigating or waiting for a shred of physical evidence."

Yes and yes.

It is utterly inconceivable that you can hear something from someone who wasn't involved, wasn't there, and then use that information and only that to end another person's life expecting a jury to acquit you of murder.

The only way I could ever fathom doing something like that is if I was certain of guilt and after justice had failed. But this guy didn't even bother to call the cops.

Based on what I've read, I hope the relative got things mixed up, I hope that the little girl is ok, and I hope this guy is convicted of murder and sentenced to death.
 
Sure - juries convict people like that. Ever been on a jury? Try it and you might re-think the whole "judged by your peers" thing. Your peers are morons.
Click to expand...


I get ya. I was on a jury once but that's not relevant because we didn't go past the first day of opening statements before the parties settled and we were released (and it was a civil trial, anyway :( )

I fully believe you when you say, "Your peers are morons." Why? Because they're taken from the public-at-large, and every... single... day... I observe the fact that most members of the public do indeed seem to be morons.

Morons who:
- Don't wear their seatbelts.
- Smoke cigarettes.
- Drink and drive.
- Leave their pocketbooks on the child seat of a shopping cart, waiting to be stolen
- Can't be bothered to cover their faces when they sneeze or cough in front of others.
- Buy overpriced, overhyped clothing and pay a premium for it, just to have the privilege of advertising the brand for free.
- Buy gas-guzzling vehicles and then complain about the price of fuel.
- Attempt to drive, talk on a phone, eat, smoke, and apply makeup -- simultaneously!
- Cannot reason their way out of a paper bag regarding any issue of substance.
- Don't understand anything of a technical or scientific nature.
- Don't know history.
- Don't follow what's going on in the world (and will proudly tell you that it's just too much to bother with!)

This list could go on and on, and I'm sure you all know it.

And like the man said, THIS is from whom your jury will be selected. NOT a comforting thought. :rolleyes:


-azurefly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top