NJ grand jury refuses to indict man who shot burglars on his property

Faithless

New member
Grand jury refuses to indict killer of would-be thief

MOUNT LAUREL -- The man who shot and killed a would-be thief in his yard will not face murder charges after a Gloucester County grand jury voted against indicting him.

Neighbors had protested when Robert J. Clark Jr. was first charged with murder after slaying a man who was trying to steal his all-terrain vehicle from a backyard shed.

The grand jury took the actions Wednesday, but the Gloucester County Prosecutor's Office did not announce them until yesterday.

The grand jury did return one indictment in the case: The alleged accomplice of the victim was indicted on charges of burglary and theft.

Authorities initially charged Clark with murder, aggravated assault and a weapons offense after he killed William Hamilton April 26. The grand jury voted against indicting Clark on those charges or any others, including lesser offenses such as manslaughter.

Prosecutors are not giving up.

After the shooting, prosecutor Sean F. Dalton defended the charges, saying that New Jersey state law does not allow the use of deadly force to protect property. That's still his argument.

Spokesman Bernie Weisenfeld said prosecutors are considering all their options on where to continue, including presenting the case to a second grand jury.

Link
 
^ :)


Why are prosecturrss bllhalha so messed up these days? They're starting to suggest illogical solutions... :mad:
 
We fight wars, and millions are killed in order to insure the right to own and defend property. I wonder where we decided that the issue was property worth vs human life worth, when the issue is the worth of the right to own property and have it protected vs a human live that is a thief? That is a clear cut issue.

I hope the prosecutor is unsuccessful in being able to get a grand jury to bill the guy.

Jerry
 
Usually you have the basic right to use deadly force to prevent death or serious injury. Some states such as Texas, I believe, specifically permit deadly force to protect property. NJ doesn't permit much of anything with firearms. Any .45 has a very good point
 
How hard would it be to get a second grand jury? As I understand, only new evidence or something like that would be able to do that.
 
After the shooting, prosecutor Sean F. Dalton defended the charges, saying that New Jersey state law does not allow the use of deadly force to protect property. That's still his argument

A jury has the right to judge the facts and the law. Some people do not like this of course. But a jury has the power to say "not guilty".

Spokesman Bernie Weisenfeld said prosecutors are considering all their options on where to continue, including presenting the case to a second grand jury.

If you can not get the desired result with a group of randomly selected citizens - just handpick another group.
 
I don't mean to plant any seeds but the Feds have a thing they like to do . When they "feel like it" they take over on a "civil rights" issue and move the trial away . The civil rights of the burglars will be the focal point .
 
Does a Federal charge need a grand jury or do they just go in and start a trial. I think I know where you are going with this they might try to say that he violated the criminals right to due process, meaning a trial by his peers. I don't know what other charges they could come up with off the top of my head. Remember now the constitution limits the government not us so if a police officer shot the man, then they might have a constitutional case. I am not sure of the civil rights act signed by Johnson. If I was the guy who just won his case with the grand jury I would start a lawsuit wrongful imprisonment, prosecution, and harassment. He just was cleared of wrongdoing and a DA vowed to get him. Going on the offensive and asking for $50 million might put a damper on that DA, who is just protecting some poor misguided youths agains a crazed gunnut. I think he needs a leader dog to help him tell the good guys from the criminals.
 
Does a Federal charge need a grand jury or do they just go in and start a trial.
Quite simply put, a Federal charge requires one thing and one thing only - it has to be done on a day of the week that ends in a "Y".

How can they get away with it?

Easy -they have an army behind them,,,,a standing army of Federal Law Enforcement/ endless numbers of .gov agencies & bureaus & services <-- that little item the 2nd was supposed to guard against.
 
Yes it is very interesting, I watched a show on the FBI and the fact that they were not able to carry guns until sometime around prohibition. They also only assisted local law enforcement by getting info on crimes criminals had committed in other states. It sounds like today they can take over authority of investigations from local municipalities. This may sound stupid but why do we need 2 federal crime fighting forces, the Federal Marshals who have been around for a long time(and my uncle is one) and the FBI that hasn't exsisted that long. Then we have the ATF, which I have no idea what their legitamate pourpose is. I just know that when Waco went down there was no mention of guns, I heard one of the 2 crimes(the other is drug dealer) that means you are automatically guilty he was abusing children. Then it was that he was getting grenades,but then it was learned that they were dummy grenades, but he could have made them work again. Anyways we have the treasurey department. Lot of Departments could probably just have been handled by the Marshals.
 
I watched a show on the FBI and the fact that they were not able to carry guns until sometime around prohibition
May 1934 to be exact - 6 months after Prohibition had been repealed.
 
All bets are off...

Guys, let me share some information regarding this case, and remind everyone that this is NEW JERSEY we're talking about, here. You might enjoy this in the flavor of an FAQ about life in the Gulag... uh... Garden State.

Robert Clarke was chared with some flavor of manslaughter/murder and also weapons violations. The circumstances of the event were these:
  • Two punks were attempting to break into his shed/garage (detached from the house) in an attempt to steal his quad.
  • One of the two punks was already under indictment for burglary in another municipality - not surprisingly the one who got shot and killed.
  • Clarke's wife was due home from work at any moment, as she worked locally and was always very punctual.
  • Clarke attempted to call 911, but his wife accidentally left the phone off the charging stand, so it was dead when he tried to use it.
  • Out of concern for his wife's safety that she might have pulled into the driveway and interrupted the theft in progress (ALWAYS a dangerous thing to do when confronting two thieves), he grabbed his gun and attempted to hold the two punks at bay.
* My personal speculation is that the punk who got shot probably made a snap decision. Rather than face charges in TWO municiaplities, he made a threatening move, such as attempting to rush at the defendant to disarm him, at which point in fear for his life, Clarke shot and killed the burgular/assailant.

Weapons charges? WTF is that all about?!?!?
According to the law in this state, if the act of shooting someone was not "justified", then the firearm was used for an unlawful purpose, meaning that the DA can open the floodgates of every gun violation in the book. Loosely translated, this is becoming nothing more than a witch hunt for political gain by District Attorneys who are all political hacks seeking advancement in their careers by deomizing law abiding citizens, and treating criminals like victims. The underlying premise being used by the DA is that if he can twist the facts any way he can so as to redefine "justification", then he can legally make the case that the gun was "unlawfully used", therefore weapons charges apply, and it becomes a case of murder... not self defense.

What's the big deal about guns in New Jersey?
In the great Garden State, we have no intrinsic 2nd Amendment, which I'll explain below. Because we SUBJECTS in this state live under some of the most repressive gun rights regulations in the country, we must observe the following procedure to obtain permission from the government to buy a handgun or long gun in this state:
  • Apply for a Firearms Identification Card. This application requires your name, social security number, a mental health background check, a criminal background check, and two character references.
  • Payment of $45 to the NJ State Police investigations bureau to perform the checks. Payment of $15 to the issuing municipality for fingerprinting and photographing for your record.
  • Waiting period of on average 6 months for the investigation to be done, and the approval to be made. Don't think for one moment that it doesn't take every bit as long as that, despite the fact that even the regulations mandate that the card be issued within 60 days. There is absolutely no accountability on the part of municipalities, which means that if you get jerked around, there's nobody you can go to.
  • Once you have the FID (or as we call it, the "Mommy, Can I Have A Gun?" card, you may apply for future pistol purchase permits. These permits are a document that is required to purchase a handgun, and also serve as a FORM OF GUN REGISTRATION which must be used when any transfer or purchase of a handgun is made. The one concession that many municipalities make is to issue pistol purchase permits at the same time as you apply for the FID card.
  • Once you receive your FID and Pistol Purchase Permits, you may then go to an FFL to buy a handgun, and pay another $15 for a duplicate NCIC check to be done at the time of the purchase.

Now, here's what Article 1 of the NJ Constitution says:
All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.
*Emphasis is mine.
Please note that in New Jersey, the words mean nothing. And every day, the words of our Constitution are being attacked by politicians draped in black robes behind the bench to give rights that aren't guaranteed to people who would take away from us the rights that are guaranteed. Go figure.

Here's why we New Jersey residents don't have CCW or RKBA:
First, because it was never decided by the Supreme Court that the 2nd Amendment 'incorporated' to New Jersey. Loosely translated, the concept of marriage, and civil rights, incorporate to the state, but not the right to keep and bear arms. The second reason is that of legislative history. Long ago, during an attempt by a citizen to get a carry permit, the judge decided that self-defense was not a "justifiable cause" for a permit. Therefore we live with that to this day.

Observation: Why don't things change in New Jersey?
Because the liberals, the Mafia and the socio-communists run the government here. Because judges, police chiefs and other "good party officials" are all designated by political appointment, not election. Because good people in this state that believe in freedom don't DO things to ACT on their rights. Because we don't all vote. And even when we do have an election or an issue is turned over to the court, the morals and fundamental principles are so perverted, polluted and corrupted by Trenton "pay for play" political climbing, that they no longer matter. Remember, this is the same state whose supreme court rubber-stamped the Torricelli/Lautenberg bait-and-switch in the interest of "giving the citizens of New Jersey a choice". Yet where were those same justices when the suit to oust McGreevey when he resigned, and have a general election so we could have a choice? Silent as the grave, and when the suit was filed, the action was denied.

Warning: these concepts may be coming to a state near you.

There's a reason why the Sopranos is set in New Jersey.
 
The civil rights of the burglars will be the focal point

Once the act of burgulary or theft has started, I believe that should be the point where the criminals should have no civil rights. If they get shot, its their own fault.
 
The civil rights argument can't be used for just a normal burglary and shooting. There has to be more there. If the shooter was white and the "victim" black, that would at least make an eyebrow raise but still not enough. But if the white guy was screaming the "n word" for the whole neighborhood to hear right before he shot, it might. If he attends Klan meetings or something like that, he is really in for it. Usually the Feds would come in with a civil rights case if the trial itself failed. Something like Mississippi Burning. The local people are covering up for each other and so the trial didn't work, etc. That's why they come into a lot of cases involving the police.

Based on the facts presented here, it doesn't sound like something the Feds would be interested in.

Gregg
 
Hm. The Grand Jury is made up of citizens of the community. At what point will the prosecutor admit that the people have spoken, and move on?
 
Back
Top