Jesus Gonzalez trial UPDATE: Jesus Convicted on lesser charges [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Jesus Gonzalez trial UPDATE: Jesus Convicted on lesser charges


IndyGunFreak
10-23-2011, 14:15
[Moderator Note: See Post #62 for Conviction]

For those who aren't familiar... read the link, or search almost any gun forum(especially opencarry.org)

http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/milwaukee-shooting-case-puts-focus-on-gun-rights-132388913.html

This one will be interesting.

There's really been no strong indication on the part of Gonzales' guilt or innocence either way. There's certain aspects of the case that may help or hurt Jesus (just going off news articles, since so little has actually been released).

Hurt-- The dead suspect never made it out of his vehicle, both were apparently unarmed. You have a paralyzed (read, sympathetic) man to testify who says he was just walking down the street minding his own business when this happened.

Help -- Not a whole lot, except that the two had just left a bar, and it seems reasonable they had been drinking.

Then you have the wildcards--- Jesus was a VOCAL supporter of open carry, had been arrested a few times for it (no charges filed either time), filed lawsuits against the state for those arrests. WI's CCW law goes into effect in less than a week.. most likely just a few days after the verdict in this case will be handed down.

All I say, is let justice be served, no matter what that may be.

IGF

RussP
10-23-2011, 14:41
Yep, this one will be interesting.

BailRecoveryAgent
10-23-2011, 17:04
Guilty or innocent, I have a gut feeling this won't end well for him.

R4lf
10-23-2011, 17:18
It's interesting how you don't get Jesus' full story, not even a considerable description of what happened. All you know is that two guys walked out of a bar, they get shot. Odd journalistic view, IMO.


V/R,
R4lf

RussP
10-23-2011, 17:53
It's interesting how you don't get Jesus' full story, not even a considerable description of what happened. All you know is that two guys walked out of a bar, they get shot. Odd journalistic view, IMO.


V/R,
R4lfDid you read the Criminal Complaint? http://media.journalinteractive.com/documents/Criminal+Complaint_1_Gonzalez+Jesus.pdf

IndyGunFreak
10-23-2011, 18:07
Did you read the Criminal Complaint? http://media.journalinteractive.com/documents/Criminal+Complaint_1_Gonzalez+Jesus.pdf

Yup.. little more to it..

IGF

steveksux
10-23-2011, 18:09
It's interesting how you don't get Jesus' full story, not even a considerable description of what happened. All you know is that two guys walked out of a bar, they get shot. Odd journalistic view, IMO.


V/R,
R4lfNot that surprising, if he's smart he's listening to his lawyer and not speaking to the press.

Randy

OctoberRust
10-23-2011, 19:28
I read in the comments the two men he shot had prior assault convictions?

Is this true? And if so, can the defense bring this up in court?

BailRecoveryAgent
10-23-2011, 20:28
I wonder if undersized boolits fired out of a smooth bore barrel could be construed as an attempt to not leave a ballistic signature?:dunno:

Listen to me sounding all CSI-ish!:supergrin:

xenophon
10-23-2011, 20:59
I'm ready to see the facts come out.

LongGoneDays
10-23-2011, 22:01
I'm sure the state is really interested in helping him out.

bigj480
10-23-2011, 22:53
Not exactly who I want representing firearm owners, but it's impossible to tell what really happened from just the report. I guess the prosecution has more evidence than what i included in the report, otherwise I don't see enough evidence to prove guilt.

IndyGunFreak
10-23-2011, 23:24
Not exactly who I want representing firearm owners, but it's impossible to tell what really happened from just the report. I guess the prosecution has more evidence than what i included in the report, otherwise I don't see enough evidence to prove guilt.

While there may not be a lot of evidence proving guilt in the report, he said he shot the guys right on the 911 tape. The Prosecutor (for whatever reason) has determined this is not a justifiable shooting, and is pursuing a case. Now a jury will decide.

Personally, whether his story is true or not, I think the paralyzed victim is going to be very difficult for the defense to overcome. He's gonna be very sympathetic on the stand, then you've got Gonzalez shooting a guy who apparently never even got out of his vehicle...

Like I said, I don't know if he is guilty or not, but he better hope he gets a very gun friendly jury, because like BailRecoveryAgent said, I do not see this ending well for him.

IndyGunFreak
10-23-2011, 23:27
I read in the comments the two men he shot had prior assault convictions?

Is this true? And if so, can the defense bring this up in court?

While I can't speak for Wisconsin, I know here, I sat on a murder trial for a guy. We didn't find out about his violent criminal past until after the verdict was read. We thought we were going to be dismissed. We were sent back to the "jury room" for about 5min, brought back out, and basically told now we had to decide if he was guilty of being a habitual violent offender, that was when we found out about his past.. and then the Prosecutor and Defense atty' began making their arguments for/and against him being convicted as a habitual offender.

IGF

Novocaine
10-23-2011, 23:46
After reading the complaint and witness accounts when this case first surfaced and after looking at the parking lot layout and visualizing who was where and how the bullets were impacting the car I canít imagine Mr. Gonzales being anything but a triggerhappy douchbag who finally decided to bring his SD fantasy into the real world at expense of two innocent unarmed guys who were minding their own business.

Truth be told Iím aching to hear his side of the story and how he perceived a driver that he shot through the closed passenger side window a deadly threat.

IndyGunFreak
10-24-2011, 07:47
Truth be told Iím aching to hear his side of the story and how he perceived a driver that he shot through the closed passenger side window a deadly threat.

This has always been one of the things I had difficulty accepting.

OctoberRust
10-24-2011, 09:24
So does or will anyone have the scoop on what is or is about to go on for the trial?

pauldunlop13
10-24-2011, 09:43
This has always been one of the things I had difficulty accepting.

I wonder if his defense for this, is that the car was trying to run him over - AFTER he shot the guy on the street

IndyGunFreak
10-24-2011, 11:53
I wonder if his defense for this, is that the car was trying to run him over - AFTER he shot the guy on the street

That's possible, but I think that would backfire. Basically, at it's core, you have 2 unarmed men, who have been shot. If he tries to say that after he shot the first one (who is alive to say he was simply minding his own business), it's easy to surmise the 2nd one was just trying to get the heck out of dodge... or was the shooter trying to make sure whoever was fleeing (ie.. a witness) was to scared to report it to the police.

You're right, he could make that argument, and obviously I'm only going off what little has been reported in the media.. that just seems to be a tough thing to explain away.

Novocaine
10-24-2011, 15:29
I wonder if his defense for this, is that the car was trying to run him over - AFTER he shot the guy on the street

The car was leaving the bar parking lot adjacent to a sidewalk via the driveway at the very end of the parking lot. The driveway was crossing the sidewalk. Shooter was standing on a sidewalk some 15 feet(?IIRC) away from the driveway, about 2-3 o’clock from the driver’s POV. He was not standing on the part of the sidewalk adjacent to the parking lot.

IndyGunFreak
10-24-2011, 16:25
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/132491203.html

Only two of the potential jurors said they owned guns, and they didn't make jury selection.

WOW.

I think I understand what inmates meant when they used to say they were convicted by "a jury of someone else's peers"

Bruce M
10-25-2011, 04:14
Seems to me both in the news and in the few that I have been to over the years, for every shooting in which there was a clear victim, there has been one (or more) in which the lines between victim and subject were blurred about enough to not really be able determine who was who.

RussP
10-25-2011, 11:17
Article about jury selection... http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/jurors-selected-in-gun-advocate-homicide-132503603.html

BailRecoveryAgent
10-25-2011, 11:32
I wonder if getting a haircut and shaving will make a difference to the jury? I also wonder if his internet forum postings will be brought out in trial?

Before
http://blog.bradycampaign.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/gonzalez_jesus-150x150.jpg

After
http://media.jsonline.com/images/MJS_Gonzalez-_nws-_sears-_3.jpg

IndyGunFreak
10-25-2011, 11:59
Well, I'm sure his Lawyer told him he had to change his appearance for trial. The dude looked downright scary w/ long hair (not saying he was a bad guy, I don't know him... but jurors don't either).

He looks better with the shaved head.

Master_Blaster1911
10-25-2011, 15:41
What a cluster. I know the anti-2A people won't see a difference between this guy and me, but there sure is in my mind.

RussP
10-25-2011, 18:13
A couple of stories from today...

http://www.wisn.com/news/29574877/detail.html

http://www.wisn.com/news/29582669/detail.html

Toorop
10-25-2011, 21:55
I wonder if getting a haircut and shaving will make a difference to the jury? I also wonder if his internet forum postings will be brought out in trial?

Before
http://blog.bradycampaign.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/gonzalez_jesus-150x150.jpg

After
http://media.jsonline.com/images/MJS_Gonzalez-_nws-_sears-_3.jpg

It shouldn't matter in my opinion. It is silly to judge people by their appearances.

Toorop
10-25-2011, 21:57
Will the NRA be helping him out? What about Wisconsin gun rights groups? We should stand with our own in my opinion.

RussP
10-26-2011, 08:00
Folks, let's stay on topic, please.

RussP
10-26-2011, 08:01
Will the NRA be helping him out? What about Wisconsin gun rights groups? We should stand with our own in my opinion.It is very obvious you have done no research on this at all. Do that, and get back to us if you still have questions.

I'll get you started. No, the NRA is not involved.

RussP
10-26-2011, 09:00
Victim recalls little of shooting during open carry homicide trial (http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/victim-recalls-little-of-shooting-132587853.html) is a news article summarizing testimony on Tuesday.

Peace Frog
10-26-2011, 12:43
So why did he use deadly force on the two men?

Need a lot more info please...

RussP
10-26-2011, 14:16
So why did he use deadly force on the two men?

Need a lot more info please...As I asked someone else...Did you read the Criminal Complaint? http://media.journalinteractive.com/documents/Criminal+Complaint_1_Gonzalez+Jesus.pdf:supergrin:

R4lf
10-26-2011, 14:37
As I asked someone else...:supergrin:

I understand what you are saying, but to me all the facts just seemed too jumbled to figure what was going on.


V/R,
R4lf

RussP
10-26-2011, 15:25
There are numerous news articles on http://www.jsonline.com. Use their search function for Jesus Gonzalez. The articles go back to 2009, so you'll get most all the history.

RussP
10-26-2011, 15:29
http://wcca.wicourts.gov/courtRecordEvents.xsl?caseNo=2010CF002323&countyNo=40

Scroll to the bottom. Both the State and Defense have rested and closing arguments are scheduled for tomorrow morning.

Jesus did not testify. He invoked his 5th Amendment Rights. The Court approved his decision.

Bruce M
10-26-2011, 16:26
My gut instinct from what I have read here is that the best exculpatory evidence that could have been offered would have been his own testimony that he felt scared, afraid, thought he was being robbed, or some similar emotion.

IndyGunFreak
10-26-2011, 17:00
http://wcca.wicourts.gov/courtRecordEvents.xsl?caseNo=2010CF002323&countyNo=40

Scroll to the bottom. Both the State and Defense have rested and closing arguments are scheduled for tomorrow morning.

Jesus did not testify. He invoked his 5th Amendment Rights. The Court approved his decision.

Wow, that was fast.

IGF

Cochese
10-26-2011, 17:09
When the dispatcher asked if the men had a gun, Gonzalez replied, "I don't know what they had, but they must have thought that I was not armed."

That's a weird way to answer that question, seconds after shooting someone.

Bruce M
10-26-2011, 17:31
Wow, that was fast.

IGF


I agree. Of course if one does not have five or six figures in the defense budget, one will not have defense witnesses who can refute crime scene evidence, offer expert testimony different than the Medical Examiner, and maybe some self defense expert to explain why what was done was appropriate. It certainly makes the trial faster.

RussP
10-26-2011, 17:53
My gut instinct from what I have read here is that the best exculpatory evidence that could have been offered would have been his own testimony that he felt scared, afraid, thought he was being robbed, or some similar emotion.I cannot find the article, and someone correct me if I am mistaken, but Jesus started carrying after he was assaulted and robbed by, I believe, two men. When he talked about it, he made a comment to the effect that it would never happen again. He'd be prepared if someone tried it again.

That is not testimony he wants brought out in this trial.

IndyGunFreak
10-26-2011, 17:54
That's a weird way to answer that question, seconds after shooting someone.

:agree:

After reading the complaint and witness accounts when this case first surfaced and after looking at the parking lot layout and visualizing who was where and how the bullets were impacting the car I canít imagine Mr. Gonzales being anything but a triggerhappy douchbag who finally decided to bring his SD fantasy into the real world at expense of two innocent unarmed guys who were minding their own business.

Bruce M
10-26-2011, 18:28
I cannot find the article, and someone correct me if I am mistaken, but Jesus started carrying after he was assaulted and robbed by, I believe, two men. When he talked about it, he made a comment to the effect that it would never happen again. He'd be prepared if someone tried it again.

That is not testimony he wants brought out in this trial.


I remember the article - I found it in someone's post :supergrin:



A couple of stories from today...

http://www.wisn.com/news/29574877/detail.html

... (http://www.wisn.com/news/29582669/detail.html)


I agree he or at least his attorney would not want that statement entered into evidence. My though, however, remains if the only evidence entered in the trial is evidence against him, that is probably the only evidence the jury will consider. I also concur that having him take the stand is potentially risky. I am just wondering what the jury will deliberate over if there is nothing presented that favors his version.

RussP
10-26-2011, 18:40
I remember the article - I found it in someone's post :supergrin:A couple of stories from today...

http://www.wisn.com/news/29574877/detail.html

... (http://www.wisn.com/news/29582669/detail.html)Oh...:faint:

Yeah, that's the one. Not exactly words you want the jury to mull over.

Cavalry Doc
10-26-2011, 18:52
It shouldn't matter in my opinion. It is silly to judge people by their appearances.

People make choices. That includes how you choose to look. Look like a predator, expect to be treated like one.

Novocaine
10-27-2011, 00:48
Letís see if I got this right. The defense attorney told the Judge that "she does intend to claim self-defense specifically in closing arguments Thursday". Gonzales doesn't testify but the Judge instructs the jury to consider "self-defense" anyway.

One witness for the defense, a cop who interviewed the bartender (and gave conflicting testimony). And "defense motion to dismiss at close of evidence".

So, is this their play? ďWeíre not going to say what happened but we know the victims were loud in the bar which means the State didnít meet its burden to prove they did not deserve to get shot ď? WTF?

IndyGunFreak
10-27-2011, 05:10
Letís see if I got this right. The defense attorney told the Judge that "she does intend to claim self-defense specifically in closing arguments Thursday". Gonzales doesn't testify but the Judge instructs the jury to consider "self-defense" anyway.

One witness for the defense, a cop who interviewed the bartender (and gave conflicting testimony). And "defense motion to dismiss at close of evidence".

So, is this their play? ďWeíre not going to say what happened but we know the victims were loud in the bar which means the State didnít meet its burden to prove they did not deserve to get shot ď? WTF?

Sure as heck doesn't make sense to me either.

RussP
10-27-2011, 07:15
Here is another story on the trial. The lead is that the judge will instruct the jury on self-defense even though Jesus didn't testify or even raise the issue during the trial.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/judge-in-gunrights-advocates-case-favors-selfdefense-instruction-132666568.html

It seems he is basing that on testimony by the bartender that John and Corn had been drinking and had been loud and profane before they left. The only witness the defense called was the police officer who interviewed the bartender after the shootings. He testified that she told him she asked the men to leave. Testifying on the stand, she said she did not ask them to leave.

Counter to the loud and profane behavior in the bar is a neighbor's testimony earlier that she heard no noises, no loud voices before hearing the shots. She said she often heard loud voices coming from the bar's parking lot from patrons leaving the bar.

The DA objected to the self defense instructions saying there had been no testimony by Jesus that he acted in self defense. The judge said that a jury could reasonably conclude that something must have made Jesus shoot. That makes Jesus not taking the stand more important.

Had Jesus taken the stand, his statement made to WISN 12 News a year before the shootings where he said he felt he needed to carry a gun after being mugged could have been brought up. He said that next time, he was going to be ready one way or another. That could have introduced premeditation on his part and shown he reacted prematurely.

Now, in closing argument this morning, the defense attorney will claim self defense and the prosecution will have no chance to rebut. The judge will give those instructions and the jury will decide.

Bruce M
10-27-2011, 08:58
Still seems to me to be a bit of a risky strategy, although I also concur that putting him on the stand has some strong risks also. I (again) wonder how much of his defense strategy is driven by (lack of) financial resources.

xenophon
10-27-2011, 09:11
tag for outcome. Maybe we'll know today?

Novocaine
10-27-2011, 09:45
Had this judge ever been to a bar? Bars ARE the places where people go to be loud and profane. If a guy had to shoot everyone who was ever loud and profane next to him in a bar heíd have to start with dispatching quite a few of potential mothers of his children. Be it in a blue collar Irish pub or fancy downtown lawyer after-hour hangout.

Sure there are people looking for trouble. But they donít keep to themselves when challenged. By definition.

RussP
10-27-2011, 10:12
Still seems to me to be a bit of a risky strategy, although I also concur that putting him on the stand has some strong risks also. I (again) wonder how much of his defense strategy is driven by (lack of) financial resources.I do not believe finances have anything to do with the defense strategy.

RussP
10-27-2011, 13:16
Gonzalez case goes to jury (http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/132707293.html)

The defense said Jesus fired defending against a drunk driver.

Interesting strategy entering the motive in closing. If it were so evident the vehicle was aimed at Jesus, why not enter evidence showing the vehicle did indeed try to hit him? That would be compelling.

p.d.
10-27-2011, 13:54
Juries have surprised me a time or two, but I'm guessing this won't go well for Gonzalez.

RussP
10-27-2011, 14:21
Folks, let's get off the issue of how someone looked, now looks.

The case has gone to the jury. Let's wait to hear how appearance influenced them, if it did.

Cheytac
10-27-2011, 14:48
Had Jesus taken the stand, his statement made to WISN 12 News a year before the shootings where he said he felt he needed to carry a gun after being mugged could have been brought up. He said that next time, he was going to be ready one way or another. That could have introduced premeditation on his part and shown he reacted prematurely.


Russ help me out here. One may conclude from that statement that anyone whom decides to carry for self-defense and then shoots someone could be cited as premeditated. While we may not verbally say what he did and we may have not been previous victims, we are carrying for self-defense as he was. :dunno:

Just thinking here, being a previous victim and choosing to carry could help... :dunno:

RussP
10-27-2011, 15:10
Had Jesus taken the stand, his statement made to WISN 12 News a year before the shootings where he said he felt he needed to carry a gun after being mugged could have been brought up. He said that next time, he was going to be ready one way or another. That could have introduced premeditation on his part and shown he reacted prematurely.Russ help me out here. One may conclude from that statement that anyone whom decides to carry for self-defense and then shoots someone could be cited as premeditated. While we may not verbally say what he did and we may have not been previous victims, we are carrying for self-defense as he was. :dunno:

Just thinking here, being a previous victim and choosing to carry could help... :dunno:Note that I did not say it showed premeditation. I said, and I'll say it a little differently, such a statement could be introduced by prosecutors as premeditation.

Novocaine
10-27-2011, 15:17
Prosecutor could point to the layout of the crime scene to show that it’s practical impossibility to charge anyone standing where Gonzales was standing with a car that was going from where the victim’s car was going.

And was he protecting himself against a potential drunken driver when he shot the second guy?

Whatever the verdict, Gonzales did zilch to dissuade me from the original opinion that he is a ****** who deserves to spend the most if not the rest of his life in jail.

RussP
10-27-2011, 15:47
The jury came back into the courtroom at 4:25 p.m. for further instructions from the judge and returned to deliberations. http://wcca.wicourts.gov/courtRecordEvents.xsl?caseNo=2010CF002323&countyNo=40 (Scroll to the bottom)

Bruce M
10-27-2011, 15:54
I do not believe finances have anything to do with the defense strategy.


I would guess, but admittedly it is only a guess, that with generous resources, the defense would want some or at least one expert to attempt to refute something from the crime scene, or chain of custody, or the ME reports, or something. I suggest this only because, to me, this does not seem like a clear cut case of justifiable self defense. I will admit though, the only defense strategy I have ever been exposed to is to try to establish some reasonable doubt, somehow. But I also admit I have been wrong before.

RussP
10-27-2011, 15:58
Verdict is in. The conviction was on lesser charges of first degree reckless homicide and first degree reckless injury.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/132744583.html

IndyGunFreak
10-27-2011, 16:07
Verdict is in. Jesus convicted.


51
10-27-2011
Verdict
Sankovitz-29, Richard J.
Kasprzak, Linda

Additional Text:

. At the hour of 4:45 p.m. the jury returned and, by their foreperson, brought in a verdict of * which was then read. Court polled and discharged the jury. Verdict received and filed. Court granted state's motion for judgment on the verdict and denied defense motion for judgment not withstanding the verdict. Court ordered entry of judgment of conviction.

Not really surprising, they offered nothing to support the Defense's version of the story. The Defense was very strange in this case... I can only imagine part of his appeal will be an inadequate defense

IGF

Novocaine
10-27-2011, 16:15
IIRC, the attorney was some kind of the gun rights advocate? I remember thinking it was a bad move, attorney will worry about his/her agenda more. But looks like constitutional issues didn’t play any part. Or is it a different attorney?

BailRecoveryAgent
10-27-2011, 16:28
Edited for politeness. It didn't need to be said.

RussP
10-27-2011, 16:47
Folks, I'm going to ask that you keep your comments respectful.

Express yourself as you would want people to talk about you in this situation.

Thanks

RussP
10-27-2011, 17:17
IIRC, the attorney was some kind of the gun rights advocate? I remember thinking it was a bad move, attorney will worry about his/her agenda more. But looks like constitutional issues didnít play any part. Or is it a different attorney?I believe she is the same attorney.

Cavalry Doc
10-27-2011, 17:28
Folks, let's get off the issue of how someone looked, now looks.

The case has gone to the jury. Let's wait to hear how appearance influenced them, if it did.

Convicted.

:dunno:

I doubt the jury stated that he looked like a dirt bag the night he killed one, and severely injured another person. But I also doubt that it didn't take a look at the mug shots.

His first statement to 911 was probably crucial.

:dunno: oh well.

Bruce M
10-27-2011, 17:31
IIRC, the attorney was some kind of the gun rights advocate? ...

I believe she is the same attorney.

I wonder how many other First Degree Murder cases she has handled? If I was charged with a gun crime I may well want an attorney who specializes in gun crimes. If I was charged with murder using a gun I would probably want an attorney (actually probably a team of them) who specialized in handling capital cases.

IndyGunFreak
10-27-2011, 20:05
I wonder how many other First Degree Murder cases she has handled? If I was charged with a gun crime I may well want an attorney who specializes in gun crimes. If I was charged with murder using a gun I would probably want an attorney (actually probably a team of them) who specialized in handling capital cases.

A team of them?

Jesus was not OJ Simpson.

All that stuff is nice, but in reality, I'm guessing 90% of us on this forum, would not be able to afford what you suggested. Just getting one, high quality atty, is extremely expensive.

IGF

BailRecoveryAgent
10-27-2011, 23:20
A team of them?

Jesus was not OJ Simpson.

All that stuff is nice, but in reality, I'm guessing 90% of us on this forum, would not be able to afford what you suggested. Just getting one, high quality atty, is extremely expensive.

IGF

I couldn't afford a public defender. LOL

But really, I'm no legal expert, but that was the strangest defense strategy I've ever seen.

RussP
10-28-2011, 03:55
Jesus is known on other boards as a kind, gentle person. He was, and still is, well liked by just about everyone who knew him personally. He's also known to be very well versed in the laws of Wisconsin governing firearms. He was committed to improving attitudes toward open carry in Wisconsin. He is not known for embellishing or lying.

Now, this part is pure speculation, nothing more, and not mine originally. These thoughts are being discussed on another board.That's the same feeling I'm getting. The only reason I can come up with is that Jesus didn't want to commit perjury on the stand and couldn't tell a self-incriminating truth and the shooting was unjustified after all. Even though I don't know him and I have no idea about his judgment but I do know he is human and therefor can make a mistake just like everyone else.

Maybe this is how it went down:
It's late, Jesus is half a sleep at home but remembers he needs to move his car. He walks outside and while walking on the sidewalk a drunk guy is starting to suspiciously walk towards him and he sees a car next to him driving unsteady. He instantly get's spooked, doesn't realize it's just two drunk guys that happen to be moving in his direction, so he draws while telling them to back up. Since both were drunk, it was at night with probably little light at that spot, maybe the guy on the sidewalk didn't even see the gun right away and maybe he even boldly talked back at Jesus, saying profanities w/e and Jesus aims and shoots and then shoots at the car.

So what if after the shooting when he calmed down, after he learned that both of the guys were drunk and had no weapons, he realized he had made a terrible mistake and his conscience wouldn't let him lie and tell a false story of self defense so he decided to plead the 5th?And this...There is no way Jesus watched this charade and thought there was even the most remote chance he was not going to be convicted. If I were Jesus in this situation, and I was truly Not Guilty, there is no way on earth my attorney would keep me off the stand. One witness is questioned, and that's simply to question the testimony of someone who only disputed what most likely anyone with common sense already knew. These two guys were likely pretty intoxicated when all this went down. It almost seemed to me his attorney was conceding that he was going to be found guilty, and their real hope was for a hung jury, and then possibly getting the prosecutor to plea this way down before a second trial, so he could spend very little time in prison. My personal belief, just based on what I have read in the charging document, etc.. there was almost no chance of Jesus getting off on this, unless he testifies.We, those of us on these gun/right to carry forums, may never know why this came down as it did.

I have to go back to what Jesus said a year before the shootings about his mindset after being mugged, ""I remember thinking, 'Never again,' that next time, I'm going to be ready one way or another."

Bruce M
10-28-2011, 05:12
A team of them?

Jesus was not OJ Simpson.

All that stuff is nice, but in reality, I'm guessing 90% of us on this forum, would not be able to afford what you suggested. Just getting one, high quality atty, is extremely expensive.

IGF

I have never been to a murder trial where there was not more than one attorney sitting at the defense table, although admittedly I have not been to a huge number of them.

IndyGunFreak
10-28-2011, 05:31
I have never been to a murder trial where there was not more than one attorney sitting at the defense table, although admittedly I have not been to a huge number of them.

I was a juror on one, and the defendant only had 1 attorney.

I think usually when there's more than 1 person at the defense table(again, normal, non-capital cases) there is 1 attorney, and probably a paralegal, or maybe an intern law student, etc.. to assist the lawyer with organization of documents, etc.

Capital cases are another ball of wax.

RussP
10-28-2011, 05:42
Defendant convicted of reckless homicide, reckless injury rather than intentional homicide and injury in shootings (http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/gun-activist-guilty-in-shootings-that-killed-one-injured-one-132757643.html)

Here is the latest article published yesterday that calls out the point that the jury had little about the actual incident to go on in their deliberations.

BailRecoveryAgent
10-28-2011, 07:26
Reckless homicide/reckless injury sounds like an appropriate conviction. I don't think he went outside with the intention of shooting anyone, I think he made the mistake of shooting first without knowing whether there was a threat present or not. His past mugging may have been what made him jumpy.

Bruce M
10-28-2011, 07:30
... His past mugging may have been what made him jumpy.

I agree but he had been carrying a gun regularly for a while after the mugging. I am guessing there might have been other potentials for being "jumpy" that did not end in tragedy.

Sam Spade
10-28-2011, 07:37
Jesus is known on other boards as a kind, gentle person. He was, and still is, well liked by just about everyone who knew him personally. He's also known to be very well versed in the laws of Wisconsin governing firearms. He was committed to improving attitudes toward open carry in Wisconsin. He is not known for embellishing or lying.

Now, this part is pure speculation, nothing more, and not mine originally. These thoughts are being discussed on another board.And this...We, those of us on these gun/right to carry forums, may never know why this came down as it did.

I have to go back to what Jesus said a year before the shootings about his mindset after being mugged, ""I remember thinking, 'Never again,' that next time, I'm going to be ready one way or another."

You're describing a fearful man, reliant on the gun. If you're correct with the quotes, I'd bet there's history of his declaring "one punch can kill" and similar things showing a view that his only tool was a hammer. What was his screen name?

And yes, I'm speculating as well.

Bren
10-28-2011, 07:56
Good to see that Jesus or his lawyer had enough sense to get his hair cut and beard shaved off before trial - as he looked at the time of arrest, I speculate he'd have gotten convicted of the original charges. (yes, that's really how it works)

It is the rule, rather than the exception, that criminal defense lawyers don't want their clients to testify. But, in this case, as I have discussed in the "don't talk to police" threads, I think the failure to testify was likely a mistake. Since it seems undisputed that he was NOT justified, it's hard to say if anything would have helped.

LApm9
10-28-2011, 08:36
If I may second guess...

This looks like one of those situations where flight may have been a better choice that fight. This chap would have been better off if he had (assuming he had the chance to safely do so) to go back inside the house and wait until the two drunks made their exit.

Sure, he had every right to be on the street! Sure, it is chicken to retreat into the house when a threat arises! Sure, it is more manly to stand fast like John Wayne! But as for me, avoidance and evasion come first.

The power I assume when I carry a weapon requires me to alter my thinking and priorities. All things are an exchange...I choose to exchange some pride and ego for the the power to defend myself.

RussP
10-28-2011, 09:34
You're describing a fearful man, reliant on the gun. If you're correct with the quotes, I'd bet there's history of his declaring "one punch can kill" and similar things showing a view that his only tool was a hammer. What was his screen name?

And yes, I'm speculating as well.The quotes are correct.

His screen name is Parabellum, perhaps from the Latin saying si vis pacem, para bellum, meaning If you wish for peace, prepare for war, or perhaps from 9mm Parabellum.

Cavalry Doc
10-28-2011, 09:39
The quotes are correct.

His screen name is Parabellum, perhaps from the Latin saying si vis pacem, para bellum, meaning If you wish for peace, prepare for war, or perhaps from 9mm Parabellum.


Curious, did any of his Internet posts make it into court??

RussP
10-28-2011, 09:48
Curious, did any of his Internet posts make it into court??None that have been reported. I doubt seriously without him on the stand to confirm or deny he posted something, the judge would not allow them.

Sam Spade
10-28-2011, 10:06
Sam's early take, subject to revision:

If you're going to claim self-defense, you better be willing to take the stand. That's what innocent people *do*---they explain themselves, they're not afraid of their mindset and perceptions coming out, because they did what had to be done. Harold Fish and now Jesus are two examples of what happens when you sit there. Yes, I know what your rights are. That's academic; I'm talking about how people sitting in judgement of you look at things.

VELO
10-28-2011, 11:24
Sam's early take, subject to revision:

If you're going to claim self-defense, you better be willing to take the stand. That's what innocent people *do*---they explain themselves, they're not afraid of their mindset and perceptions coming out, because they did what had to be done. Harold Fish and now Jesus are two examples of what happens when you sit there. Yes, I know what your rights are. That's academic; I'm talking about how people sitting in judgement of you look at things.

:goodpost:

Bren
10-28-2011, 11:39
You're describing a fearful man, reliant on the gun. If you're correct with the quotes, I'd bet there's history of his declaring "one punch can kill" and similar things showing a view that his only tool was a hammer. What was his screen name?


Other than the actual shooting, it reminds me of the OC activist guy in Philadelphia (also a GTer) who was found not guilty of various misdemeanors yesterday. I think he was quoted in the paper asd saying he was "terrified" to be without his gun. Really? I've walked around Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Miami, Orlando, Atlanta, etc. without a gun plenty of times - never saw anything terrifying, but if I did I would only have one less tool to deal with it. Like having a pencil when you need a pen.

Personally, I don't view the "terrified to be unarmed" set as being fundamentally any different than the "terrified of guns" set.

AA#5
10-28-2011, 11:49
If I may second guess...

This looks like one of those situations where flight may have been a better choice that fight. This chap would have been better off if he had (assuming he had the chance to safely do so) to go back inside the house and wait until the two drunks made their exit.

Sure, he had every right to be on the street! Sure, it is chicken to retreat into the house when a threat arises! Sure, it is more manly to stand fast like John Wayne! But as for me, avoidance and evasion come first.

The power I assume when I carry a weapon requires me to alter my thinking and priorities. All things are an exchange...I choose to exchange some pride and ego for the the power to defend myself.

:goodpost: Macho can cost big time.

Warp
10-28-2011, 12:08
Sam's early take, subject to revision:

If you're going to claim self-defense, you better be willing to take the stand. That's what innocent people *do*---they explain themselves, they're not afraid of their mindset and perceptions coming out, because they did what had to be done. Harold Fish and now Jesus are two examples of what happens when you sit there. Yes, I know what your rights are. That's academic; I'm talking about how people sitting in judgement of you look at things.


I agree.

I cannot understand how the hell somebody shoots another person in self defense and then, when they are on trial over the incident, they don't talk to explain themselves.

AA#5
10-28-2011, 12:14
I agree.

I cannot understand how the hell somebody shoots another person in self defense and then, when they are on trial over the incident, they don't talk to explain themselves.

It can be risky. The DA will cross examine & that can turn out bad for the defense. That's probably why the defense attorney will advise the client not to testify. It's sorta like the common advice: "Don't make any statements to the police after you use deadly force to defend yourself."

Warp
10-28-2011, 12:19
It can be risky. The DA will cross examine & that can turn out bad for the defense. That's probably why the defense attorney will advise the client not to testify. It's sorta like the common advice: "Don't make any statements to the police after you use deadly force to defend yourself."

Exactly. It is sorta like more common, and poor, advice

Bren
10-28-2011, 13:05
It can be risky. The DA will cross examine & that can turn out bad for the defense. That's probably why the defense attorney will advise the client not to testify. It's sorta like the common advice: "Don't make any statements to the police after you use deadly force to defend yourself."

Depends on a few things - the main one being whether his version of the story is even worse than what the papers reported and the survivor testified to and the secondary one being whether he has other issues that are relevant, but would require him on the stand to bring up.

As with "don't talk to the police" - "defendants never testify" is based on the assumption that they are all both guilty and stupid. While that is almost universally true, there are exceptions. It isn't nearly as bad at the "talk to the police" level, since at trial we are talking about the people who have already made it over numerous hurdles toward a conviction.

RussP
10-28-2011, 14:35
Here's another interesting take.

The Power of STFU: Jesus Gonzalez Skates on Murder Charge (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/10/robert-farago/the-power-of-stfu-jesus-gonzalez-skates-on-murder-charge/)

The first comment here is also good.

Dragoon44
10-28-2011, 15:19
Here's another interesting take.

The Power of STFU: Jesus Gonzalez Skates on Murder Charge (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/10/robert-farago/the-power-of-stfu-jesus-gonzalez-skates-on-murder-charge/)

The first comment here is also good.

Apparently the author of that piece is to stupid to understand that reckless homicide IS murder.

vafish
10-28-2011, 15:42
A self defense shooting requires an affirmative defense, you have to be able to take the stand and articulate why you shot.the other person.

Sam Spade
10-28-2011, 15:49
Look, when you're going to trial, your defense can fall into one of several broad categories:

"It never happened." While that might apply to an accusation of rape, when you've got bodies on the ground like Jesus, it's a non-starter.
"Some other dude did it." (Thanks, Mas.) Again, not available to Jesus, nor to any case of self-defense.
"Yeah, I did it, but he needed shootin'." This is the definitive self-defense case. Almost everywhere, it's then up to you to explain *why* he needed shooting. When that's the theory you want to sell to twelve good men and true, I just don't see how you can sit there and STFU.


From what I'm reading, Jesus' lawyer defended him as if he were a guilty man. That is, there wasn't a case mounted to explain why a reasonable man needed to resort to deadly force on that street. Instead, there were challenges to the state amounting to "Oh yeah? Prove it." Well, guess what? The physical facts of the case were never in question. There was nothing to suppress, nothing to misdirect from the jury's attention. Jesus shot those guys, and everyone knew it from Day One, when Jesus said so in the 911 call.

What *wasn't* known from Day One, or at any other point, is *why* he did it. But the state doesn't have to prove motive. So if Jesus had a reason, a motive, that excused the criminal act of putting bullets in the other guys, it was on him to provide it. He failed.

Does anyone here remember when Dwight Eisenhower was Pesident? Cuz from then to now is how long Jesus could be sitting in a box over his failure to explain his choices. That doesn't strike me as "skating".

IndyGunFreak
10-28-2011, 15:50
Here's another interesting take.

The Power of STFU: Jesus Gonzalez Skates on Murder Charge (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/10/robert-farago/the-power-of-stfu-jesus-gonzalez-skates-on-murder-charge/)

The first comment here is also good.

What an idiot.

Bruce M
10-28-2011, 16:52
A self defense shooting requires an affirmative defense, you have to be able to take the stand and articulate why you shot.the other person.

And perhaps at least a different legal strategy than was used in this case, probably with different lawyers. Being repetitive if I was charged with murder, and I did not have a good self defense argument, I would want really good lawyer(s) who had alot of experience trying to cast reasonable doubt in capital cases.


Apparently the author of that piece is to stupid to understand that reckless homicide IS murder.

Is callous indifference a lower crime than reckless homicide?



...From what I'm reading, Jesus' lawyer defended him as if he were a guilty man. That is, there wasn't a case mounted to explain why a reasonable man needed to resort to deadly force on that street. Instead, there were challenges to the state amounting to "Oh yeah? Prove it." Well, guess what? The physical facts of the case were never in question. There was nothing to suppress, nothing to misdirect from the jury's attention. ...
While none of the facts were in dispute, sometimes experts can go through crime scene evidence and procedures and find ways that the collection or examination could be done differently. And if it is done differently by some big noted agency, sometimes attorneys can allude to the differences being better, hence more accurate, and sometimes that can help misdirect or confuse the jury a bit. I know this is a stretch - but if it's all you can find, it might be worth a shot.


Sentencing will be interesting, if for nothing else to see the end results.

BailRecoveryAgent
10-28-2011, 16:55
What an idiot.

Yes, unfortunately you don't have to smart to get on the interwebz and air your stupidity to the world. I'm proof of that lol!

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

RussP
10-28-2011, 19:15
Can someone explain what this might mean? http://wcca.wicourts.gov/courtRecordEvents.xsl?caseNo=2010CF002323&countyNo=4040
09-01-2011
Motion hearing
Sankovitz-29, Richard J.
Richmond, Donna

Event Party

Gonzalez, Jesus

Additional Text:

Defendant Jesus Gonzalez in court with attorney Nelida Cortes. Grant Huebner and Karen Behling appeared for the State of Wisconsin. Deputy clerk: dn . Motions heard. State agreed to defense request to exclude victims repretation for peacefulness. Court held in abeyance the defense motion to admit evidence of defendant's need to go armed. Court ordered case adjourned for final pre-trial conference in Branch 29 on Oct. 13, 2011 at 1:30 p.m.

LongGoneDays
10-28-2011, 19:35
Was there a sentencing issued that I missed or is that still to come?
I'm not sure what these lesser charges really mean.

IndyGunFreak
10-28-2011, 19:45
Can someone explain what this might mean? http://wcca.wicourts.gov/courtRecordEvents.xsl?caseNo=2010CF002323&countyNo=40

Man, good catch... abeyance means to suspend...so I'm assuming in that context, that they couldn't tell the jury that Jesus had a need to go armed, due to the previous robbery?

Dragoon44
10-28-2011, 20:36
Can someone explain what this might mean? http://wcca.wicourts.gov/courtRecordEvents.xsl?caseNo=2010CF002323&countyNo=40

It mean the defense tried to get some sympathy for it's client by telling the Jury that he had been mugged before.

If I had been the prosecutor I would have agreed to them being allowed to introduce that if I could also show the Jury his mug shot.

RussP
10-29-2011, 06:41
Man, good catch... abeyance means to suspend...so I'm assuming in that context, that they couldn't tell the jury that Jesus had a need to go armed, due to the previous robbery?It mean the defense tried to get some sympathy for it's client by telling the Jury that he had been mugged before.

If I had been the prosecutor I would have agreed to them being allowed to introduce that if I could also show the Jury his mug shot.Honestly, not my catch. There is a discussion elsewhere about why the short defense presentation. Someone suggested that grounds for the appeal would be evidence beneficial to the defendant was blocked by the judge. It appears this may be the evidence to do that.

The fact that he was armed due to a previous attack might justify to a jury him carrying for self defense. It is unfortunately why many, many people do carry. That is an absolute truth. Introducing the fact he had been mugged would also, I believe, allow the introduction of the interview Jesus gave recorded in the video in this article. http://www.wisn.com/news/29574877/detail.html The jury would hear his words and see his expressions. Again speculating, would the prosecution have pursued the questions, "Was this simple preparedness for possible self defense, or was this preparedness for revenge, for pay back? Did this mindset cause him to over-react, shoot too soon?"

Limiting the introduction of the prior mugging to the fact it happened while excluding the interview statement would serve its purpose. With the interview, I don't know.

Sam Spade
10-29-2011, 07:53
Jesus was welcome to tell the court about his previous victimization and the effect it had on him.

Cavalry Doc
10-29-2011, 08:18
Depends on a few things - the main one being whether his version of the story is even worse than what the papers reported and the survivor testified to and the secondary one being whether he has other issues that are relevant, but would require him on the stand to bring up.

As with "don't talk to the police" - "defendants never testify" is based on the assumption that they are all both guilty and stupid. While that is almost universally true, there are exceptions. It isn't nearly as bad at the "talk to the police" level, since at trial we are talking about the people who have already made it over numerous hurdles toward a conviction.

I do agree with the "don't talk to the police" crowd initially, but there comes a time where you have to tell your story. After appropriate counsel, tell the story.

I will never shoot anyone I don't have too shoot. I've seen it more than enough times to remove all curiosity about what it's like. I'm fairly articulate, but there are some rather large landmines in the law, and you need to call in the Legal EOD to help you navigate those issues, especially right after the incident when your adrenalin level is soaring, and your brain is not working at optimum capacity.

If I am ever forced to have to shoot my weapon, and I end up in court, I will testify, even if I have to fire my legal team to do it. I'm pretty confident that I will not be too quick on the draw, and that I will be able to convince 12 normal people that I did the right thing if I ever had to do it.

Bren
10-29-2011, 08:59
I do agree with the "don't talk to the police" crowd initially, but there comes a time where you have to tell your story. After appropriate counsel, tell the story.


In this case, it does look like he got a self-defense instruction without testifying. Ironically, it appears that the only way he got it was because he DID talk to the police and they repeated what he said about self-defense at the trial (as they also do at the grand jury).

However, KY law has numerous cases in which a person tried to get a self-defense instruction without testifying...to which the court of appeals says "tough luck, you should have told the jury why it was self defense if you wanted an instruction." And, of course, even a perfectly justified shooting (assuming it gets to trial) is murder as a matter of legal definition, if the judge doesn't add a self-defense justification instruction.

steveksux
10-29-2011, 09:06
I cannot find the article, and someone correct me if I am mistaken, but Jesus started carrying after he was assaulted and robbed by, I believe, two men. When he talked about it, he made a comment to the effect that it would never happen again. He'd be prepared if someone tried it again.

That is not testimony he wants brought out in this trial.
It is very obvious you have done no research on this at all. Do that, and get back to us if you still have questions.



Oh...:faint:

Yeah, that's the one. Not exactly words you want the jury to mull over.:tongueout::wavey::rofl:

Thought I was the only one whose brain farted from time to time.. :supergrin:

Randy

RussP
10-29-2011, 09:12
In this case, it does look like he got a self-defense instruction without testifying. Ironically, it appears that the only way he got it was because he DID talk to the police and they repeated what he said about self-defense at the trial (as they also do at the grand jury).I disagree. Nothing has been reported about what Jesus said to the police. Nothing was reported about any police testimony at trial about what Jesus said to them.

It was reported that his attorney told the judge when the trial started she would introduce self defense in her closing argument. I believe that was the reason he added the self defense instruction.However, KY law has numerous cases in which a person tried to get a self-defense instruction without testifying...to which the court of appeals says "tough luck, you should have told the jury why it was self defense if you wanted an instruction." And, of course, even a perfectly justified shooting (assuming it gets to trial) is murder as a matter of legal definition, if the judge doesn't add a self-defense justification instruction.Good information...

RussP
10-29-2011, 09:13
:tongueout::wavey::rofl:

Thought I was the only one whose brain farted from time to time.. :supergrin:

Randy:cool:

steveksux
10-29-2011, 09:46
Sam's early take, subject to revision:

If you're going to claim self-defense, you better be willing to take the stand. That's what innocent people *do*---they explain themselves, they're not afraid of their mindset and perceptions coming out, because they did what had to be done. Harold Fish and now Jesus are two examples of what happens when you sit there. Yes, I know what your rights are. That's academic; I'm talking about how people sitting in judgement of you look at things.I generally agree with this.

However, not always. Even if you have a reasonable case for self defense, yet were a mess at explaining yourself, (i.e. sound like a paranoid nutjob), you can make an argument that the self defense argument is best left to the jury's imagination. Some posts here ignite quite a controversy over whether deadly force is justified or not. And we're all pretty sympathetic to self defense and firearms, if those controversial, say on the aggressive side as to use of force try to explain that to a neutral or gun phobic jury, they're liable to do more harm than good.

My take is the lawyer wasn't trying to win the case, didn't think it was winnable. I think he was trying to minimize the damage and avoid a first degree murder conviction. Getting Jesus on the stand, if he wasn't careful he'd drop a bomb on his own, and the prosecution was likely to goad him into saying something stupid. I'm guessing wouldn't be hard to open the door to them entering prior statements about "I'll be ready next time" and paint him as something of a paranoid dangerous guy with a hair trigger, traumatized from the prior robbery and essentially a ticking time bomb just waiting to go off. Except that night he finally did go off. That's what the prosecution was trying to paint him as. No point having the defense supplying more paint.

The crux of a self defense shooting is having a reasonable fear your life is in danger and deadly force is necessary. The problem is that has to seem reasonable to a jury, not to a "gun nut" (that would have been their words not mine) who appears to still be traumatized from a prior robbery and prone to overreaction.

Guess long story short, in a nutshell, sometimes even innocent people don't make good advocates for themselves. STFU may not be a good strategy, but that doesn't mean it isn't also the best strategy given the circumstances.

Randy

steveksux
10-29-2011, 09:59
Now for the interesting part: sentencing.

How much discretion do judges have in that state? What's the minimum/maximum sentences for those crimes?

Now we know what would Jesus do :whistling:, but what will the Judge do?

Randy

Cavalry Doc
10-29-2011, 10:00
In this case, it does look like he got a self-defense instruction without testifying. Ironically, it appears that the only way he got it was because he DID talk to the police and they repeated what he said about self-defense at the trial (as they also do at the grand jury).

However, KY law has numerous cases in which a person tried to get a self-defense instruction without testifying...to which the court of appeals says "tough luck, you should have told the jury why it was self defense if you wanted an instruction." And, of course, even a perfectly justified shooting (assuming it gets to trial) is murder as a matter of legal definition, if the judge doesn't add a self-defense justification instruction.

I believe the smart thing to do, is to be the first person to call 911 after a shooting. State the nature of the injuries of those involved and ask for EMS to be sent to the scene immediately, state that you are a witness, give your clothing description, and ask them to send the police and EMS as soon as possible. If you have any training at all, and if it is absolutely safe to do so, render aid to the wounded. Do your best, and make it obvious that you are really trying to treat them. Depending on who gets there first, likely the police, since it is a shooting, let them know you are armed, where your gun is, and make sure that they have enough information to feel safe. I personally would request that I continue to care for the wounded until EMS arrives.

I would respectfully decline to answer any questions until after I had legal counsel. I would tell them that I am very sorry, but I am going to exercise my rights, but that I am the good guy here, and that will be evident in good time.

I'll either be believed, or not initially. I'll either be allowed to continue to treat the wounded, or not, and regardless, I will go to jail. I'll make my phone call (card is in my wallet) and then I'll make bail. Then I'll spend several thousand dollars defending myself in the grand jury.

Every homicide, justified or not, goes to the grand jury in Texas. The law allows the use of deadly force to protect property here. The deductible on my insurance is much lower if truck were stolen, than my legal bills would be if I used deadly force to stop someone from stealing it.

I still believe giving the bare minimum information to the police so that they feel safe, in the beginning, is the best way to go.


The 911 call probably didn't help him:
When the dispatcher asked if the men had a gun, Gonzalez replied, "I don't know what they had, but they must have thought that I was not armed."

How could they have thought that? How did you not know? Whoops, there goes the imagination of the jurors.



(911) My name is __________, I am at ---Address---- I need immediate assistance from EMS and the Police. There are --number-- of people injured, --describe injuries briefly--, The area --is/is not-- apparently secure.

Describe any bad guys that have left the scene, or capable bad guys in the area.

PLEASE HURRY!! I am attempting to give aid to the injured, I am wearing --Give clothing description--

TBO
04-07-2013, 20:43
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_C._Gonzalez

He has his own Wikipedia page now.

RussP
04-08-2013, 05:35
Does the reductions of charges and length of the sentences bother anyone?

PEC-Memphis
04-08-2013, 15:34
And, of course, even a perfectly justified shooting (assuming it gets to trial) is murder as a matter of legal definition, if the judge doesn't add a self-defense justification instruction.

Help me to understand this. I am no expert in this area. It has been that my understanding of murder is the unlawful killing of another person with malice intent/forethought. How could it be both "perfectly justified" and "unlawful" simultaneously?

RussP
04-08-2013, 16:22
And, of course, even a perfectly justified shooting (assuming it gets to trial) is murder as a matter of legal definition, if the judge doesn't add a self-defense justification instruction.Help me to understand this. I am no expert in this area. It has been that my understanding of murder is the unlawful killing of another person with malice intent/forethought. How could it be both "perfectly justified" and "unlawful" simultaneously?Bren, yeah, "How?" They are all homicides. Murder is an unlawful homicide, simply put.

PEC-Memphis
04-08-2013, 20:32
They are all homicides. Murder is an unlawful homicide, simply put.

I know that (as evidenced by what I wrote) - Bren specifically wrote "murder" - not "homicide".

IndyGunFreak
04-08-2013, 23:00
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_C._Gonzalez

He has his own Wikipedia page now.

That's been there a while

Does the reductions of charges and length of the sentences bother anyone?

I'm not sure why it would.. this is what juries/courts do all the time. The charges seem appropriate given what happened.

IGF

RussP
04-09-2013, 01:11
I know that (as evidenced by what I wrote) - Bren specifically wrote "murder" - not "homicide".I edited my post. It was suppose to be aimed at Bren.:embarassed::embarassed: