- Sep 13, 2002
- 99,251
- 208,272
- 113
I was part of a jury that just acquitted a guy of manslaughter.
- Thread starter Mayland
- Start date
- Sep 13, 2002
- 99,251
- 208,272
- 113
I don't know its highly dependent on the jury pool. Down here I have never been selected for cases because I am male and educated. Was not selected for 3 cases during my jury duty. The defense prefers, female, religious and uneducated generally. Basically individuals that will not look at the case and want to give the defendant a second chance. Wife has been selected jury duty 3 of the last 4 years (second one got off because too soon). Selected for 4 cases, also domestic abuse. Was able to convict two, unable to convict on other 2 even though the facts supported it because you would have a couple hold outs. the 2 that they convicted and 1 person who did not want to convict but basically gave into the rest of the group from what I can gather.
For me to send a guy to prison I would have to be 500% convinced.
I wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing I ruined somebody’s life and there was a chance they were innocent.
I wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing I ruined somebody’s life and there was a chance they were innocent.
Last edited:
Did the defendant testify? If so did he say why he just didnt call the police when the guy came back?
It may have legally been the right call. But, I never like when the aggressor (the shooter in this case) escalates the situation to a deadly one, and then gets away with it.
HE introduced a gun. HE hit someone first. HE took a potential fist fight situation and made it into a deadly shooting instead.
And, yet, he gets to walk away, no problem. Feeling emboldened to use his gun to solve another situation in the future.
HE introduced a gun. HE hit someone first. HE took a potential fist fight situation and made it into a deadly shooting instead.
And, yet, he gets to walk away, no problem. Feeling emboldened to use his gun to solve another situation in the future.
Most likely would have potentially been manslaughter would be my guess, so you aren't ruining the guys life a sentence, but a short one and get out pretty quickly on good behavior. Most likely this case will effect the rest of his life.
Its borderline, however, he didn't instigate the issue. A drunk, possibly high belligerent individual did. Maryland said the assault charge was the most likely, and I agree, I think I would want to convict on that unless there specific laws or statutes that negated it. Beyond that he is on his property and defending self. Bringing out a gun to portray strength may have been necessary. Pistol whipping . . . questionable. Have 2 guys coming at you aggressively that are drunk and possibly high, yeah its enough of self defense. I understand where you are coming from, and its likely why this guy will go to jail on another charge. However in this case I don't think you can convict.
So, in the end, they jury felt that the Abrahamson was correct in fearing for his life, and using his weapon? Due to the aggressive physical approach of Smith, despite Smith having no weapon? But Abrahamson being armed?
Or, how did you get to his ability to use the stand your ground law, outside/off his property, from just being approached in an angry manner. That's enough?
In this case the person who 'feared for their life' was armed and openly carrying. The victim appears to not have been armed.
And, the shooter had even physically de-escalated a previous confrontation with Smith successfully without the need to take a life.
Or, how did you get to his ability to use the stand your ground law, outside/off his property, from just being approached in an angry manner. That's enough?
In this case the person who 'feared for their life' was armed and openly carrying. The victim appears to not have been armed.
And, the shooter had even physically de-escalated a previous confrontation with Smith successfully without the need to take a life.
Not me, I've visited for business a couple dozen times.
Whatever you do don't go get drunk and start shit with some strangers.
Wasnt the initial aggressor the one (or two) people who came back to the scene to continue the altercation/situation?
So a guy gets pistol whipped and leaves, then decides to return later unarmed to confront the known armed man......and he ends up getting shot and dies.
Darwin award candidate
Darwin award candidate
I’ve never been of the various Stand Your Ground laws that various states have…just too much variation how they’re applicable.
I get the basic concept, but personally I wish they were much stricter.
Well, those are words. Not a crime. Could certainly call the police if necessary.
The real initial aggression came from pulling a gun and pistol whipping a guy who wouldn't leave.
I mean, I imagine this goes on at house parties all across the country every weekend with unruly people who won't leave, without pistol whipping and then shooting someone who was yelling at people.
The real initial aggression came from pulling a gun and pistol whipping a guy who wouldn't leave.
I mean, I imagine this goes on at house parties all across the country every weekend with unruly people who won't leave, without pistol whipping and then shooting someone who was yelling at people.
The dead guy knew he had a gun. Came back with a buddy knowing he had a gun. Pursued him into his backyard seeing the gun in the guy's hand and the two of them continued to aggressively come at the guy. I'd say he was perfectly justified in defending himself. What else was he supposed to do? Let the guys get a hold of him, beat him, turn the gun on him?
Abrahamson waited until the guy was 1 foot away. Dude could have stopped.
If you run aggressively at a man with a gun with the intent to harm the man with the gun, well, man with the gun prob going to use it to defend himself.
Surprised they let you on the jury with this history of questionable decision making in your past
I was exactly the same way.
My trial wasn't murder but it was a subject you never want to see or hear about.
Out of the 12 members, I think 10 of us have slept good. Two not so much. Those two were complete opposites of each other.
Pine I get your standpoint but facts changed in the second situation 2 on 1, and obviously his actions did not cause a de-escalation, it escalated it further. Its questionable in either case, I think you have to say he very well of feared for his life.
Now if only you can be this black and white with the crap posters on here LOL.
This is where introducing guns to a situation ends up with people getting killed. If he never brings out that gun, maybe they fight, but they're both likely still alive today.
Maybe, but if the drunk neighbor would have left when asked, there wouldn't even have been a fight.
I've sat through dozens of jury trials, from first-degree murders to lesser cases. Good on your for stepping up and performing your civic duty. Too many people evade the responsibility or don't take it serious.
This jury was 8 men, 4 women. I’m guessing I had the most formal education (masters degree) but can’t say for sure. The women were definitely ready to make a decision based on emotion. I know that’s stereotyping but it was true. Everybody was very thoughtful and willing to listen to all opinions. I, as jury leader, tried to keep the deliberation to discussing facts and evidence, but there’s time where you have to make judgments based on common sense, and that was part of the judge’s instructions to us. I feel we did that to the best of our ability.
Sounds like he did leave and went and got someone else to go back with him and continue the situation.
Took a pistol whipping for him to get half the point.
No he did not testify. I’m guessing he didn’t call the cops because they’d been smoking weed (although possession is an infraction in North Dakota, similar to a speeding ticket) and he had hit the guy previously, even though we found that was justified. That was one of the things we discussed. North Dakota’s self defense laws say nothing about calling law enforcement, and we weren’t trying the guy for making really poor decisions.
The victim and his friend came back to the scene. Shooter might not have known if they brought a weapon or not. 2 on 1 coming at the victim…I would have shot. Maybe the two didn’t think he had the balls to shoot them. Maybe he doesn’t shoot or misses, then what? What if they wrestle the gun away? Then who dies. The guy in the garage wasn’t put in this situation until the victim came to his house, his garage and instigated the violence. Then they obviously came back for more violence.
IMO, good work OP.
Or maybe the other guy pulls out a knife or gun and kills him. Or maybe he's a UFC fighter wannabe and bashes his skull into the ground until he dies. There's no law that says you have to find out what weapons someone about to attack you has on them before you defend yourself. You don't want to get shot, stay the eff away from me and don't try to attack me. The dead guy had a choice, he made it.
If the article's accounting of events is accurate, I don't know how he was even charged. Dude wouldn't leave... when he did he came back with a friend and moved toward the alleged perp.
That’s honestly something we considered. The one thing we decided based on evidence though was a that the shooter was not the original aggressor. We all came to the conclusion that the guy who ended up dead was the original aggressor and that the shooter was justified using force originally to avoid bodily harm.
Damn. There goes tonight’s plans.
Or the dude in the garage gets beaten to death.
So you are saying you have quite a bit more information than anyone else on here to make the decision that you made? Well done..
