ADVERTISEMENT

I was part of a jury that just acquitted a guy of manslaughter.

I'm fairly certain in VA self defense has to be proportional. I.e. if they come at you with fists you can't stab them unless you're way smaller and they could definitely kill you. It's pretty risky to act in self defense. I believe rules change if the aggressor enters the home.

So in this case, since the shooter willingly opened the door and went outside, his self defense claim would have been tougher, and the article doesn't say if the "victim" was armed. That would make a difference. Had the men entered the house, then it would be a pretty straight forward self defense.

(Trying to remember from my college law class, I'm not a lawyer).
 
I'm fairly certain in VA self defense has to be proportional. I.e. if they come at you with fists you can't stab them unless you're way smaller and they could definitely kill you. It's pretty risky to act in self defense. I believe rules change if the aggressor enters the home.

So in this case, since the shooter willingly opened the door and went outside, his self defense claim would have been tougher, and the article doesn't say if the "victim" was armed. That would make a difference. Had the men entered the house, then it would be a pretty straight forward self defense.

(Trying to remember from my college law class, I'm not a lawyer).
North Dakota’s self defense laws definitely are in favor of the person defending him/herself. You can use excessive/deadly force if you feel the person can cause serious bodily injury. That includes being rendered unconscious. That was one of the things we discussed. The attacker, who wound up dead, was unarmed, but imo it was very reasonable that he intended to inflict serious harm on the shooter. He was also trespassing. In North Dakota there is no duty to retreat to claim self defense. I think I said in my original post this guy would probably have been found guilty in many states.
 
North Dakota’s self defense laws definitely are in favor of the person defending him/herself. You can use excessive/deadly force if you feel the person can cause serious bodily injury. That includes being rendered unconscious. That was one of the things we discussed. The attacker, who wound up dead, was unarmed, but imo it was very reasonable that he intended to inflict serious harm on the shooter. He was also trespassing. In North Dakota there is no duty to retreat to claim self defense. I think I said in my original post this guy would probably have been found guilty in many states.
Actually the trespassing thing may apply here too, and may be relevant in this scenario. Since he was on his property. Presumably the shooter told him to leave and he didn't. I'm really not sure how it would play out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mayland
The whole thing started at 5:58 p.m., Oct 9, 2023, and was over by 6:05 p.m. Prior convictions did not come up at all. I can only guess that if they did have priors it would have been entered into evidence, but we heard nothing about it for either party.

I meant what time did the killing occur?

Was this all a weekend night or another time?
 
I meant what time did the killing occur?

Was this all a weekend night or another time?
That timeline I gave previously was when the entire incident happened. So the shooting was about 6:05 p.m. it looks like October 9, 2023 was a Monday. I don’t know if I mentioned it previously but the two older guys had been working about an hour out of Minot, and drank the entire way back, with a few stops at bars along the way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrianNole777
Let’s
That timeline I gave previously was when the entire incident happened. So the shooting was about 6:05 p.m. it looks like October 9, 2023 was a Monday. I don’t know if I mentioned it previously but the two older guys had been working about an hour out of Minot, and drank the entire way back, with a few stops at bars along the way.
Would the 2 older guys been much more physically imposing than the shooter. The one who died, looks skinny in pictures but that doesn't really mean much.
 
That timeline I gave previously was when the entire incident happened. So the shooting was about 6:05 p.m. it looks like October 9, 2023 was a Monday. I don’t know if I mentioned it previously but the two older guys had been working about an hour out of Minot, and drank the entire way back, with a few stops at bars along the way.

Wow...getting drunk on a Monday at 6 P.M.

I imagine the dead guy was an alcoholic.
 
Wow...getting drunk on a Monday at 6 P.M.

I imagine the dead guy was an alcoholic.
Lets see, DUI's driving an hour from work from 5-6PM, granted its North Dakota, but yeah, alcoholic is right. The one who died seems like an obvious waste of life. So drunk you can't control your anger in the late afternoon/early evening on a work day. North Dakota is obviously going to lean much more to the gun owners rights and protect yourself. Being more rural, agricultural and on the right side of politics obviously. So yes, he is lucky he is not in a more moderate or left leaning state.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrianNole777
Let’s

Would the 2 older guys been much more physically imposing than the shooter. The one who died, looks skinny in pictures but that doesn't really mean much.
The deceased was pretty physically imposing. The defendant was fat, and didn’t look he could fight his way out of a wet paper bag. In my mind, it was reasonable that the defendant was scared and needed to use force to defend himself.
 
The deceased had a bac of 0.18, a little more than twice the legal limit.
Was a lack of compassion for the deceased at all in the discussion, or truly what was based on the law. From my wife's discussions of the trials she has been on, emotion and opinions of the characters involved seemed to play more into the decision making of the jury than even the rule of the law. Not that the rule of law was taken into consideration, but you would have a couple truly dependent on their feelings rather than what occurred and how it should be viewed by the laws on the books.
 
Was a lack of compassion for the deceased at all in the discussion, or truly what was based on the law. From my wife's discussions of the trials she has been on, emotion and opinions of the characters involved seemed to play more into the decision making of the jury than even the rule of the law. Not that the rule of law was taken into consideration, but you would have a couple truly dependent on their feelings rather than what occurred and how it should be viewed by the laws on the books.
Not really. Everybody in the jury was sympathetic for all parties involved. As jury leader, I really tried to steer the deliberations toward discussing law and wrestling with definitions, and then basing decisions based on that.
 
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.
I’ve always wanted to be on a jury. I was called once back in my 20s and even got picked for the first jury of the day, but we sat around all day and the case settled and I was released. I like to think this is the kind of case I’d want. I can see this one either way, much like OP. The shooter did escalate it at one point, but then also, the guy was asked to leave multiple times over a span of time by multiple people, was drunk, was agitated and clearly looking for a fight. I get the unarmed argument, but also, he left the scene with a threat and did return with another person. Obviously, the devil is in the details of the applicable statutes and instructions for the jury, but I think I’d sleep ok with this outcome.

I’m not a huge fan of some of the wilder stand your ground laws some states have, but in this case, the victim didn’t leave when asked, escalated things more than once and then even left the scene and came back with help. Definitely a FAFO situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pinehawk
When I was in college, I got Federal Jury duty summons for the Adam Moss case. My mom wanted me to have nothing to do with it. If I recall Adam had threatened the Judge, there was also rumors he had threated to have some witnesses murdered. I sent in that I was in college in Iowa City and they accepted. Would have been interesting to be on the case, but fine with not. Moss ended up going against counsel and pled guilty to all 7 murders right before the court case was set to take place. So ultimately never would have had a trial but would have been pretty crazy at the time. Ended up committing suicide in jail.

"He had admitted he beat his girlfriend with a hammer and slit her throat and bludgeoned her five children to death with the hammer in August 2001. He also admitted killing a 58-year-old man he had worked for."
 
Last edited:
  • Wow
Reactions: Mayland
Thanks. Trial started Monday. We delivered the verdict about an hour ago. I always thought I wanted to serve on a jury, and I’m glad it was an interesting case, but my emotions are at an all time high right now, knowing I set free a guy that took a life. But my conscience is clear because I truly feel like I made my decision based on law and facts.
Got chosen to serve on a jury handful of years ago. During selection they asked all of us our view on police officers, one guy answered favorably. He gets chosen, and after going through the trial and hearing the officer’s testimony we go to deliberate and that guy says “well that cop could’ve just lied about everything, they always do!” I was thinking wtf dude! why didn’t you just tell them you had an unfavorable view during the selection! He held the rest of us up with his viewpoint.
Regardless we found her guilty and afterwards when the judge came to thank us for serving told us we made the right decision, which surprised me he would do that. Also gave us some details that weren’t allowed to be part of the trial but solidified our decision
 
Interesting case, thanks for telling us about your experience. It sounds like everyone involved treated it with the gravity it warranted, and like others it sounds like the right decision was reached.

A couple years ago I actually served on a grand jury. Served two days a week for eight weeks I think. Heard about a thousand cases and returned indictments on all but three. Very educational experience both about how the system works. Very valuable and opened my eyes to a lot. Especially coming very close on the heals of the discussions about policing and criminal justice that followed George Floyd and the riots.

Fun fact, I was the grand jury empaneled exactly before the Fani Willis Trump grand jury. One cycle later I would have been on that one. I'm glad I got a regular grand jury.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT