A 59-year-old father with no criminal record has been sentenced to 20 years in prison with no chance of parole after he fired a single warning shot to dissuade a rampaging “youth” in his home.
h/t John Galt
A 59-year-old father with no criminal record has been sentenced to 20 years in prison with no chance of parole after he fired a single warning shot to dissuade a rampaging “youth” in his home.
h/t John Galt
dead men tell no lies
There is no story at that link
This is one of the several times I split from the bulk of my conservative fellow travelers. This ‘tough on crime’ stance is good only for pandering to their base, and whipping up votes, but every crime and every criminal is an individual case. I don’t know, but I’m betting this ‘mandatory minimum sentence’ law was put in place by some wanna-be tuff-guy: I hate to say it (and I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong) someone with an (R) after their name.
Sorry but this story smells. Either get more details or look like a cheap supermarket checkout rag. SDA deserves better.
You get what you pay for.
Sometimes when you invite a stranger into your home/life this is what you get for your kindness.
Didn’t an Ontario family suffer worse than this when the parents let their 16 yro daughter move her boyfriend into the house, and even her bedroom? When the young couple broke up the kid was turfed out. He then returned and shot dead the mother, younger sister and severely wounded his ex girlfriend.
In a way, I feel for the man, but he failed to truly protect his family from true danger from the get go.
Anyway hope he wins his appeal as this is insanity to the max.
Hey, c’mon lance, I’m doing my best!
The US justice system is corrupted by this kind of “law and order” overkill. The number of people incarcerated for non-violent crimes is unmatched by any civilized nation. The prosecutors love being able to intimidate a plea bargain by threat of ridiculous sentencing. Sadly, too many Conservatives think this is something worth emulating.
valid link
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mandatory-minimum-sentencing-injustice-served/
Cally, If you got a problem with the reporting take it up with CBS, don’t blame SDA.
So a guy defending himself, his family and home , in a stand your ground , must issue handgun state is jailed for a litany of vexatious charges in an obvious malicious prosecution? Fire that lawyer – “Better call Saul”.
On a wider scope, the persecution of self defense by cops, prosecutors and the jurocracy is an immoral pursuit, the end result of which is to render the output of the law system to be in justice – such a morbidly corrupted system in in need of “ethical cleansing”.
Exactly!
Mandatory minimums are in the same category as zero tolerance policies.
So for the past few, oh, decades during which “soft on crime” liberals have been protesting against the fundamentally unjust — and often discriminatory — policy of mandatory minimums, it’s been nada, zip, zilch, absolutely nothing from you lot.
But a case involving the 2nd amendment and home-as-castle doctrine comes crosses your narrow radars, and suddenly you’re all up in arms.
The larger problem here is the pressure for successful prosecution statistics. This goes beyond quotas. Today’s prosecutors are more interested in their personal statistics and political career path than serving justice.
This derangement is symptom of collectivism, and it behooves the defense to look closely at “taking the deal” for any stigmatized legal entanglements. An “unjust” first degree misdemeanor plea is a far better result than any potential unjust felony conviction.
Stupid did and stupid done.
I smell a liberal with a gun.
had he shot and killed the sob he would not be in jail now.
The “law and order” overkill is not exactly what the Conservatives are emulating. The problem in the States is excessive sentencing. The mandatory minimums that the Conservatives have put in place no way compare — it’s like “six months or 1 year” vs. 20 years in the States. Interestingly all of the studies that conclude “manadatory minimums” don’t work really should be saying excessive years in prison don’t work to reduce or deter crime. One of the things that mandatory minimums do is ensure some consistency for similar crimes across the country and they can deter crime to the extent that drug dealers, for example, at least know there is some definite penalty out there (depending on seriousness). At least some small time drug dealers continue to commit crimes where they know they are likely to get off. A good strategy for getting around this could be something along the lines of a “faint hope” type of arrangement, so when there clearly is a miscarriage of justice a person could pursue that route. I do not know why they do not have such a thing in the States for uses in cases such as the one described in the article. In Canada, the sentences just are not that extreme.
Since we’re up in arms about a 59-year-old father unjustly sentenced for defending himself, what about a 31-year-old woman sentenced for 20 years for firing a warning shot when threatened by her husband? Strange that this hasn’t already been in SDA in the past two years.
I suspect that this is the first anyone here has heard about this.
On the face of it I would suggest that the Alexander case is just as much a travesty as this Wollard case.
This should not be about mandatory minimums. It should be about prosecutorial discretion. He did not have to be charged the way he was charged. I am sure there are many other ways this prosecution could have proceeded. And the judge should have known that as well.
The prosecution and the judge are BOTH responsible for this travesty of justice.
The governor has the power to pardon.
Time for Governor Scott to step up.
Actually, mandatory sentence works if the idea is to get a criminal out of circulation.
As lawyers are wont to do, they begin to intellectualize and obfuscate (there is a lawyers definition) as to say to those that could not care less about their ramblings, have no actual brain activity save for lawyers lip.
As Lorne Russell on October 6, 2014 10:28 AM commented, that is the proper evaluation of the current situation.
You have to remember that lawyers are in it for their own glory. They are at times lower in the food chain than the criminals
Many a times, lawyer would say that he/she does not care who did what to whom, they are in it for a win. What happens to the poor sucker that did not do it is largely beside the point.
It is obvious, on the face of it and as per CBS news story, there is something wrong with the justice industry. Not necessarily with the law. It is the justice industry that came up with the law ignoring other circumstances.
To give one person, a judge, power over another person, depending on likes and dislikes, is equally unjust.
Some would give away too much to believe that some men/women are better than others.
Remember – fire the warning shot AFTER the kill shot. It’s really strange that firing a warning shot ay someone assaulting you can get 20 years but plugging the A$$hole between the eyes is legal.
Yep yep….gun control means using both hands….
I will call foul in this Wollard case.
1) the jury errered bigtime, knowing about the circumstances and the mandatory sentence. Too frequently jury selection is a critical factor.
2) Although juries are amateurs, the Judge and DA are alleged professionals.
The system has a check on prosecution abuse…..the judge may set aside a unanimous jury decision, or declare mistrial, if he deems the DA failed to prove his case or he deemed the jury was prejudicial. In most such cases the DA will not appeal or retry….
While this sentence is absurd, the guy made a mistake in firing a warning shot. That is a reckless action. The .357 round could have gone through the wall and killed a family member in the next room, or even through the wall of a nearby home, and killed or wounded a neighbour.
Authorities on the law of self-defense say to never fire a warning shot. If the perp or assailant refuses to believe that the weapon you carry is effective, or that you have the will to use it, let the discovery of the contrary be his funeral.
In fact, firing a warning shot could be taken by the perp as a sign that you are not willing to put a round or two in the boiler room, and might actually escalate the incident. Many cases of defensive weapons use are resolved with no shots being fired; the perp simply runs away when faced by an armed victim or responder.
EBD, you should have seen what I originally wrote to cally.
Sober second thought deleted it. People have _no idea_ how difficult 8 a day is.
I find it rather amusing that no Liberal or NDP ever won an election espousing Liberal or NDP policy regarding crime and punishment. They are all for being hard on criminals until such time as they win a seat and then they promptly return to their sloven ways under their respective political banners and proceed to vote as instructed by their whips.
Mandatory minimums means years of guaranteed revenue per bed for the congressman’s private investment group!
Gee, looks like we taxpayers are gonna have to build lots more prisons for ourselves…
Hey, no worries, I was just joshing. I took it the way you meant it.
I’ve never taken drive-by’s from first/one-time “commenters” seriously anyway.
8 a day probably makes it difficult to have a sober thought at all.
All kidding aside, SDA is the most interesting and refreshing site on the web for me.
Thanks very much.
I reconsidered making a comment on the Border Security thread a few minutes ago… something about missing women who were not Indian, but thought it might be construed as racist instead of merely humorous.
Let’s not forget that mandatory minimum sentences result from judges abusing their discretion in sentencing criminals to slaps on the wrist. Or the Canadian equivalent of a weekend in the sweat lodge. Criminals with violent repeat offences who receive light sentences outrage the public the most
He let a homeless 17 year old move into his home with his daughter. Definitely not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
“better to be judge by 12 than carried by 6” doesn’t even apply down there any more!
Home of the Free, land of the Brave………..We’ll at least this guy is brave.
“Remember – fire the warning shot AFTER the kill shot. It’s really strange that firing a warning shot ay someone assaulting you can get 20 years but plugging the A$$hole between the eyes is legal.” Scar
Only a punk uses a gun to threaten someone, or fires a threatening shot. That is a crime! Too many people think that a gun is an expression of power that can be used without consequence
The only legal use of a Gun is when the circumstances are life threatening and you intend to shot to kill. Empty the clip!
I saw the story on Sunday Morning: he was offered a plea deal, to plead out and would have rec’d probation. He refused, rolled the dice and got slammed. He, quite frankly, seemed like a bit of a dick who thought “I was in the right” and only now, when doing the time, has come to understand that maybe he was a bit of a dick and he should have taken the deal. But being a dick shouldn’t, in of itself, buy you 20 years in jail – that’s insane.
Anyway, these type of man-mins are garbage and with these insane results, have the unintended consequence of also “…bringing the administration of justice into disrepute”, the same way any “slap on the wrist” sentence does. No rational person, including victim advocates, can look at this case and say this was “a just sentence” and that “justice was done”. Even the kid who was said to have been “endangered” by the accused’s actions, supports his release from jail. The overcharging of alleged offenders with crimes that have man-mins is routinely used by these elected DA’s or ambitious prosecutors as leverage to extract guilty pleas on weak or non-existent cases – this is stuff worthy of a banana republic not a mature democracy.
And, speaking generally and safely from relatively sane Canada, the whole justice and regulatory system in the States has sunk to this level of allowing abuse, and “even the score” prosecutions, by unchecked petty political functionaries where they are intent on “making something stick” in Stalinist fashion to further their careers, or deal with perceived political enemies: just ask Connie Black, Martha Stewart or Tom DeLay. It’s come to the point that on any given day, in the US, you are committing some sort of crime or violating some Byzantine gov’t regulation, that, but for the grace of God, has simply not come to the attention of “the authorities” or it has not been seen as useful to prosecute you on, at least, not at this point it time. But your time may come…so keep your head down and hope you the State remains uninterested in you.
Mandatory minimums exist because the public does not trust judges. This story ain’t helping judges’ reputation.
“Only a punk uses a gun to threaten someone, or fires a threatening shot. That is a crime!”
He used the gun to stop the assault in his own home not to threaten an innocent person. The distinction is easy to comprehend, really. The fact that the law prohibits it but allows for the use of a gun in self defense (as it should allow) in similar circumstances is absurd and orwelian. He did the right thing. He has managed to protect his family without spilling any blood. Had I been on that jury he would never had been convicted. I hope the governor steps in and he is set free.
“It’s really strange that firing a warning shot ay someone assaulting you can get 20 years but plugging the A$$hole between the eyes is legal.”
In the universe inhabited by judges and lawyers, a “warning shot” means the assailant wasn’t trying to kill you.
The problem here is the definition of what’s “sufficient” with self defense. The only legal reason to discharge a firearm at someone is fear of immanent death. You can miss them, but you can’t warn them because that means the knife was not descending toward your jugular when you fired. A warning indicates the threat is either not deadly or not immanent.
In this case the father threatened this punk with a gun, and fired it too. You can’t do that. Warnings are supposed to be verbal. Actual hitting, cutting, shooting or otherwise maiming of the assailant is considered attempted murder unless they’re trying to kill you. Then its self defense.
Judges also like a fair fight. Stupidly enough, if you have a superior weapon to the assailant you are required to meet a different standard for diligence. In fact, in some states you are required to leave your house and run away from the assailant. If they follow you even then and still try to kill you, THEN and only then can you fire on them.
Yes, really.
That none of this makes any sense whatsoever in the real world will not save you from twenty-to-life for defending your home and family from a deadly threat.
Bottom line, if you are a thinking Canadian you will let the assailant burn your house down and sow salt in the ruins before defending it with a firearm. Because its cheaper in the long run to lose every stick you own than use violence on some ratbag robber/rapist/arsonist in Canada. Don’t ever doubt it. See Ian Thompson’s case for verification.
Also, it is better to move to another town or even another province than use force to dissuade a deranged suitor following your daughters around. Again, its cheaper. Teach those girls some discretion too, couldn’t hurt.
Remember friends, we are expected to dial 911 and die. Failure to do so will be punished severely.