Posted on 04/10/2014 5:53:29 PM PDT by narses
Tears flowed on both sides of a Spokane courtroom Thursday as a jury acquitted Gail Gerlach of manslaughter in the March 2013 death of Brendon Kaluza-Graham.
Gerlach’s wife, Sharon, wept and embraced her family as the verdict, not guilty on both a first-degree and second-degree manslaughter charge, was read in open court. Ann Kaluza-Graham, grandmother of the man shot dead trying to steal Gerlach’s SUV, burst into tears as she said her grandson never got a chance to answer theft charges or prove himself a changed person.
“This was a tragedy,” Gerlach said in a brief statement after the verdict was read. “As Christians, we believe in redemption. The greatest tragedy is that Mr. Brendon Kaluza-Graham will not have a chance to turn his life around.”
The family of the 25-year-old said they were disgusted with the way the media has portrayed Kaluza-Graham, saying their relative was made into a “one-dimensional thief.”
“He had hopes, and dreams,” Ann Kaluza said. She added “he was made into a poster boy for the angst of the community, a sacrificial lamb. That’s not right.”
Sharon Gerlach walked into Judge Annette Plese’s courtroom gripping the hand of her husband Thursday. Ann Kaluza said her heart was pounding as a packed courtroom waited for a verdict in the controversial case that Gerlach’s attorneys said was never about property crime.
“This case should have never been filed,” defense attorney David Stevens said. “This police handed this over without recommendations for a reason. You don’t take a vote on whether to file charges.”
The jury continued to deliberate Thursday afternoon as to whether the homicide could be deemed justified. If at least 10 jurors agree that Gerlach’s fatal shooting of Kaluza-Graham was justified self-defense, the public will end up paying for the trying of the case, which Stevens and colleague Richard Lee estimated to be close to $300,000.
Prosecutor Deric Martin told Kaluza-Graham’s family he was disappointed with the verdict and thanked them for their support. Many family members were present throughout the trial, which began with jury selection March 31.
Jurors rejected arguments from prosecutors Gerlach acted recklessly when he fired his semiautomatic handgun once through the rear window of his SUV as Kaluza-Graham drove away the morning of March 25, 2013. They also rejected the lesser claim he acted with criminal negligence, a requisite for second-degree manslaughter.
Trust me. In a rural area, it is much easier for someone to get away with theft at night. Think barns, shop buildings, etc.
I seriously doubt this was the first evil and voluntary act this thug performed that would require redemption. Or the tenth.
Society is just fortunate that this unredeemed thug did not snuff out one or more innocent victims' lives.
My sympathy quotient? -10.
“Do not steal” was called a Commandment, not a suggestion for a reason.
” I’m writing clear, cogent sentences. “
An opinion, a self serving one.
Arrest is to stop. He was stopped. That is clear. And cogent.
For Washington State. The “fleeing felon” rule is for police officers - not citizens.
Legislative recognition: “The legislature recognizes that RCW 9A.16.040 establishes a dual standard with respect to the use of deadly force by peace officers and private citizens, and further recognizes that private citizens’ permissible use of deadly force under the authority of RCW 9.01.200, 9A.16.020, or 9A.16.050 is not restricted and remains broader than the limitations imposed on peace officers.” [1986 c 209 § 3.]
9A.16.050
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.
Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or
(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.
[2011 c 336 § 354; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.050.]
ping to post 66. The stuff you posted pertains to police and people aiding the police. Post 66 has the law as pertains to this case I think. Well - not really, as Mr. Gerlach claimed self-defense.
I was wondering if the jury had not believed that it was in self-defense, if his attorneys could have brought up the ACTUAL LAW - that says the shooting didn’t need to be a self-defense issue. Or perhaps that would have been for another trial.
Regardless - glad for a happy ending - but with a year of his life ruined. Saw on his facebook page he is out having dinner with his wife and friends. What a relief!
“...and people aiding the police.”
He did. He stopped a violent, repeat offender meth head who was depriving him of his livelihood - and who threatened his life.
A jury agreed with that point of view.
Granny provided the defective genes which resulted in the demon seed that produced this out of control sociopath. The proof is her blathering his “innocence”.
Have her arrested & DNA samples taken by force for further analysis.
Looks like that was the justification;
"In the moments before pulling his weapon and firing, Gerlach said he saw what he thought was a gun in Kaluza-Graham’s right hand. He said he could only see silhouettes, but was afraid Kaluza-Graham was pointing a pistol at him through his back window.
“I thought, ‘This is it,’” Gerlach said."
My post was not “babbling” by any stretch of the imagination. I don’t always express my ideas well, but I’ve written clearly and cogently enough to earn my living as a writer for thirty years.
There are other ways of stopping people besides shooting them. For a person to use deadly force, there needs to be explicit authorization, as in the Texas law, or as in self-defense laws. Gerlach himself didn’t say he was making an arrest. He “...told the jury that he shot because he believed if he didn’t, he would have been killed. ‘I thought I had to shoot to stop a threat that was in front of me,’ Gerlach said.”
“There are other ways of stopping people besides shooting them.”
OK, tell us how else anyone could have stopped the meth-head?
Thanks for pointing that out.
In this case the justification for the use of deadly force was self-defense. (As far as I know, meth-heads in general are not in season.)
He's definitely a changed person now. He's worm food. Hope grandma follows in his steps soon.
Feel free to post a rebuttal to the left-wingnut losers.
When exactly did he change? During the run from the SUV?
You certainly can in Texas.
> You certainly can in Texas.
Yes, note that after seeing the Texas law, I conceded that in post 58. The Washington law is less clear, though, and Gerlach sought acquittal on the basis of self-defense.
[Sorry for the length of this post and the next, but interpreting the Washington law isn’t easy, and I’m not a lawyer.]
The Washington law isn’t as clear as the Texas law, and as you point out, Gerlach claimed self-defense. Section (1) starts out, “In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company,...” Why name those particular relatives (leaving out uncles, aunts, grandparents, and others — expendable?) when it’s about to add, “or of any other person in his or her presence or company,...” They are all included anyway.
That makes me suspect right away that common sense isn’t going to be used in choosing terms for this law. :-) It continues, “...when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished.” So why not just say that homicide is justifiable to prevent a felony or other great harm to persons — and property, if property is included — when there’s reasonable ground to believe that the slain person had the intent to commit it, and there is imminent danger of it being accomplished?
The earlier passage that speaks of “lawful defense” is limited to a “person in his or her presence or company”. If mere protection of property is adequate justification, why must the danger be to someone in his or her presence or company? (Also I wonder whether that “lawful defense” and “danger” apply to property or to persons at risk during the commission of a crime against property.)
If I’m standing with my neighbor in my yard, and I see a thief stealing something from my neighbor’s yard, can I shoot the thief? Maybe. If my neighbor isn’t in my presence, though, apparently I can’t, which is odd if the purpose of the law is to protect property too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.