CHL/CCW holder freed after 2 1/2 years!

[littlegator]

XavierBreath +1
Dwarren123 +1

Bad situation all around compounded by overzealous DA. Fortunately for defendant, he had money to pay for a defense. Most public defenders would have settled for manslaughter. (Unverifiable fact that just happens to be true... )

 

[El Tejon]

The next time the Portland police shoot a man to death can someone call Kirsten Snowden and see if she will prosecute the police for acting in self-defense? Maybe Matt can go on television and ask if Ms. Snowden will be prosecuting the police?

Matt, I say what I always say in cases like this, go give thanks and then go have fun. Living well is the best revenge.

 

[Deavis]

I know you all know what I mean. We've all dealt with a drunk before. Even when they're aggressive, 99.9% of the time you wouldn't have justified usage.

That statement makes me wonder what kind of experience you have dealing with drunks. Maybe 99.9% of the time your drunken friends are easy to deal with but let's not discount the rest of the world where drunks are immune to reason, have lowered inhibitions, higher pain tolerance, and lack the common courtesy to tell you they were just kidding about killing you as they throw a 50 some odd pound concrete object around.

Honestly, your statement reminds of those people that say, "How could you shoot someone, just runaway. I mean, it isn't worth killing them over!" Easy to say when you aren't being attacked. Ever try to run away from someone who is fixated on catching you? Doesn't work out too well. My life is definitely worth more to me than someone who has threatened to kill me and appears to be making good on the threat. Maybe yours isn't, but that is up to you. I've even debated a logical moron who told me that he would rather die than defend his own life.

Declared threat on life, means to carry it out, attempting to carry it out = neutralization.

 

[Robert Hairless]

One of the articles quotes the DA as saying that she "was going to prove with overwhelming evidence that the defendant did not fear for his life the night he put five bullets in the chest of his friend."

But she didn't. I wonder how often Kristen Snowden puffs her capabilities, whether the public realizes that her word can't be trusted, how many people are serving time based on her unproven claim to being a mindreader, and why judges allow her to behave that way. Her style suggests that she would do very well selling Feemsters on television informercials.

Hearty congratulations, Matt.

 

[scbair]

Re: "trial by jury" versus "trial by judge," one old adage is:

"If you're guilty, go for a trial by jury. If the jury is 'dumbed down' sufficiently, you just may fool 'em. If you're really innocent, go for a trial by judge. The judge will not be fooled . . ."

 

[Double Naught Spy]

But she didn't. I wonder how often Kristen Snowden puffs her capabilities, whether the public realizes that her word can't be trusted, how many people are serving time based on her unproven claim to being a mindreader, and why judges allow her to behave that way. Her style suggests that she would do very well selling Feemsters on television informercials.

It isn't a question of why judges let Snowden behave that way at all. As near as I can tell, lawyers on both sides often claim to have convincing arguments. Defense lawyers will claim that charges have no validity or that there is overwhelming evidence of innocence. Prosecutors will claim cases to be clear cut.

 

[Robert Hairless]

DNS, no argument that lawyers on both sides often claim to have convincing arguments. It also makes sense. An effective advocate should have confidence in his argument or else at least feign that confidence. That's not what I meant.

I see the role of a District Attorney as being the advocate for truth. If a D.A. truly is confident that there was a crime and that the person committed it, she should be able to articulate her reasons to the judge and jury with confidence. If she is not convinced she should modify her theory of the case or not pursue it at all. The D.A. should not feign confidence so as to puff her position to the public or attempt to try the case before the public. I don't object if the defense does those things as long as it stays within fairly loose bounds of reasonability and propriety. It's not the function of a D.A. to convict those innocent of the crime of which they're accused or even those who might have done it. It is the function of the defense attorney to advocate as strongly as possible for his client even if, in his heart of hearts, the defense attorney believes that his client might have done the crime or most assuredly did do it. The roles are different, and the burden must be heavier on the D.A. than on the defense because the state has infinitely greater raw power. Otherwise, I think, we're all in trouble.

No need to laugh at my naivete: I know that it's not how many District Attornies behave. That's why I said that I didn't understand why the judge allowed her behavior. One of the judge's roles should be to ensure a fair trial for the accused and, therefore, to limit the state's raw power against him. Even wealthy, powerful people cannot match the state's power: Martha Stewart, for example, couldn't and neither can others.

 

[jefnvk]

Honestly, your statement reminds of those people that say, "How could you shoot someone, just runaway. I mean, it isn't worth killing them over!" Easy to say when you aren't being attacked. Ever try to run away from someone who is fixated on catching you? Doesn't work out too well. My life is definitely worth more to me than someone who has threatened to kill me and appears to be making good on the threat. Maybe yours isn't, but that is up to you. I've even debated a logical moron who told me that he would rather die than defend his own life.

I believe the gist of the post was more that someone being drunk isn't a solid defense. Being drunk, uncontrollable, violent is different.

I don't like being around drunks with a gun at all. If for no other reason, that when problems start, I don't want anythign I did beforehand to be construed as being an agressor. It is way too easy to set drunks off sometimes.

 

[El Tejon]

“The duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict.”

American Bar Association, Standards for Criminal Justice, Prosecution Function

 

[Diggers]

Interesting read all around.

To throw in my .02, I think there may have been a couple of reasons why Matt was charged.

From what I have read, state self defense laws often get fuzzy(er) when some one is shot in self defense with in their own residence, as happened in this case. They were room mates This leaves open loop holes a DA could exploit if they want to.

Secondly Portland is a pretty liberal city which will have a lot of anti-gun politicians pushing a DA (who I’m sure is in their camp anyhow) to bring charges in a case like this.

I think how they see it is, in court it will be the (oh so trust worthy) word of the Government against the word of some guy who carries a gun. (who thus must be shady) So they go for it to make them selves look good to the liberal voters.

I’m real glad it didn’t turn out as they envisioned things would for you Matt

 

[kd7nqb]

Glad to see it all worked out, even though it cost 250k to prove it.

 

[Cougfan2]

This is a perfect example of why we need Castle Doctrine here in Oregon, but good luck getting it passed by our legislature.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Thanks EL T. for insight into what the prosecutor is supposed to do. Very good.

This is a perfect example of why we need Castle Doctrine here in Oregon,

Castle Doctrine would not apply here, I don't think. Matt would still have been arrested and charged whether castle doctrine was in effect or not. Why? Because of the apparent belief that Matt illegally used lethal force when (as the prosecutor claimed) he wasn't in fear for his life. Castle Doctrine does not protect illegal acts.

I didn't see any mention of a duty to retreat being mentioned.

With that said, castle doctrine is a good thing, but I don't think this is a clear case for it. Additionally, I am not sure how Castle Doctrine would apply here given that the location of the shooting was the castle for both the actors as they were roommates.

 

[Gray Peterson]

As I pointed out, Oregon is not a "castle doctrine"/"duty to retreat" state. It's a stand your ground state per Sandoval.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Okay, so then castle doctrine would have offered absolutely nothing to this case, it sounds like.

 

[Zundfolge]

“The duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict.”

American Bar Association, Standards for Criminal Justice, Prosecution Function

Well I don't know whether to laugh or cry ... laugh because the statement is so clearly naive or cry because thats how it SHOULD be but isn't.

 

[thewhiterabbit420]

i know what kidna person he is he is my brother inlaw

he is a good man he wouldnt of done what he did unless he had to