Drug dealer shoots and kills man in defense of friend

Status
Not open for further replies.

Archetype

Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2004
Messages
2
Location
Marysville, Wa
Earlier reports said the gun used was a GLOCK 9mm, He was trying to buy Oxycontin.
This is my first Attempt to post, should I change anything or add?


Man acquitted in parking lot killing
The jury agrees that the defendant shot a Darrington man to protect a friend.

By Jim Haley
Herald Writer

An Eastern Washington man admitted he was a drug dealer, but denied he was a murderer.

A Snohomish County Superior Court jury agreed Wednesday when it acquitted Matthew Steven Young, 21, of first-degree murder -- a charge that could have put him behind bars for at least 25 years.

Young and his attorney, Pete Mazzone of Everett, hugged jubilantly, and members of the Young family let out a cry of relief when the clerk read the verdict.

The jury deliberated about nine hours after a nearly three-week trial before reaching a unanimous decision in Judge George Bowden's courtroom.

Young was charged in the shooting death of Shawn Tuohy, 23, of Darrington, who died in the parking lot of a restaurant early on July 21 after Young shot him once in the head.

The jury did not agree with deputy prosecutor Helene Blume that Young was an accomplice in a robbery attempt of Tuohy, who had come to Island Crossing near Arlington to buy drugs from Young; his father, Daniel Lawrence Young, 46; and Bryce William Howe, 19. All three are residents of Newport, northeast of Spokane.

The three came to the Arlington area to meet Tuohy and sell him a powerful painkiller for about $1,100, according to testimony.

The prosecution's case hinged on convincing the jury that the three plotted to rob Tuohy, with Howe coming out of the bushes with a wrench intending to knock Tuohy out. Howe was the only one of the three Tuohy didn't know.

When he failed to knock out Tuohy, Howe ran away while Tuohy got his pistol and fired two shots at the fleeing man.

Mazzone argued that Young had no choice but to shoot Tuohy, who was shooting at a close friend. He also argued that the robbery was Howe's idea, not his client's.

"I think it's the right verdict," Mazzone said, adding that he believed Young had a right to use deadly force to save his friend.

Blume was disappointed.

"The jury wasn't able to hear certain evidence," she said. "If they had heard all the evidence, the decision might have been different."

Howe pleaded guilty earlier to second-degree murder and agreed to testify against both the Youngs.

The first-degree murder case against Daniel Young is still pending, Blume said.

Matthew Young's grandfather, Larry Young, and several other relatives attended the trial.

"I feel just fantastic," Larry Young said. "I knew there was a lot the jury never heard, so I knew there wasn't a robbery planned. It's just tragic Shawn had to die. It was just a chain of events that rolled downhill, and it shouldn't have."

Tuohy's grandmother, Gloria Godwin of Darrington, said her grandson had been living with her and helping her take care of his grandfather. She said Matthew Young spending decades in prison wouldn't bring her grandson back, but she hopes this changes his life.
 
Wow, 3 guys meet one guy to sell him drugs. One of the 3 guys hides in the bushes and tries to split his head open with a wrench and rob him. The lone guy shoots at the attempted robber/murderer, gets shot for his trouble by one of the other two (drug dealers) and it was justified as defense??:confused:

What happened to death caused while during the commission of a felony being murder? It shouldn't matter if the other two knew there was a robbery planned or not. What evidence could possibly prove they didn't know? Oh yeah, the sworn statements of drug dealers...and attempted robbers. :rolleyes:

This backs up what I learned my first year as a CJ major. Always take a trial by jury, don't plea. I know we gun owners like to talk about the likelyhood of getting thrown in the pen after a self defense shooting, but a jury is much more likely to acquit especially if you were actually justified!

Welcome to The High Road...good post and food for thought.
 
A rather strange situation, but as I wasn't in court and didn't hear any of the testimony & evidence, I'm inclined to go with the "innocent until proven guilty" line.

Even disgusting drug dealers have a right to defend themselves.

Archetype, good post. Don't think you need to do anything (other than a link to the original article--we like to have easy access to the source article).
 
Oh, and welcome to THR.

yl2jump.gif


We're a strange group.
 
The whole thing stinks.

I can't say the slain man was innocent, as he was in the process of committing a crime by buying drugs, on the other hand, if a group of thugs attack you and you draw a weapon, you can now be rest assured that if a non-combatant in the gang of thugs shoots you dead, he won't be convicted.
:barf:
 
Even disgusting drug dealers have a right to defend themselves.

I agree, and also would like more details...but the guy was shot during a drug transaction after one of the dealers tried to kill him. If two guys walk up to you and one pulls a knife and tries to rob you and you shoot at him, the 2nd guy can't shoot you to protect his friend and claim self defense, and then say he didn't know his friend was gonna rob you. (at least he shouldn't be able to and get away with it)

I would love to know if there were other witnessess besides the 3 dealers. Not likely since they were doing a drug deal.

If the guy TRULY didn't know about the robbery, then he should have a) ran and let his robber friend take his chances for bringin' a wrench to a gun fight. or b) protected his friend knowing he would probably go down for murder or at least manslaughter for killing someone during the commission of a felony (Drug dealing and robbery) and if he didn't associate with drug dealers and robbers he would never be in that position. He obviously made choice b) and the jury should have convicted him...at least as the facts were presented in the article.

His robber friend made the "victims" shooting in self-defense necessary. The shooter could have chosen not to be there in the first place. It goes both ways too...the "victim" would be alive if he didn't try to purchase illegal drugs as well.

Actually, if the wrench holder was running away, then the "victim" couldn't shoot him in defense any longer, and would probably be alive if he focused on the two potential threats still in front of him, he could have shot them both dead and been justified...except maybe for the fact that it happened while he was trying to buy drugs...but a much better defense than from the dealer/robber point of view. Not to mention the obvious disparity of force being 3 on 1 and the use of a weapon by one of the 3 dealers first. At least the wrench dude went down for murder. Just my opinion (which obviously doesn't count cause the jury didn't consult me:D ) Odd and interesting case.
 
So, the moral of this story is, to insure you'll not have any legal troubles after a SD shooting, start dealing drugs and conspiring to comit murder.

Got it. Makes perfect sense, thank you very much Society. I now will go throw up on my lawn.
 
When he failed to knock out Tuohy, Howe ran away while Tuohy got his pistol and fired two shots at the fleeing man.

I suspect this is why he didn't get convicted.

Shooting at a fleeing man is not self defense. That's probably why the jury felt Young was justified in shooting Tuohy.

I would also thing that Young committed several felonies through the process of attempting to sell drugs. If he did commit a felony, then he should have been charged with felony murder despite the fact that he killed Tuohy while protecting his friend. His two accomplices should have also been charged with felony murder.

From what little I know it seems strange that they charged them with first degree murder. If it was a premeditated murder, why did Tuohy Howe hit Tuohy with a wrench? Why not use a better weapon such as the gun Young was carrying?

I don't know enough about how the law works, but it seems like the prosecutor charged them with the wrong crime.
 
thats really lame and depressing.
One of the first examples I've read of people being shot and killed over relatively small amounts of non-crack, coke, heroin, or meth drugs.

atek3
 
I don't know about this one.

I guess we would have to be there to really know what happenned, but it looks like stupidity all around.
 
"The jury wasn't able to hear certain evidence,"

This practice really frosts me:mad:

How can a jury reach a "fair" verdict when evidence is selectively suppressed?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top