Marshal kills Utah gang defendant who rushed court witness

[JerryBaumchen 1,445]

Hi out there in B-F-Land,

I worked for the federal gov't for 30 yrs so I am aware that all of the 't's need to be crossed and all of the 'i's have to be dotted. But this just struck me as odd:

Judge Tena Campbell declared a mistrial . . . "The court finds that this occurrence in the courtroom would so prejudice Mr. Angilau as to deprive him of a fair trial,"

What fair trial, he's dead.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/21/justice/utah-federal-courthouse-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2



JerryBaumchen

[akarunway 1]

Too bad the lawyers didn't catch a couple. Think he emptied the mag. A little overkill me thinks.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[wayneflorida 0]

***Hi out there in B-F-Land,

I worked for the federal gov't for 30 yrs so I am aware that all of the 't's need to be crossed and all of the 'i's have to be dotted. But this just struck me as odd:

Judge Tena Campbell declared a mistrial . . . "The court finds that this occurrence in the courtroom would so prejudice Mr. Angilau as to deprive him of a fair trial,"

What fair trial, he's dead.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/21/justice/utah-federal-courthouse-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It was a very fair trial.

As for the mistrial.
He was alive but died at the hospital or maybe he had co defendants.

"Angilau was one of nine alleged members of the Tongan Crip Gang charged in a 2010 indictment with racketeering conspiracy"

[BillyVance 34]

Judge should have said "Guess the defendant is dead, so the trial is over. Next!"

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[havoc996 0]

akarunway

Too bad the lawyers didn't catch a couple. Think he emptied the mag. A little overkill me thinks.

Fired 6 shots. Contrary to the movies it usually takes a few to actually stop a human especially one full of adrenaline. Any military or LE will tell you once you've decided to take a life you fire till the threat is eliminated. He had a fraction of a second to make that decision not ample time to think and discuss options. He managed to kill the suspect and not harm anyone else in a full courtroom. Job well done IMHO.

Trail mix? Oh, you mean M&M's with obstacles.

[CSpenceFLY 1]

JerryBaumchen

Hi out there in B-F-Land,

I worked for the federal gov't for 30 yrs so I am aware that all of the 't's need to be crossed and all of the 'i's have to be dotted. But this just struck me as odd:

Judge Tena Campbell declared a mistrial . . . "The court finds that this occurrence in the courtroom would so prejudice Mr. Angilau as to deprive him of a fair trial,"

What fair trial, he's dead.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/21/justice/utah-federal-courthouse-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2



JerryBaumchen

The first article I read said he was wounded. May explain the judges actions. It does speak to the fucked up that is our legal system though. If you attack a witness in the court room you deserve a jury that is prejudice against you.

[Andy9o8 2]

Hi Jerry. I saw the story this morning. When I read your thread title I hoped that a mature discussion of the subject would be possible. Not sure of that from what I've seen subsequent to your OP so far, but I'll give it a ...shot.

I've worked in and observed courtrooms all over the US for over 30 years. Security in criminal-case courtrooms is frequently poor, and leads to the potential for incidents like this. In many other countries, defendants are seated in a secure "dock", but that isn't done in the US because (among other reasons) that inhibits the kind of immediate private conversation between lawyer and client that (believe me) really is necessary to effect "right to counsel" during a trial.

If the only or best way to prevent or stop this from happening was to shoot the defendant in the courtroom, then security had already utterly failed before he ever jumped out of his chair. Perhaps he could have been cuffed to his table, although that visual image creates a constitutional grey area itself with a jury trial. Clearly, there were not enough security officers posted near the defendant's chair. That aside, this could have been prevented by proper courtroom design: creating physical barriers between the defense table, the witness box, and the rest of the courtroom.

I'm only sympathetic for the witness that got attacked. Of course the defendant made his own bed, but I don't have much sympathy for the security personnel, either. They totally fucked this up.

[JohnMitchell 16]

havoc996

Any military or LE will tell you once you've decided to take a life you fire till the threat is eliminated.

I've always said "decision to stop a threat"

Quote

He had a fraction of a second to make that decision not ample time to think and discuss options. He managed to kill the suspect and not harm anyone else in a full courtroom. Job well done IMHO.

Couldn't agree with you more.

Live a violent life, die a violent death.

[JohnMitchell 16]

Thanks for the interesting viewpoints. Prevention would have been the better solution here.

[JerryBaumchen 1,445]

Hi Andy,

Quote

I hoped that a mature discussion of the subject would be possible.

My thoughts on posting it were rather tongue in cheek.

However, I do agree with your thoughts ( don't I usually? ).

A good many years ago here, in Portland, OR, we had a guy going through a divorce who came into to court and shot and killed his wife's attorney and his wife.

Needless to say, things were changed substantially after that happened.

I think that it is a tough balance; we don't want the defendant(s) to look like criminals ( therefore not in handcuffs, etc ), we want then to be able to confront their accusers, talk w/their attorney, etc. Yet we also want civility in the courtroom; otherwise it would be anarchy and I doubt anyone would want that.

As to when the judge made the ruling on the mistrial, I did not know that the defendant was not dead right on the spot.

JerryBaumchen

[havoc996 0]

"If the only or best way to prevent or stop this from happening was to shoot the defendant in the courtroom, then security had already utterly failed before he ever jumped out of his chair."


This is 100% true. there are plenty of ways to secure a defendant without his hands being bound. Ankle shackles and a ring on the floor would do. Nobody would see them and the defendant could appear free. when moving then you make sure a guard has hands on. Either way, given the circumstances this agent acted when everyone else probably just gasped and pointed or hid in fear.

Trail mix? Oh, you mean M&M's with obstacles.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

When you are actually serious, you make good points Andy.

Of course when you are being silly and sarcastic, you make good points too.

I agree that use of deadly force should never have been necessary. There are plenty of ways to prevent or defend against that sort of attack, from restraints to having the defendant in a different room (video conferenced in with attorneys in both places) to a "wall of muscle" in the form of several large bailiffs.

Wisconsin courts sometimes use a "Taser Belt" on potentially unruly defendants. It's a standard Taser setup inside a belt, with the probes already touching the skin. A bailiff has a remote control to activate the power if needed.
It's put under the clothing, so it isn't visible to prejudice the juries. Of course, it wouldn't work if it wasn't.

I've always thought it was a rather elegant way to handle any "problem children" in court.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo