US Merchant Marine
US AIr Force
AA Law Enforcement and Protection
BA Social Science
Rot in hell, where you belong. Even at the very end, you did the right things for the wrong reasons, after doing the wrong things for the right reasons for way too long. Great show, scummy guy.
Crime is down, police shootings are down three years in a row. Retention in APD is down too? Maybe the right people have been leaving?
The Journal has yet another article about stand your ground in NM.
Their position: since we have no specific stand your ground statute, we are not a stand your ground state.
Two very good attorney's and a district court judge disagree with them. I thought they explained it very well, but the Journal missed the point. Again.
If there is no duty to retreat in NM, and a state supreme court case makes it very clear there is not (State v Horton, 1953), we are a stand your ground state even if a statute/law does not say we are.
Making the same mistake twice doesn't make the Journal right, it makes them twice as wrong.
Judge Malott wrote in today's Journal (again) that New Mexico IS a stand your ground jurisdiction (state). While he was at it, he said New Mexico clearly adopted the Castle Doctrine too.
That's 3 times he's said NM is a stand your ground jurisdiction/state in the Journal: 4/9/12, 5/21/12, and 7/29/13.
It may surprise some of you to learn the Land of Enchantment is also a stand your ground jurisdiction. Some 32 states have such laws in varying form. In New Mexico, "A person who is threatened with an attack need not retreat. In the exercise of his right to self-defense, he may stand his ground and defend himself."
There is no duty to retreat from an actual or reasonably perceived attack in Stand Your Ground states like Florida, New Mexico, and about two dozen others.
Both are variations of the Stand Your Ground Concept. (comparing FL and NM)
We apply the concept differently than FL and someother states, but we are what we are.
Judge Malott is writing about this again in the Journal on 7/29/13.
Maybe somebody should ask the 20,000 people licensed to carry concealed guns in NM what they think, and why?
There is no duty to retreat in NM self defense law, but you may find yourself prosecuted and convicted if you stand your ground when the DA/judge/jury think you should have retreated.
Or not been there in the first place, even if it's a place you have a right to be in, as Donnie Pearson may find out.
OK, I think I know what the reporter was trying to say in that Journal article. NM is NOT the type of stand your ground state FL is where you can get a hearing that makes you immune from prosecution.
However, NM IS the type of stand your ground state where you do not have a duty to retreat. You don't have to retreat, but if you don't, the DA may decide to prosecute, and the judge/jury may decide to convict. Clear as mud, eh?
The Journal has an article today that says NM is not a stand your ground state.
Judge Malott wrote in the Journal on April 9, 2012 that it was:
It may surprise some of you to learn the Land of Enchantment is also a stand your ground jurisdiction. Some 32 states have such laws in varying form. In New Mexico, "A person who is threatened with an attack need not retreat. In the exercise of his right to self-defense, he may stand his ground and defend himself." Unlike Florida, New Mexico does not specifically require you to be in a place you have a right to be, only that you be "threatened with an attack."
From the Uniform Jury Instructions – Criminal
14-5190. Self defense; assailed person need not retreat.
A person who is threatened with an attack need not retreat. In the exercise of his right to self-defense, he may stand his ground and defend himself.
The committee commentary states: A person need not retreat, even though he could do so safely. See State v Horton, 57 N.M. 257, 258 P.2d 371 (1953)
If the legal experts are confused, how do the rest of us figure it out?
I don't like it, but I get it.
A man who was presumed innocent was acquitted when there was reasonable doubt as to his guilt. That's justice; applying the rule of law fairly to everyone, even the guilty.
I don't think it happened the way Z says it did. The problem is too much of the evidence was inconclusive. It suggested a lot both ways, but proved little either way. Z got the benefit of that doubt.
I lean toward Z killed M when it wasn't necessary, but the proof beyond a reasonable doubt it was murder or manslaughter just wasn't there. I would have acquitted him too, but I would not have been happy about it.
The people who think there was no doubt he was innocent, or no doubt he was guilty, for whatever reason, concern me more than all the other issues in this case. Ask yourself how and why you got there, because the evidence sure doesn't take anyone to sure innocence or guilt.
This stuff should be as legal as tobacco, or tobacco should be as illegal...