A Case for Jury Nullification...

[Seth]

...if ever I've seen one.

Crime
What the Justice System Did to This Father After He Beat Up a Naked Peeping Tom Outside His Daughters’ Window Has Neighbors Fuming
Sep. 10, 2013 9:46am Liz Klimas

Some are finding it hard to believe that a father who beat up a naked peeping Tom outside his daughters’ window is now facing charges.
emilio chavez

Emilio Chavez has been charged for beating an alleged peeping Tom, but neighbors don’t agree with the legal action that could be taken against the father. (Image via KRQE video screenshot)

According to KRQE-TV, Emilio Chavez III of Albuquerque allegedly beat Dylan Maho so badly after he found the man naked outside his home that he has been charged with aggravated battery. Maho had to be taken to the hospital in critical condition but is now stable.

The incident occurred Thursday around 2:30 a.m. when family members heard something outside of the 13 and 15-year-old girls’ window.

“The bushes were shaking. Then she heard groaning and moaning,” the teenagers’ mother Katrina Chavez told KRQE. “My oldest son went out, said ‘What are you doing?’ and then discovered he was naked.”

A 911 call was made, but when police arrived they found that the girls’ father, brother and a friend had apparently chased Maho down the street. When police found Maho, he had been beaten.

“We have a lot of concerns when victims provoke any kinds of attacks or pursue their attackers even if it’s with good reason, for instance in this situation where you have your children being victimized,” Albuquerque Police Department Officer Tasia Martinez told KRQE.

But neighbors have come to Chavez’s defense:

“I think it’s a shame,” said Bill Morang, a nearby neighbor. “How do you think rationally when something like that happens? You defend your family, its basic instinct.”

“I’d probably done the same thing,” added Michael Felter, another neighbor.

[...]

“I would do absolutely the same thing to protect my family, and I think any, like I said yesterday, I think any man or father or would the same thing to protect them,” said Morang.

“Anything that’s going to destroy a family and a neighborhood because of a Peeping Tom looking naked inside of a child’s house, it’s absolutely wrong,” said Felter.

bill morang

Bill Morang has spoken to local news stations in defense of the father who he said was just protecting his family. (Image via KOAT video screenshot)

“We’ve got a father, a young father, who could lose everything because of this one person,” neighbor Michael Salter told KOAT-TV, expressing his disbelief at the situation.

Watch KOAT’s report:

The neighbors also noted to KRQE that they had been trying to shield their children from sex parties Maho had been throwing at his home only a couple doors down. The local news station did find invitations online to such parties that match Maho’s address.

Morang said neighbors call him “the nudist” and noted that after the weekend they occasionally find condom wrappers in the street, according to KOB-TV.

“I would’ve done a little worse than what happened to him and I think any man or dad would do the same,” Morang continued. “I feel bad for the other guy and I hope nothing bad happens to him for protecting his family. I think he did what’s right.”

Once in better condition, police are expected to charge Maho with voyeurism, which is a fourth degree felony when committed against victims who are minors.

Chavez’s aggravated battery charge though could be a third degree felony if “great bodily harm” was inflicted.

Speaking with KRQE, Chavez said he was so angry, he doesn’t remember chasing down Maho and that he wishes he didn’t beat him so badly. The station noted Chavez having a criminal record for child abuse and domestic violence.

[JimC]

There was ample justification for chasing him down and restraining him, and if that involved a punch or two, fair enough.

But that is not unlimited license to beat someone to a pulp.

[klr]

There was ample justification for chasing him down and restraining him, and if that involved a punch or two, fair enough.

But that is not unlimited license to beat someone to a pulp.

Indeed. Anything beyond that is just taking the law into one's own hands.

[piscator]

"Mr Chavez, what's your plea?"
"Temporary insanity."
"Plea is accepted, I have a daughter too. The court date is set for 2 weeks from today."

[Seth]

There was ample justification for chasing him down and restraining him, and if that involved a punch or two, fair enough.

But that is not unlimited license to beat someone to a pulp.

Indeed. Anything beyond that is just taking the law into one's own hands.

Yup. Which makes it appropriate for him to be tried. And the circumstances are such that I say that a jury should nullify the law in this particular circumstance because to subject him to prison would constitute a miscarriage of justice. That's the role of the jury to begin with, and it has every right to find him not guilty by nullification because their duty is to dispense justice, not be blindly bound to the letter of the law.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

If they knew who he was and where he lived then why bother beating him up in public and calling the police (a moron would have known the outcome of this) ?
Should have just let him go and then sorted it out at a later time...'in private'.

Edit - Good to see the jury did the right thing, anyway.

[Seth]

If they knew who he was and where he lived then why bother beating him up in public and calling the police (a moron would have known the outcome of this) ?
Should have just let him go and then sorted it out at a later time...'in private'.

Edit - Good to see the jury did the right thing, anyway.

Should have put him in a hole in the desert...

[Warren Dew]

There was ample justification for chasing him down and restraining him, and if that involved a punch or two, fair enough.

But that is not unlimited license to beat someone to a pulp.

Indeed. Anything beyond that is just taking the law into one's own hands.

Yup. Which makes it appropriate for him to be tried. And the circumstances are such that I say that a jury should nullify the law in this particular circumstance because to subject him to prison would constitute a miscarriage of justice. That's the role of the jury to begin with, and it has every right to find him not guilty by nullification because their duty is to dispense justice, not be blindly bound to the letter of the law.

I'd argue that a conviction, but a sentence of probation only, would be a more appropriate way of avoiding imprisonment in this case. Granted that relies on a sentencing judge rather than a jury.

Now, if this case came to trial, jury nullification might be in order, unless you think it's justifiable homicide:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/06 ... -released/

[Svartalf]

Why jury nullification? The guy is a dangerously violent specimen, he has to be judged, but if he plays his cards right, there won't be any call for nullification... at any rate, if he doesn't play his cards right, he amply deserves the fine and likely suspended jail sentence he has coming.

[Coito ergo sum]

There was ample justification for chasing him down and restraining him, and if that involved a punch or two, fair enough.

But that is not unlimited license to beat someone to a pulp.

Indeed. Anything beyond that is just taking the law into one's own hands.

Yup. Which makes it appropriate for him to be tried. And the circumstances are such that I say that a jury should nullify the law in this particular circumstance because to subject him to prison would constitute a miscarriage of justice. That's the role of the jury to begin with, and it has every right to find him not guilty by nullification because their duty is to dispense justice, not be blindly bound to the letter of the law.

I think his lawyers could argue justification in terms of a defense of others. Shootings by women of their abusive spouses have been deemed justified even outside of an immediate threat. Here they can assert that the man thought he was defending his daughters from a prowler who meant to do them harm. He may have been wrong, but not unreasonable in that belief.

Or, the jury could just find him not guilty. They never have to explain.

[Coito ergo sum]

I find someone outside my daughter's window, naked and "moaning" -- he's going to get a bat taken to him. If I have a gun at the time, I might shoot him.

[pErvinalia]

There was ample justification for chasing him down and restraining him, and if that involved a punch or two, fair enough.

But that is not unlimited license to beat someone to a pulp.

Indeed. Anything beyond that is just taking the law into one's own hands.

Yup. Which makes it appropriate for him to be tried. And the circumstances are such that I say that a jury should nullify the law in this particular circumstance because to subject him to prison would constitute a miscarriage of justice. That's the role of the jury to begin with, and it has every right to find him not guilty by nullification because their duty is to dispense justice, not be blindly bound to the letter of the law.

I don't know what "nullification" is, but you can't really allow vigilante justice, particularly in this situation where they chased him down and he wasn't posing an immediate threat to anyone. What the family did was wrong, but perhaps the judge could go easy on him in sentencing. That would seem like a more sensible legal action.

[mistermack]

The guy has to be dealt with for an extremely severe assault and battery. The wanking man is just relevant to the sentencing.

The reason that you can't take the law into your own hands should be obvious. If someone breaks the law, they are entitled to a fair trial, and for the benefit of the doubt, and for the court to hear any mitigation. Everyone has those rights.
And even then, the court doesn't have the option of ordering a severe beating, even if you are found guilty. All of the laws and penalties are arrived at after loads of debate, and soul-searching.

If someone decides that he is going to be the judge, jury and executor of his own sentencing, then he deserves all he gets.
I would throw the book at him.
If you don't, then people get the idea that they can do the same. The deterrent value of law and order vanishes. And the next time, people might just as easily grab the wrong person, and give them brain damage, or kill them. That's why there should NEVER be exceptions. So that people know, if they decide to mete out their own justice, they'll end up in prison.

Sentencing should be for the judge anyway. All the jury should be deciding is is he guilty.

The station noted Chavez having a criminal record for child abuse and domestic violence.

He's obviously a violent person, and it explains his over-the-top actions. Sounds like he's more of a danger than the wanker.
Anyway, he should have taught the kids to draw the curtains.

[Coito ergo sum]

Sentencing is for the judge. The jury can decide if the guy is guilty, and in so doing they can take into consideration the facts and circumstances. The jury can acquit him if they want to. If the prosecutor thinks that defense of others is not applicable, then hold the trial and let the jury decide. I know if I were on a jury, the assault would have to go really far into the realm of over-the-top for me to convict this guy. He'd get a lot of leeway from me.

[tattuchu]

No need to beat him up. He already came, by the sound of it, so he was done. I'm sure he would have been on his way shortly, no harm done, and the bushes in that particular spot would have thrived because of the extra fertilizer