SHOULD WE NOT REJOICE WHEN A SUSPECTED murderer is taken off the streets?

Our local murderer, drug dealer and all around bad guy with a rap sheet as long as my arm with lots of evidence against him ..... very likely guilty.  And - as you may imagine, no apologies for me for my pre-judgment.  If he's innocent, then we have him under lock and key for drug dealing.

Walks like a duck quack like a duck its a duck quack quack

Interesting reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
http://researchnews.osu.edu...


Also go to Google and search on "wrongful conviction" and read some of the links that show up.  I find it interesting that in a vast majority of cases the circumstances would seem to make the person "obviously guilty."  Oops.  Its easy to point at cases (certainly the high profile ones) after the fact and say, "Oh they were definitely guilty"; hindsight is 20/20.  I certainly hope none of you are ever accused of a crime and get stuck before a jury that is convinced you did it before the trial even started.  Especially if you did not do it!

I'd add that just because the police thought they had enough evidence to put out a warrant and to ask for assistance to capture someone does not make them guilty.  Arrest is not the same thing as conviction.  Accusation is not the same thing as guilt. 

While the fact that a person may have a criminal record and a history of criminal behavior certainly doesn't help their case they still have the right to a fair trial and a biased jury is not a fair trial. Thats why they do jury selection and frequently move trials to places where the crime did not happen.

I have no problem locking up criminals and throwing away the key.  I have a problem with someone being convicted before the trial.  If I was accused of some horrid crime and you saw my picture in the paper, I'd hate to think you would all assume I'm guilty just because I might have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, or I panicked and ran.

scottso I found the sites informative. yes it would really suck to be innocent and found guilty. When your a known drug dealer who has been arrested several times for drug and weapons. when you run and hide from the police for two weeks in my book you look guilty. he had a warrent out for his arrest. Evading arrest is a crime. Myself I'm glad he's off the streets. according to that web site the odds that this guy is guilty is 99 percent. considering the odds I'm glad he is in jail.

we don't know why he doesn't trust law enforcement do we? perhaps he has good reasons.

this may come as a complete shock to some of you, but quite often law enforcement and government officials are corrupt! and perhaps even worse than the drug dealers, they hide behind the guise of moral authority.

he did attempt to call the newspaper. not sure what the statistics are, but i don't think most guilty murderers do that.

let's let this guy have his day in court before we condemn him.

Oh, he will have his day in court.  Lucky for him he will be tried in Bakersfield where this wasn't a personal issue for many of us here in the little mountain community of Tehachapi.  A lot of people in this town or who are from this town felt personally connected to this case.  For Tehachapi this was a very high profile crime.  For Bakersfield, it's just another murder trial.

There were people who were at walgreens, people who drove by the scene of the crime.  Some of us were at the hospital when Michelle arrived, some of us spoke with her sister, her mother and her daughter.  This felt very personal to me.  There a lot of people in town who knew or knew of Michelle.  People who worked with her, people who remember her from where ever she worked.  So....yeah, people in this town take this personally.  Those of you who doubt his guilt, apparantly don't feel a vested personal interest in this case.  I do.  I didn't know Michelle.  I was just a person who was inadvertantly involved after the fact.  I feel really bad for the family.  I don't feel like defending this guys rights.  Let someone else do it.

Heather you sound paranoid. Are you a tweeker?

Olivia, thats my point.  Having a vested emotional interest does not make for objective viewpoints.  Don't get me wrong.  As has been said many times, this guy appears to be far from an upstanding citizen. But I don't know him personally.  I never even heard of him before this murder.  But the fact of the matter is, if he DID NOT murder her, he shouldn't be going to jail (or death row) for it.  If he DID then he should fry, in my (maybe not so humble in this case) opinion.  But without objectivity he can't have a fair trial.  Its just plain human nature.  Its why you won't ever find someone connected with the victim on the jury.  Whether he should be in jail for his other crimes or not, that is not for me to say.  Thats the responsibility of the jury when/if he gets picked up for those crimes.  If he has already been prosecuted for those other crimes then the jury (or juries) for those other crimes obviously thought their penalties were enough.  If not, they were wrong and its on them.   Personally I'm in favor of the 3 strikes rule.  3 strikes you are out.  Thats probably being generous.  I'd seriously consider a 2 strike rule. ;)

I too believe in the 3 strikes your'e out rule.  Unfortunately, that doesn't work either.  Have you ever heard of the Romero Law, rule something like that?  What ever it is, it sucks.

scottso you are right. We have jury selection to weed out people like me who has already formed an opinion as to this guy innocents or guilt. I would not make a good jurist. I do  expect him to receive a fair trial. This is a blog and the purpose of a blog is for people to express their thoughts and beliefs, that is what we are doing here. Luckily for "slick' TN Bloggers aren't deciding his fate. That is up to a jury to decide.  I don't know that this guy is guilty of murder or not. His running and hiding to me points towards guilt. If he didn't run and hide I know I would be less judgmental. Like I have already mentioned, I would not make a good jurist.......Would you?

Bigdog, yep its all friendly.  I was just stating my thoughts on the whole thing.  I just feel that in the end it comes down to the people as to whether the system works or not.  It aggravates me to no end to see people whine and complain about jury duty and then when you're in the court house seeing people come up with the most inane reasons to avoid having to serve.  While its inconvenient its one of the most important ways for the average person to have a say and an effect on the laws and rules we didn't directly create and yet are supposed to follow.  If someone isn't willing to serve the best they can they have no business complaining that the system is broken.

If by good juror you mean can I keep my emotions out of it and be objective?  I think so.  I've never had to sit on a murder trial though.  People are human, and thats why lawyers try to play to peoples emotions.  I'm not claiming that its all perfect, but its a system that works and strives to be fair.  It is undermined when people presume guilt over innocence.

Heather,this may come as a complete shock to you,but sometimes suspects are just simply guilty of the crime that they are wanted for.Quite often law enforcement and the "system" are just a bunch of people doing their job to enforce the laws and get murderers off of the streets.No"corruption",no"guises.J ust a small town crook  who chose to spend his life as a drug dealer,user,liar and thief despite knowing that there were laws against his behavior and that those there to enforce said laws would try to stop him.As for calling the media as he did and trying to give lame stories,well,guilty people often think that if they are "SLICK "enough,people will buy their lies.He is alive so he will get his day  to try to excuse his choices.Michelle won't be so lucky.