PDA

View Full Version : TX-Man sent to prison for "resisting" in his own home after being mistaken for burglar




Anti Federalist
07-21-2011, 05:33 PM
Thumbnail: Slightly retarded man locks himself in a bathroom after police invade his home after being called by a neighbor reporting a black man kicking the door down.

Dragged out, beat, tasered and maced, he is then charged, found guilty and will be going to jail for a month even after the jury says he has been wronged.

In a final humiliation, the judge blames it all on him, I guess for being too slow to understand that in Amerika, anything short of instant, total, complete, utter and immediate compliance and submission to authority is grounds to beat you to a bloody pulp, fine you and throw you in rape cage.



Angelina County jury finds man guilty of evading arrest after being mistaken for burglar in his own home

http://lufkindailynews.com/news/local/article_79700610-b30b-11e0-a4e5-001cc4c03286.html

Posted: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 2:58 pm | Updated: 5:15 pm, Thu Jul 21, 2011.

Angelina County jury finds man guilty of evading arrest after being mistaken for burglar in his own home By JESSICA COOLEY/The Lufkin Daily News The Lufkin Daily News

A Lufkin man convicted of resisting arrest in his own home after police mistook him for a burglar was sentenced Wednesday to 30 days in jail and a $500 fine.

Marco Sauceda, 30, entered County Court-at-Law No. 2 Judge Derek Flournoy’s courtroom Wednesday morning wearing a tan button down shirt and navy dress slacks, but by the end of the day found himself in county orange.

Following a one-day trial and four-hour deliberation, a six-panel Angelina County jury concluded Sauceda was guilty of resisting arrest on March 15, 2009, while being pepper-sprayed, shot with a pepper ball gun and wrestled to the ground by nine Lufkin Police officers in his own living room, according to testimony.

In closing arguments Wednesday morning, Sauceda’s defense attorney, Ryan Deaton, chronicled how his client was wronged by Lufkin Police when they entered his home at 111 Finley St. on a report of a black male kicking in the front door, called in by a neighbor. Sauceda, who Deaton described as having the mind of a child, then locked himself in the bathroom and refused to come out despite repeated warnings by the officers on scene.

“A person should feel secure in their own home no matter black, white, Hispanic, Asian, I don’t care who they are, they should feel secure in their own home,” Deaton said. “The police have no right to come in your house and push you around and beat you up and do the things they did on March, 15, 2009,” Deaton said.

Deaton blamed a language barrier for Sauceda’s failure to respond to police, but prosecutor Gary Taylor attempted to diffuse this notion by comparing the similarities in the English word “police” and Spanish word “policia.”

“You have to look at it through the eyes of Marco Sauceda,” Deaton said. “He doesn’t think like you and I do. He has a child’s mind. He operates on a lower level thinking than you and I do. Number two, he doesn’t speak this language.”

In his closing arguments, Taylor reminded jurors that Sauceda’s behavior throughout the incident led police to believe he was a criminal.

“His behavior was more consistent with a burglar than an innocent person and that’s what got us here today,” Taylor said. “If you’ve got a language barrier you find somebody to help accommodate. Is it reasonable that you close the door and lock yourself in your room? I don’t know that it is.

“This whole incident could have been avoided very easily if he would have said, ‘Me llamo Marco. Es mi casa.’”

Before the verdict was delivered, a note from the jury was sent to Flournoy, which he said was “indicative of the verdict.” It read, “We’ve all reached a verdict. To us we feel he has been wronged. Please consider that in his sentencing.”

Neither side presented evidence in the sentencing phase of Sauceda’s Class A misdemeanor conviction. Flournoy asked Deaton for his suggestion in sentencing. Flournoy could have sentenced Sauceda to up to one year in jail and/or up to a $4,000 fine.

“It is our opinion he’s been punished enough and I think the jury’s note says that,” Deaton said. “I think the pictures (of his injuries) show punishment in this case. I will respect any decision you make.”

Taking a few moments to collect his thoughts, Flournoy then addressed Sauceda directly. The dialogue of the trial was delivered in Spanish to Sauceda, via translator Josefina Villanueva. Flournoy told Sauceda because he did not take the stand in his own defense it was difficult for him to sympathize with his situation.

“I haven’t heard from you and I have no idea why you didn’t speak. That causes me some trouble. I don’t agree with the notion you are a victim in this case,” Flournoy said. “I think your actions put you and the officers in harm’s way. This could have been easily avoided.”

Had it not been for the jury’s note asking for leniency, Flournoy said he would have likely sentenced Sauceda to six months in jail.

Despite the unfavorable criminal outcome for his client, Deaton said he intends to pursue a federal civil lawsuit against the city on Sauceda’s behalf.

“The civil suit will more than likely take place in January or February of next year,” Deaton said. “I don’t know if this will impact the civil suit, but based on the jury’s feelings that he was wronged, I don’t think it will.”

When asked if the possibility of a civil suit was the motivation behind trying the case, County Attorney Ed Jones said the case would have been tried either way.

“We tried the case simply because we really did believe he resisted arrest,” Jones said. “The statute says that you do not have the right to resist the arrest. We were going to try the case no matter what.”

Following sentencing, Sauceda was immediately taken to the Angelina County Jail to begin serving 30 days.

Golding
07-21-2011, 05:37 PM
I have to partly blame the jury for how things played out. Sounds like they said "Guilty, but please don't be too mean to him". That's simply not good enough. If you feel he's been punished enough, then nullify the case.

Anti Federalist
07-21-2011, 05:44 PM
I have to partly blame the jury for how things played out. Sounds like they said "Guilty, but please don't be too mean to him". That's simply not good enough. If you feel he's been punished enough, then nullify the case.

Exactly! and +rep.

Jurors better get that through their head, if you are a juror and you're going to lay awake at night agonizing over what you did, then DON'T.

Nullify and acquit.

aGameOfThrones
07-21-2011, 06:05 PM
That jury, that f*cking jury!

Danke
07-21-2011, 06:29 PM
"Slightly retarded man " Was he a politician?

KCIndy
07-21-2011, 06:35 PM
Sadly, I'm guessing nobody on the jury had even HEARD of the concept of jury nullification:


Before the verdict was delivered, a note from the jury was sent to Flournoy, which he said was “indicative of the verdict.” It read, “We’ve all reached a verdict. To us we feel he has been wronged. Please consider that in his sentencing.”

I'm guessing - guessing, mind - that the prosecutor gave the jurors the usual BS about how "you have NO CHOICE but to find this man guilty; the law requires you to do it!" and the poor dumb uneducated schmucks on the jury believed him.

Because after all, the prosecutor is one of the Authorities. And the Authorities are there to protect us and would *never* lie to us... would they??

asurfaholic
07-21-2011, 06:39 PM
Wow....I would turn into a raging terrorist if that happened to me. When I went through police academy we were taught that it is legal to resist an unlawful arrest. Meaning there's no charge at all if its a case of mistaken identity and the cop gets his ass beat. Maybe its only true in Nc...

aGameOfThrones
07-21-2011, 06:43 PM
Sadly, I'm guessing nobody on the jury had even HEARD of the concept of jury nullification:



I'm guessing - guessing, mind - that the prosecutor gave the jurors the usual BS about how "you have NO CHOICE but to find this man guilty; the law requires you to do it!" and the poor dumb uneducated schmucks on the jury believed him.

Because after all, the prosecutor is one of the Authorities. And the Authorities are there to protect us and would *never* lie to us... would they??


http://lawyersusaonline.com/benchmarks/files/2010/04/trial_by_jury_usher.jpg

flightlesskiwi
07-21-2011, 06:51 PM
DAMMIT all to hell. I am sending out a mass email about jury nullification now. This crap has to end.

aGameOfThrones
07-21-2011, 06:57 PM
http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/ggm100914l.jpg

Pericles
07-21-2011, 07:00 PM
TEXAS PENAL CODE

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1 (http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/SB00378F.HTM), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2007.

Sec. 38.03. RESISTING ARREST, SEARCH, OR TRANSPORTATION. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally prevents or obstructs a person he knows is a peace officer or a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction from effecting an arrest, search, or transportation of the actor or another by using force against the peace officer or another.
(b) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the arrest or search was unlawful.
(c) Except as provided in Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(d) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the actor uses a deadly weapon to resist the arrest or search.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 277, Sec. 1, 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

amyre
07-21-2011, 07:01 PM
This is the kind of crap that makes me feel sad, hopeless and defeated. :(

NewRightLibertarian
07-21-2011, 07:05 PM
This is the kind of crap that makes me feel sad, hopeless and defeated. :(

They're working overtime to make us feel like that nowadays. Stay strong and fight through it.

Anti Federalist
07-21-2011, 07:25 PM
This is the kind of crap that makes me feel sad, hopeless and defeated. :(

Fear not, it's doing just what has to happen.

To get enough people motivated to make a real change and turn this mess around, it's going to require a large portion of them to be blasted out of a comfort zone where they still think everything is peachy.

Exposing the tyrants acting like tyrants will help that process along.

RedLightning
07-21-2011, 08:08 PM
Lufkin Texas sucks.

Feeding the Abscess
07-21-2011, 08:14 PM
Too bad he wasn't a Harvard professor. He would have received a beer date with the president.

Anti Federalist
07-21-2011, 08:15 PM
Too bad he wasn't a Harvard professor. He would have received a beer date with the president.

Oh snap, that's right, I forgot all about that guy.

AFPVet
07-21-2011, 08:32 PM
I have to partly blame the jury for how things played out. Sounds like they said "Guilty, but please don't be too mean to him". That's simply not good enough. If you feel he's been punished enough, then nullify the case.

Exactly... but when you have fluoride head juries who are cherry-picked by prosecutors deciding cases, they don't understand how the system works. In this context, they should've voted not guilty! Voting guilty and then asking the judge to show mercy is not how the system works. If you—the jury—do not want the person to be punished for a crime which they were unable to commit due to a mental deficiency, then vote not guilty!

Revolution9
07-21-2011, 08:40 PM
Need I add...the swinest in flaw reinforcement.

Rev9

jkr
07-21-2011, 08:50 PM
$happell did it...

AFPVet
07-21-2011, 09:09 PM
Need I add...the swinest in flaw reinforcement.

Rev9

Hahaha nice!

Rael
07-21-2011, 11:26 PM
The jury was made up of bootlickers who were afraid to vote not guilty. Why would they even need to know the term "jury nullification"? It doesn't take rocket appliances to figure out that you can vote no for any reason.

LibertyEagle
07-21-2011, 11:29 PM
I have to partly blame the jury for how things played out. Sounds like they said "Guilty, but please don't be too mean to him". That's simply not good enough. If you feel he's been punished enough, then nullify the case.

Because they probably listened to the damn Judge's instructions before they went in to deliberate. They clearly are not aware of the Juror's Bill of Rights.

This incident is an absolute OUTRAGE!! I am still sitting here shaking my head and almost to the point of sobbing for the country I once knew.

DamianTV
07-22-2011, 01:09 AM
A jury of your peers is not helpful when youre surrounded by idiots who think Socialism is a "Good Idea".

belian78
07-22-2011, 07:50 AM
Fear not, it's doing just what has to happen.

To get enough people motivated to make a real change and turn this mess around, it's going to require a large portion of them to be blasted out of a comfort zone where they still think everything is peachy.

Exposing the tyrants acting like tyrants will help that process along.

This is exactly right, people will not truly fight for their liberty until they personally feel the hurt and oppression of our current system. I didn't understand how people could see what's going on and not feel the way I do.

I actually just got done reading 'Faith of the Fallen' by Terry Goodkind and the book is centered around that premise. Where people still have a measure of comfort, they will not rise up and fight for themselves and their fellow man. It's only when they fully understand the yolk of slavery that's around their necks will they value their freedoms enough to fight for them.

Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series is very libertarian I've noticed, but that particular book was a no holds barred comparison to what we are going through in this country currently. I highly recommend it if you haven't read it.

Anti Federalist
07-22-2011, 10:11 AM
This is exactly right, people will not truly fight for their liberty until they personally feel the hurt and oppression of our current system. I didn't understand how people could see what's going on and not feel the way I do.

I actually just got done reading 'Faith of the Fallen' by Terry Goodkind and the book is centered around that premise. Where people still have a measure of comfort, they will not rise up and fight for themselves and their fellow man. It's only when they fully understand the yolk of slavery that's around their necks will they value their freedoms enough to fight for them.

Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series is very libertarian I've noticed, but that particular book was a no holds barred comparison to what we are going through in this country currently. I highly recommend it if you haven't read it.

Or, to put it another way:

and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed