Jury acquits pastor

[fishbob]

Jury acquits pastor:
Preacher found not guilty on all counts in fatal Big Lake church shootings.

http://www.adn.com/front/story/4267614p-4278352c.html (http://) (may require registration)

snips from Anchorage Daily News (October 28, 2003)
PALMER -- The Big Lake preacher who shot and killed two men he caught burglarizing his church was acquitted of all charges Monday. A jury of five men and seven women deliberated a day and half before finding the Rev. Phillip Mielke, 44, not guilty on four counts of manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide.

Mielke could have faced up to 20 years in prison for shooting Christopher Palmer, 31, and Francis Jones, 23, at Big Lake Community Chapel in the early-morning hours of April 24. Palmer died at the scene; Jones escaped but died of gunshot wounds a few hours later at the home of a friend. Mielke encountered both men about 5 a.m. in a narrow, dark hallway after he went to check on noises he heard through an intercom system he had set up between the church and his home. He fired twice at the men, hitting both in the back, and then kept shooting as one fled the church.

Palmer's family appeared upset after the verdict was read Monday afternoon. His sister stormed out of the courtroom, and his stepfather had to be held back by relatives as he tried to lunge at Mielke as the pastor walked out of the courthouse. Later, family members and friends huddled in the parking lot praying.

Palmer's mother said the verdict meant little to her. It won't bring back her son or Jones. But she said she objects to the jury's excusing what she sees as vigilantism. Her son was wrong to break into the church, but so was the pastor wrong to go armed into the building. A religious woman, she said she thought Satan took over inside the chapel that morning.

The shooting provoked strong opinions among residents in Big Lake and around Alaska. Many people supported Mielke, arguing in e-mails and letters to the newspaper that Jones and Palmer got what they deserved for breaking into the church. Both had criminal histories, and both were found to have drugs in their systems at the time of the shootings. Troopers also found a loaded .357-caliber handgun in the church basement with DNA from Palmer and possibly Jones on it.

A preacher with a 44 mag, Satan, meth head burglars, lots of praying - but not by the preacher. Could this have happened in your part of the world? Or is this just one of what we like to call "one of those Alaska things"?

It was not said aloud, but in the background you could sense the feeling that "they just needed killing". (Can't remember the standup comic this is from).

[Malachi151]

That could happen anywhere in the South.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by fishbob
Jury acquits pastor:
Preacher found not guilty on all counts in fatal Big Lake church shootings.

http://www.adn.com/front/story/4267614p-4278352c.html (http://) (may require registration)



A preacher with a 44 mag, Satan, meth head burglars, lots of praying - but not by the preacher. Could this have happened in your part of the world? Or is this just one of what we like to call "one of those Alaska things"?

It was not said aloud, but in the background you could sense the feeling that "they just needed killing". (Can't remember the standup comic this is from).

That's what Jesus would have done.

[LFTKBS]

"Her son was wrong to break into the church, but so was the pastor wrong to go armed into the building."

Uh, I think he was authorized to be there, unlike her tweaker son. Why shouldn't he have been armed? So that he could have been the victim? To hell with that.

[fishbob]

Does it remind anyone else of a Jerry Springer episode?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
"Her son was wrong to break into the church, but so was the pastor wrong to go armed into the building."

Uh, I think he was authorized to be there, unlike her tweaker son. Why shouldn't he have been armed? So that he could have been the victim? To hell with that.

He could have called the cops. They usually respond pretty quickly to that sort of call.

[Malachi151]

I have no problem with the shooting, but its the dialog thats crazy.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


He could have called the cops. They usually respond pretty quickly to that sort of call.

And they could have not broken into the church. Life is full of options. I have no problem with what occured.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer


And they could have not broken into the church. Life is full of options. I have no problem with what occured.

I agree, they should not have gone into the church. However, they did, but I don't believe that following them in their was the right action for him. Better to call the cops and wait. I don't know what it's like where you live, but if I report some noise in the park across the street, they might get their in a couple of hours at night. If I report an assault, they turn up in a matter of minutes.

[zakur]

I usually have no problem at all with homeowners shooting intruders . . . Hell, I'd do the same myself. But this part gives me pause:He fired twice at the men, hitting both in the back, and then kept shooting as one fled the church.

[Jude]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
If I report an assault, they turn up in a matter of minutes.

A matter of minutes too late, perhaps. I'm not comfortable gambling with my well being, thank you.

[Skeptic]

I don't see the problem. He was burglarized, and used his gun to defend against the intruders. Maybe being a priest help the acquittal because the jury assumed that a priest would not be likely to do something like that unless he really felt his life was in danger. But tht's besides the main point, really.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jude


A matter of minutes too late, perhaps. I'm not comfortable gambling with my well being, thank you.

He went to them, they didn't go to him. They burgled an empty church, so he went and tried to accost them for doing so. He shot one who was running away.

Once he realised the church was being burgled, all he had to do was make the call, sit back, and wait, at no risk to himself.

[Jude]

You said assault, not burglary, AUP.

[RPG Advocate]

Mielke encountered both men about 5 a.m. in a narrow, dark hallway after he went to check on noises he heard through an intercom system he had set up between the church and his home. He fired twice at the men, hitting both in the back, and then kept shooting as one fled the church. (emphasis mine)

If this account is the truth, then it sounds like one shooting was justified, and the other was questionable. The right to use lethal force lasts only as long as one's life is in danger. As soon as the one robber began to flee, his right to continue shooting at him ended.

That said, given the substantial mitigating circumstances, 10 years in prison would be a huge injustice.

If I was on the jury, I would probably try and get the jury to nullify on the manslaughter count of which he's guilty, and convict on one negligant homicide count. That would most likely result in a light jail term, a fine, and/or probation, which I believe is appropriate.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by RPG Advocate

If I was on the jury, I would probably try and get the jury to nullify on the manslaughter count of which he's guilty, and convict on one negligant homicide count. That would most likely result in a light jail term, a fine, and/or probation, which I believe is appropriate.

I agree with this.

Firing while the guy was running away isnt self defence or even protecting your property. However, I always maintain that you should be able to respond with lethal force to anyone who has broken into your property for no other reason than that you dont know what their intent is and its reasonable to assume the worst. Turns out they had a firearm, so its just as well he fired first.

[mummymonkey]

For some odd reason I find the word burglarize funny. Not often heard in this country.
I find the death penalty for breaking and entering to be a little harsh.

[Jon_in_london]

Burglar, burgle or burgled is the correct usage.

Burglarization, burglarizationism and a burglarizationist are all Americanizationistisms.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Burglar, burgle or burgled is the correct usage.

Burglarization, burglarizationism and a burglarizationist are all Americanizationistisms.

hamburglar, too.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jude
You said assault, not burglary, AUP.

They were assaults not against me, but threatened, not actual assaults between groups of youths. Actual threats were being made, and people were made to feel terrified. In each case, the police turned up in time to defuse the situation and send the protagonists on their way before any physical harm was done.

In both cases, if the groups of youths had been armed, I think that things would have only been made much worse.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


I agree with this.

Firing while the guy was running away isnt self defence or even protecting your property. However, I always maintain that you should be able to respond with lethal force to anyone who has broken into your property for no other reason than that you dont know what their intent is and its reasonable to assume the worst. Turns out they had a firearm, so its just as well he fired first.

Only he went after them, which was pretty stupid. He was in his house, which they did not enter as there was someone home, and went to burgle an empty building, to avoid trouble. What if they had actually used some sense and posted an armed guard at the entrance? He would have been dead.

In this situation, calling the cops is the best course of action.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


They were assaults not against me, but threatened, not actual assaults between groups of youths. Actual threats were being made, and people were made to feel terrified. In each case, the police turned up in time to defuse the situation and send the protagonists on their way before any physical harm was done.


What country do you live in?

[Tmy]

What kind of pastor is this??? Trigger happy, shotting people in the back!!?

Man, Id hate to see what happens to people who dont show up for church. Does he whipp them with the rosery?

What bugs me is the underlining vibe is that he got off BECAUSE hes a pastor.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Burglar, burgle or burgled is the correct usage.

Burglarization, burglarizationism and a burglarizationist are all Americanizationistisms.

:D

Yep, Americanizationistisms. Kinda like when Homer Simpson says, "saxamaphone."

Of course, to the coarse American ear, "burgle" sounds equally ridiculous.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Mielke encountered both men about 5 a.m. in a narrow, dark hallway after he went to check on noises he heard through an intercom system he had set up between the church and his home. He fired twice at the men, hitting both in the back, and then kept shooting as one fled the church.

Who really knows?

Although it may appear at first glance that this pastor was no longer in danger because their backs were turned, and thus his "self-defense" is bogus, that may not be the case.

There is a former American police officer named Massad Ayoob who often testifies for the defense in prosecutions against those who shot someone in self-defense. He notes that it is quite common for an attacker to turn and be hit in the back, despite being on the attack. This happens very often when multiple shots are required to bring down an attacker. Multiple shots are required far more often than one may conclude from watching television cop shows. Indeed, "double taps"--two shots fired in rapid succession--are frequently taught to be used as a matter of course.

Although that may or may not have happened in this case, it is important to note that the account specifies that they were in a dark hallway, where it may have been difficult to tell if the men were approaching or retreating. It is entirely possible the pastor honestly believed the young men were facing him at the time, and it is entirely possible that he fired at them as they were turning away.

As to the "kept shooting as one fled the church," it is quite possible the man fleeing was in the threshold of the door or just outside of it. Again, who knows according to this brief account?

Most self-defense experts who teach defensive shooting teach the same thing police officers are trained to do. They teach that once one has drawn a firearm in self-defense and made the decision to fire it, one should shoot at the threat until the person or persons are down on the ground. A threat which is not neutralized is still a threat. There is no way to know if the person is still armed with a hidden weapon. Also, sometimes retreating persons return.

A man I know and represent in other matters was attacked in his store by a customer for no apparent reason. The customer stabbed him 12 times in the torso with a knife and fled. The store owner drew his .32 cal automatic pistol and shot at and hit the guy six times. The attacker returned, attempting to stab the owner again. The owner reloaded and emptied his second magazine of 7 rounds into the guy and he fled again. Both lived, but the customer is in prison and the owner is not.

The jury heard the facts at trial which led them to acquit the guy. We have read a mere fraction of the account, one which may have been filtered by the press and slanted to present a biased view against handgun ownership and use.

AS

[Michael Redman]

Did anyone live in the church? If not, it's not burglary. Think of this as two guys breaking into a warehouse, and a forklift operator comes in with a gun and kills them. Not burglary. Arguably not justified, either.

This is entirely different from a situation where they were breaking into the home of the pastor. Were that the case, it would be proper for him to check out the noise, armed for his protection. In this case, however, if he felt the noises he heard warranted lethal protection, he should have called the cops.

[davefoc]

RPG AdvocateIf this account is the truth, then it sounds like one shooting was justified, and the other was questionable. The right to use lethal force lasts only as long as one's life is in danger. As soon as the one robber began to flee, his right to continue shooting at him ended.

That said, given the substantial mitigating circumstances, 10 years in prison would be a huge injustice.

If I was on the jury, I would probably try and get the jury to nullify on the manslaughter count of which he's guilty, and convict on one negligant homicide count. That would most likely result in a light jail term, a fine, and/or probation, which I believe is appropriate

I participated in a thread a while back where I argued against the use of jury nullification. But I like RPG's answer here, so I guess I'm a bit hypocritical on this.

I quibble a bit with RPG's idea that his right to continue shooting ended when the robber began to flee. I think AS was more exact on this. His right to continue shooting ended when he could reasonably conclude that he was not at risk. While the intruders were still inside the church and alive the pastor was in grave danger, who knows if they were fleeing or just looking for cover to start shooting at the pastor. If the intruder made it to the door and was clearly fleeing I can see that the pastors right to shoot him has possibly ended. Even here if there had been a gun fight and it might have been reasonable for the pastor to think that the intruder is just looking for cover to shoot back at him I would still be cutting the pastor some slack.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Did anyone live in the church? If not, it's not burglary.


Depends, Michael. Under the traditional common law definition, burglary could only be committed in a dwelling.

Not so today, in some jurisdictions. In mine, for instance, this is the definition of Burglary in the Third Degree, a Class C felony (lowest of three degrees):

"A person commits the crime of burglary in the third degree
if he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building with
intent to commit a crime therein."

Any building counts, not just dwellings.

In my state, absent some affirmative defense such as necessity or mistake of fact, this would have been a burglary, no doubt about it.

AS

[davefoc]

Michael Redman's comment came in while I was making mine, so I didn't respond to it in the above post.

On the definition of burglary (from dictionary.com):

American Heritage definition
The act of entering a building or other premises with the intent to commit theft

Merriam-Webster definition
Breaking and entering the dwelling house of another, in the nighttime, with intent to commit a felony therein, whether the felonious purpose be accomplished or not. --Wharton. Burrill.

Note: By statute law in some of the United States, burglary includes the breaking with felonious intent into a house by day as well as by night, and into other buildings than dwelling houses. Various degrees of the crime are established.


All this is a bit academic, the issue is whether the law makes a distinction between a home and another buiding type with regards to the use of deadly force and whether that difference is significant in this case. I don't know the answer to that, but my own view is that he acted reasonably unless he had a good reason to know that there were armed intruders in his church. Calling the cops everytime one sees a suspicious car is not an option.

Link to the article in question. The link at the top of this thread is broken
http://www.adn.com/front/story/4267614p-4278352c.html

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
He could have called the cops. They usually respond pretty quickly to that sort of call.

Not all the time. I've waited for police to show up for over twenty minutes after calling in a break-in in progress. In a nice neighborhood. So it's dumb to just take your chances and hope that the tweaked-out lunatic isn't armed.

[Tmy]

THE DICTIONARY IS NOT LAW!!!!! (sorry, pet peeve of mine).

I think legally its a robbery since the pastor was their.

Being that the church is GOds house I would think he'd have the right to strike them down with thunderbolts.

I think they let off Father Triggerhappy based on self defense grounds. It was dark, 2 robbers vs. 1 guy, he wasnt sure they were armed, (there was a gun found) he could claim that he reasonbly used force and that the over use of force was because of his reasonable freaking out at the situation. A jury could buy that.

[davefoc]

Tmy said:
THE DICTIONARY IS NOT LAW!!!!! (sorry, pet peeve of mine).

I think legally its a robbery since the pastor was their.

I'm not sure if the first part of this was directed at my post, but I thought I and AS made it clear that what was critical here was what the law said about the issue and not what the dictionary said. I don't think there's any disagreement on this.

Clearly AS is a much better source on the robbery versus burglary angle in the second part of the quote, but I'll take a shot at it and AS can shoot me down.

I think they were guilty of burglary when the entered the building with the intent to steal or vandalize whether there was somebody in the building or not assuming they were in a jurisdiction that extended the definition of burglary beyond homes.

If they confronted the inhabitants and stole things they were then guilty of robbery. If the inhabitants stayed unaware of their presence and they stole some stuff they were not guilty of robbery but they were still guilty of burglary and theft.

[Michael Redman]

They may technically be charged with a modified statute calling the crime "burglary", but I say it's not burglary, using the traditional legal definition, and making it so is only a prosecutorial ploy to increase sentencing.

The point is, however, that they were not breaking into an inhabited structure. They are, therefore, not acting with the same level of disregard for sanctity of the home, or the safety of the inhabitants which in the past caused us to declare burglary to be a much more serious offense than simply trespassing and stealing.

Likewise, a person is not expected to retreat from an intruder in their home. They are expexted to do so in other places, if they safely can, rather than use deadly force in self defense. Obviously, in those cases, they shouldn't actively seek out the danger from which they must defend themselves. I see the pastor's action as less defensible, by a good margin, than if they had broken into his home.

Not that shooting when confronted with a present threat was wrong. You would have to have been there to know what level of threat he perceived, and if shooting was a reasonable response. But getting into the situation in the first place seems to have been his choice.

On the other hand, I don't know anywhere near enough of the facts to form an opinion as to whether he was acting reasonably in checking out the noises he heard over the intercom. The fact that he thought it necessary to carry a gun, however, leads me to think that he was not. If you believe a threat to your life exists, and the cost of inaction is the loss of property, checking out the situation yourself, rather than calling the police, does not seem very reasonable to me.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
They may technically be charged with a modified statute calling the crime "burglary", but I say it's not burglary, using the traditional legal definition, and making it so is only a prosecutorial ploy to increase sentencing.



Well, I suspect neither of us is licensed to practice in Alaska, so in a sense we're both speculating.

Nevertheless, common law crimes no longer exist in this country, as we've replaced them all with statutory criminal codes.

Therefore, the "traditional" legal definition is irrelevant. The only relevant definition is the one Alaska has codified.

As I said, in my state, under these facts, this would most definitely be at least Burglary in the Third Degree. It requires only the intent to commit any crime therein, including trespassing. The intent to commit a theft therein, for instance, renders the offense Burglary in the Second Degree, a more serious offense.

I have no idea what Alaska law says about the matter, and I don't care to speculate or research it.


The point is, however, that they were not breaking into an inhabited structure. They are, therefore, not acting with the same level of disregard for sanctity of the home, or the safety of the inhabitants which in the past caused us to declare burglary to be a much more serious offense than simply trespassing and stealing.

Likewise, a person is not expected to retreat from an intruder in their home. They are expexted to do so in other places, if they safely can, rather than use deadly force in self defense. Obviously, in those cases, they shouldn't actively seek out the danger from which they must defend themselves. I see the pastor's action as less defensible, by a good margin, than if they had broken into his home.


I agree with your analysis.


Not that shooting when confronted with a present threat was wrong. You would have to have been there to know what level of threat he perceived, and if shooting was a reasonable response. But getting into the situation in the first place seems to have been his choice.

On the other hand, I don't know anywhere near enough of the facts to form an opinion as to whether he was acting reasonably in checking out the noises he heard over the intercom. The fact that he thought it necessary to carry a gun, however, leads me to think that he was not. If you believe a threat to your life exists, and the cost of inaction is the loss of property, checking out the situation yourself, rather than calling the police, does not seem very reasonable to me.

I agree mostly with this as well, although I don't think it's fair to say categorically that he acted unreasonably by checking out the noise for himself. It may have been foolish, but I don't think he automatically loses the right to a self-defense.

Also, some states require that an actor retreat if possible, before being allowed the defense of self-defense. Not all states do, however. Regardless, under the right circumstances, I think many juries will afford the actor some considerable slack against clear wrongdoers such as burglars, despite what the law may allow or disallow.

AS

[Rocky]

Checking out a noise that could be caused by: Fire, People, Animals, or other problems like wind damage seams reasonable. Bring a loaded gun for protection agenst an animal or an armed person also seams reasonable. Shooting someone in a dark hallway where everyone knows they should not have been and who could have been armed also seams reasonable.

I see no problem with what the Preacher did or the Jurt for letting him off.

[a_unique_person]

If it was a dark alleyway it could just as easily been some young kids.

[Michael Redman]

This is America. We don't have any problem killing criminals who happen to be kids.

[Tmy]

What really bugs me is that a PASTOR did this. Ya think the guy woudl have more faith that Jesus would protect him. OK I can see a holy man carryinga gun to protec from a wild animal. But once he saw it was people, HE OPENED FIRE!!! What ever happend to "God watch over me".

Guess he trusts in God, just not that much. Practicle faith.

I dont think I could worship at this church knowing what pastor deadeye did.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Tmy
What really bugs me is that a PASTOR did this. Ya think the guy woudl have more faith that Jesus would protect him. OK I can see a holy man carryinga gun to protec from a wild animal. But once he saw it was people, HE OPENED FIRE!!! What ever happend to "God watch over me".

Guess he trusts in God, just not that much. Practicle faith.

I dont think I could worship at this church knowing what pastor deadeye did.

The Popemobile has two inch bulletproof glass.

That's f***ing faith for you.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


The Popemobile has two inch bulletproof glass.

That's f***ing faith for you.

LOL. Very good, Mr. M.

AS