Saturday, April 26, 2014

Conviction overturned In 2008 killing

The state Supreme Court on Friday overturned the murder conviction of a Chester man who said he was acting in self-defense when he shot a Springfield man during a confrontation in a park in 2008.
http://www.vnews.com/news/state/region/11730131-95/conviction-overturned-in-08-killing

14 comments :

  1. This seems a good ruling. To me, this has always been a suspicious conviction, essentially seeming to deny VTers the basic right of self-defense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is not self-defense to shoot someone running or crawling away from you...twice. Hopefully he gets re-convicted and spends the rest of his life in prison where he and the others involved in this murder belong.

      Delete
  2. He put a gun in his vehicle just before he went to confront this man. He shot the man twice, how does that seem self defense?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I can't believe a jury found him guilty. With all the evidence, there should have been some "reasonable doubt".

    ReplyDelete
  4. He shot him in the back. The guy was trying to get away from him. Self-defense???? The guy wasn't coming at him.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Welcome to modern day America, where wrong is right, down is up, back is front, additions are subtractions, deviance is the norm, debt is wealth, reckless spending is investing, dishonesty is honesty, and injustice is justice.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Folks, once you've been threatened by a lethal weapon, all the fair play rules are gone. Once you know you have to defend yourself there are no time-outs. Get real.

    ReplyDelete
  7. gotta love the halfwit rednecks with their 9spoken in true deliverance accent) it was self defense. Prob also have to bait their deer to shoot em. True men...lol

    ReplyDelete
  8. Clearly a good ruling! Glad to see our legal systems working properly.

    ReplyDelete
  9. When the "victim" here is allowed to run amuck, bad things are going to happen. Sad it ended this way, but for some family intervention, the "victim" should not have been left to his own designs.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yup, I baits my dears. But they doan chase me wid a splitting maul.

    ReplyDelete
  11. In Massachusetts, a physician who was robbed of his wallet in a parking lot fatally shot the robber as he fled. The robber turned out to be medical student, home on vacation, who was simply out with his friends from the "hood". The physician was tried for homicide and found not quilty. In accepting the verdict, the judge commented that anyone who initiates a potentially lethal confrontation while committing a felony does not have a right to determine when a victim has lost his right to fire his weapon. The victim in the Bulaski case chased Bulaski to his truck and was still holding his splitting maul when shot. The judge, unnamed in the article, should not have accepted the guilty verdict. The case never should have gone to trial. If Bulaski had been a police officer, he would never have been accused of using unnecessary force, and would have recieved instead a commendation.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This kid from Mass was up here raising hell, threatening people, doing drugs and god knows what else. Did he deserve the first shot? absolutely. did he deserve the second shot? no. Does Boloski deserve to be convicted of murder? No. Maybe a do over and this will turn out right.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Glad to see the Bolaski et al protective society is alive and well on this blog justifying using a gun to shoot someone twice while he is running or crawling away from you. Must be the others that never got charged with the murder even though they were in the middle of the killing.

    ReplyDelete


Please keep your comments polite and on-topic. No profanity

R E C E N T . . . C O M M E N T S

Springfield Vermont News is an ongoing zero-income volunteer hyperlocal news gathering project. No paid advertising is accepted on this site but any Springfield business willing to place a link to this news blog on their site will be considered for a free ad here. Businesses, organizations and individuals may submit write-ups and photos about any positive happenings here in Springfield that they are associated with and would be deemed newsworthy. Email the Editor at ed44vt@gmail.com.

Privacy statement: This blog does not share personal information with third parties nor do we store any information about your visit to this blog other than to analyze and optimize your content and reading experience through the use of cookies. You can turn off the use of cookies at anytime by changing your specific browser settings. We are not responsible for republished content from this blog on other blogs or websites without our permission. This privacy policy is subject to change without notice and was last updated on January 1, 2017. If you have any questions feel free to contact Springfield Vermont News directly here: ed44vt@gmail.com

Pageviews past week

---

Sign by Danasoft - For Backgrounds and Layouts