Tuesday, February 13, 2018

Jury unable to reach a verdict on second degree murder in Springfield shooting

After deliberating a total of six hours, a Windsor County jury returned a guilty verdict to a lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter against Springfield resident Greg Smith just before noon on Tuesday.


www.dailyuv.com

www.wcax.com

60 comments :

  1. Let me guess; he'll do the minimum, which means time served? YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME! How in the world does a seven-time felon have ANY credibility with a jury! Well, on the bright side; I guess if someone murders Smith, that person can look forward to a light sentence!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hardly justice for family, friends and the community. Fifteen years does not seem just to me.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I may be wrong so feel free to correct me. How does a person with multiple felonies even possess a firearm? I thought felony convictions made it illegal to own a weapon. Isn't there a way for the state to try Smith on those charges?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent point. They might as well have just slapped his hand and say, "Bad Boy, Don't do that again." the idiots!

      Delete
    2. they Fed's should get involved and charge him for the firearm possession,don't leave it to the state

      Delete
  4. Is it just me, or is the justice system in this state a complete clusterf**k? I come from the Midwest, and I guarantee Smith would have been doing life in prison YEARS AGO if he were there!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In this case it's not the justice system it's the liberal people that live here and got chosen to sit on the jury, they are the ones who let him off. Now the liberal justice system will not give him the maximum 15 years, they will give him 5 max, and then he sits for 2 more, we can only hope someone on the inside takes him out.

      Delete
    2. You are assuming a lot by saying the jury box was filled with liberals. I agree the judicial system in Vermont is heavily tilted to the left but how do you KNOW how many of the jury members were liberal?

      Delete
    3. By their decision to not give him a second degree murder charge... very clear.

      Delete
  5. Argument between he and Wesley's girlfriend, 7 time felon with anger issues, tracked Wesley down, happen to have a loaded gun which he went home to get, went and confronted Wesley, shot him from a car which he could have drove away in and not shoot him, that would be all I would need, 5 minutes of deliberation Guilty!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not so sure this is the fault of the left. Don't liberals hate guns? Seems to me that gunning someone down, and then claiming self-defense is a "conservative thing." Saw it many times in Florida; I actually knew George Zimmerman AND Mike Dunn. They were both conservative, AND BOTH COMPLETELY NUTS! The more "conservative" jury in Orange Co. found Zimmerman NOT GUILTY, the more "liberal" jury in Jacksonville found Dunn GUILTY. Illinois is considered a Blue State, and Smith would been toast there. So it may be a "Vermont thing" more than anything else.

      Delete
    2. Apparently Roger believes everything comes down to "Liberal" vs. "Conservative". He doesn't seem to believe some people think for themselves without considering their political ideology.

      Delete
    3. Liberal "thinkers" not politics, never said anything about politics you did.

      Delete
    4. It really isn't "left vs. right," it's right vs. wrong. Neither side is very good at seeing the difference these days! I don't believe this jury was THINKING at all!

      Delete
    5. So anytime someone says or does something you don't agree with, it's because they're liberals, Roger? My goodness, you need to accept the fact that people have different opinions about a number of things in life and it isn't always about being Liberal or Conservative.

      Delete
  6. Anybody think that Maybe his Attorney was "good" at his job and got Paid very well from funds that Smith or his higher up scum had "stashed".

    ReplyDelete
  7. This whole state is totally fu**ed up because of the liberals who have taken over in the last 80 years. Don't get me started on the judicial system.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anon 9:32a.m. I believe his attorney was a woman and she was his Public Defender. She must be very proud of herself this morning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whether any of us like it or not, a criminal defendant's right to an attorney is found in the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which requires the "assistance of counsel" for the accused "in all criminal prosecutions." This means that a defendant has a constitutional right to be represented by an attorney during trial.

      Delete
    2. Sorry about the gender mixup.

      Delete
    3. I just had an issue with the attorney being "very well paid" from funds that Smith had stashed.. A public defender is paid by us…the taxpayer. Smith did not pay a dime to his attorney! We all footed the bill as we will for his incarceration. Only wish he had gotten more time.

      Delete
  9. now have the Feds go after him on the gun charges,that should get him some real good prison time

    ReplyDelete
  10. Roger is an old fool. He loves throwing around his anecdotal thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
  11. chuck gregory2/14/18, 5:49 PM

    Don't forget the jury! A friend of mine who longed to serve was rejected time after time in the voir dire screening. He finally asked a lawyer friend, "How come I never get selected?" The lawyer told him, "Take a look at some of the people who do get selected." My friend told me, "I did, and you know, they seemed pretty slow?"

    My mom was juror on a case where the woman picked up a hitchhiker on a bitterly cold night. He made advances on her, and she ordered him out of the car. She got to feeling sorry about him being out there with no other car likely to come, so she turned around and picked him up again-- and he raped her. The jury acquitted him. My sister said, "Mom! You said she deserved to be raped????" She served on another one where they convicted a kid whose lawyer portrayed him as being led astray by a bad companion, and she felt bad about the conviction. Defense lawyers like to get people like her. So do prosecutors who think they can out-argue the defense.

    In defense of jurors, my hat is off to them for not trying to dodge it like some people I know. They perform a noble service.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chuck, first you say jurors are stupid, then you praise them for showing up. Not sure which is worse; smart people who don't show up, or stupid people who do! There's an old saying: Never underestimate the power of idiots in large numbers. This time there were only twelve.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    3. @9:10 ... I don't always agree with Chuck but disparaging his mother was completely unnecessary and the administrator should delete your comment. I accept the fact he allows people to post anonymously but in doing so, he only encourages people like you to thump your chest and spout off while hiding behind a curtain.

      Delete
    4. chuck gregory2/15/18, 8:49 AM

      Ray, my mother asked that we not roast her at her memorial service. However, if you had read her book, "They Do It In Church," you would realize she was not everybody's typical mother. What is one family's disparagement is another family's method of saying, "I love you." I promise not to disparage your mother!

      Delete
    5. chuck gregory2/15/18, 8:52 AM

      6:46, I wasn't say jurors are stupid, I was just reporting what my friend observed-- that lawyers like to pick out a certain type. Lawyers want to be able to persuade juries; they probably feel threatened by people they feel might be more intelligent than is desired. I did commend everybody who serves; they are true citizens.

      Delete
    6. Vermont gun laws suck.

      Delete
    7. I appreciate your outrage, but Vermont is ranked the safest state. Conversely, metro Chicago has the most restrictive gun laws in the country and the highest violent crime rate. Vermont gun laws are a non issue. It's the revolving door judiciary system. A system of prosecutors, judges, and parole boards appointed by the state government YOU voted for! As said so many times before, you got the government you deserve. Happy now?

      Don't hold your breath waiting for Emmons and Forgites to express condemnation of a system they're part & parcel to. They know exactly how stupid selfish liberals are. Matter of weeks before you read of them pandering to prison families by detesting incarceration of inmates out of state. Yet you'll still reelect them, wont you?
      https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/crime-and-corrections/public-safety

      Delete
    8. It was a JURY TRIAL! They were NOT appointed by the government! The judge, whether conservative or liberal, DID NOT render the decision in this case! It really is pathetic to hear conservatives talking the same tired knee-jerk nonsense about government; every time you open your mouths you reveal how little you know!

      Delete
    9. @ 10:26, Smith, a seven time Felon was walking the streets, actively selling drugs because a state appointed parole board allowed him. Smith had no fear of possessing a firearm and drugs because his state appointed parole officer ignored his responsibility to perform a routine search of his domicile. The jury's decision was formulated by lack of a compelling case on the prosecutor's part. Another political appointee. Noting the incompetent prosecutor, the judge has the option of invoking judgment notwithstanding the verdict regarding murder vs. manslaughter.

      Delete
    10. 12:03 PM, Wing might have taken some of that info about Smith into consideration before he approached anybody close to Smith.

      Delete
  12. 7:14,what does Vermont gun laws have to do with this case at all ?
    smith was a convicted felon,it is against the law for him to own a firearm,so i'm guessing he didn't go thru legal channels to get his,i bet it came from 1 of his drug dealing buddies,now the state or feds should charge him for being a felon in possession of a firearm,that should get him plenty of jail time

    ReplyDelete
  13. chuck gregory2/16/18, 8:20 AM

    Precisely because he was a felon in possession of a gun, I posted that if the law stated the first purchaser of a gun is responsible for its use during its entire existence, Smith probably would not have been able to get one. He committed one of the 81% of homicides in this country that are done with a gun somebody else bought.

    If such a law were in effect, whoever bought that weapon ten years ago would have been in the dock with him.

    The conversation took off from there.

    So far, Anonymous has not responded to my question about how he would feel if he knew he could still buy and use all the guns he wants to, but he'd have to make sure nobody else ever laid their hands on any of them. I'd like to know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ok Chuck, I'll respond again. As I said before, IT'S A STUPID IDEA! All you really want to do is intimidate honest citizens by making them accountable for the actions of criminals in the future. I doubt it is even Constitutional to do so. A person who sells or gives away a gun can ALREADY be held accountable for knowingly giving it to someone who shouldn't have one, so your point is mute.

      Delete
    2. I believe the word you're looking for is "moot,"not mute.

      Delete
    3. I believe "mute" should be in quotes because that is the word you are quoting from the comment.

      Delete
    4. chuck gregory2/16/18, 4:47 PM

      8:55, you STILL haven't answered it entirely. True, if you give or sell a gun to someone who shouldn't have one, you can get in trouble, but if you legally sell your gun to someone who loses it to a thief who pawns it to a shop who sells it to a woman whose 14-year-old uses it to shoot up his school, how would YOU feel if the cops arrested you as the original purchaser of a gun who was legally responsible for it during its entire existence-- especially if you KNEW you'd be responsible and that the only way to end that burden would be to destroy the gun rather than to dispose of it in any other way? That's the question.

      Delete
    5. FOR THE LAST TIME, YOU BLITHERING IDIOT. I WOULD FEEL AS THOUGH MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAD BEEN VIOLATED, BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN. GUILT BY ASSOCIATION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. YOU LOSE, END OF STORY.

      Delete
    6. chuck gregory2/17/18, 1:51 PM

      But how are they violated? You can buy all the guns you want! And there's nothing in the constitution that says you have a right to sell, lose, pawn, give away or lend a weapon to a person unworthier than you. It seems you have an issue to resolve. So, by exercising personal responsibility from keeping your death-dealing weapon out of unworthy hands, you could help lower our annual homicide rate by as much as 10,000 victims. How does that make you feel, 5:46 (aka 8:51)?

      Delete
    7. I'm not 5:46 but am I understanding you right by saying that you want a law that I can never sell a gun that I own to a trustworty friend because someday it might get in the hands of a criminal that uses it to kill someone and I could get charged for that?

      Delete
    8. 5:46 here, and YES HE IS!!!!! He says this all the time, as well as his desire to LEGALIZE HEROIN!!!!

      Delete
    9. Thanks 5:46..chances of a law like that are slim to none and slim left town.

      Delete
    10. chuck gregory2/18/18, 10:14 AM

      5:57, that's right. The notion behind it is that a firearm is not a typical appliance, but designed to kill. Just as somebody who uses knives in her business (say, a butcher) could be prosecuted for letting a child get injured by playing with one of his tools, a person who willingly lets her weapon out of his possession is criminally irresponsible.

      Such a law would not prosecute a person who knows that the weapon he is giving away to a friend will never, ever be used criminally, so it would be completely legal to get rid of one in any way anyone wants to. I don't see people having a problem with that.

      It would only be the people who judged wrongly who would be punished. They'd be punished because they did not exercise personal responsibility. (I think that's a big selling point.)

      I think a lot of people will be happy with the idea of destroying a gun they don't want any more. They'd be very much like King Arthur ordering Excalibur to be thrown into the lake. Don't let it fall into unworthy hands.

      Delete
  14. Out of curiosity, was anyone who is posting comments on this article on the jury?? If not than how about giving some credit to the jury for making the verdict they came up with. They had all the info that was provided by the prosecutors and evidently felt 2nd degree murder charges weren't warranted and came up with a lesser charge.
    IMO both the victim and the shooter are at fault and that seems to be what the jury thought also.

    ReplyDelete
  15. What do you need a hand gun for? Scared or something. Want to target practice, use rocks it is much more difficult.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Australia's government bought 650,000 guns from their citizens and destroyed them. Gun crime there plumitied. Good idea for this country.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know how they did it in Australia, but it would have to be voluntary in the U.S. That would only eliminate guns that were no longer wanted, or were beyond repair. The gun buy-back programs I've seen here usually get nothing but junk!

      Delete
    2. The high capacity magazine ban in CT and NY prohibited sale and required registration of existing magazines. The results frightened law makers. An estimated < 1% of owners complied. It painted a stark impression of what a gun ban would generate.

      Our country has never been so divided, intellectually, idealistically, morally and economically. A civil war is inevitable. You can only redistribute wealth and assault the value system of moral peoples to a point. Seizing their last means of liberty would be the final straw.

      Delete
    3. Just curious, 8:44, when you say "redistribute wealth, are you talking about the 1.5 trillion that the wealthy just got? You know, the money which leaves the rest of holding the bag for the debt and defecits? Surely you don't mean the chump change that the poor, disabled, and elderly get, because it's not enough to make a difference in YOUR life! Sort of like the Trump tax cuts for middle class! Moral peoples? Oh, you mean like Roy Moore? YEAH, I THOUGHT SO!

      Delete
  17. chuck gregory2/19/18, 8:21 AM

    I'm curious as to whether people cling to guns because they don't know how to participate in civil society? In all my years in a mainstream political party, I've only met one member who sports all the NRA colors-- and he is open to taking further steps to prevent more mass shootings.

    Is it that the Wayne la Pierre faction can't get beyond the level of supposed individual omnipotence represented by a weapon? Did they never learn that people can be protected by cooperating with others to study problems and devise agreed-upon solutions?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Chuck, had you never met a Jewish, Slavic, or Scandinavian person that endured Nazi occupation? I have. Several as a matter of fact. The first steps were propaganda, registration all firearms, then to later seize them. Unarmed, the citizens were helpless to prevent the holocaust. Neville Chamberlin's "agreed-upon solution" didn't work out so well, did it? Are you so naive as to believe in 200,000 years of existence as a species, we have evolved beyond such atrocity in only 3 generations? Man's capacity for violence is never to be underestimated. History has taught us those with the swords or guns make the rules. An educated, moral, armed populace is necessary to insure the liberty of all people. Yes Chuck, freedom tragically has a price. But judging from the millions of people waiting to immigrate here, it's better than the alternative.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wonder what Jesus would have done if he had an AR-15 available to him during that time period.

      Delete
  19. Using Chuck's theory, let's imprison the parents of the people committing the gun crime. Just to be sure, let's imprison the close relatives too, since they should have known what the perpetrator was about to do. Those families will keep a closer eye on the nuts in the family if the whole clan goes to prison if one steps out of line. Apparently no one is responsible for their own actions. Someone else is always to blame and must be held accountable. If the original gun owner must be responsible for all actions of those who hold that weapon later, than it seems only reasonable that the parents and close relatives be held accountable for the nuts in the family tree.

    ReplyDelete
  20. chuck gregory2/19/18, 6:18 PM

    Gun owners ought to be responsible for their own action in disposing of a gun they don't want around any more. That type of owner is the one responsible for four-year-olds killing people.

    My proposal makes the gun owner responsible for the gun, not the person who steals it or accepts it as a gift and then pawns it five years later.

    How much trouble is it to make a gun unrecognizable and unusable as a weapon? Not much. And we're talking about reducing homicides by at least 40% and ideally 81%, which is the number committed with a gun that somebody else used to own.

    ReplyDelete
  21. chuck gregory2/19/18, 6:23 PM

    Well, it takes quite an unusual mind to equate the government of the US with a totalitarian state! I posted elsewhere wondering whether the gun crowd doesn't have an unusually large-- and really unusually large-- number of members who simply do not know how to participate in a democratic society? They always talk about the government seizing their guns, but you don't see them working out issues in the towns they live in.

    Here in Springfield, quite a few of them simply complain about everything, and often the proposals they recommend for good governance are wildly unrealistic, almost always a variation of "government is bad for you."

    ReplyDelete
  22. Chuck used the term "wildly unrealistic"! Minutes after he hatched is own statistics.....

    ReplyDelete
  23. How does gun control differ in Chester Chuck?

    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

Video: Jammin' at Windsor County Democrats BBQ
(Don't they remind you of the Darling family of Mayberry?)





Stoughton Pond, 2016
Featuring Sue Mintner on the tambourine, the Democrats' nominee for governor that year.
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