From: "Derek Bernard", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This recent Nevada case makes interesting reading. If Britain were to adopt
a similar, civilised and supportive approach to those who defend themselves
and their homes, it would experience the biggest and fastest drop in crime,
particularly burglary, in its history. And the decrease would be
maintained; and it would be achieved entirely without more police, or more
courts, or more jails.
Derek Bernard
FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED APRIL 14, 2000
THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
The troublesome case of Thomas Gaule
A series of unusual things happened in Clark County District Judge Mark
Gibbons' courtroom on April 4.
The defendant, Thomas Gaule, stood convicted of voluntary manslaughter
with a deadly weapon, a charge which could have netted him years in the
state pen. Last year, a Clark County jury had convicted Gaule, 43, of
chasing Ricky Tripp down Lakehurst Road in Las Vegas on Oct. 25 of 1998,
and killing him with a shotgun.
Officials at the Nevada state Division of Parole and Probation
recommended a sentence of at least four years in prison.
Generally speaking, a fellow in the position Mr. Gaule found himself in
last Tuesday would be well advised to have brought along a toothbrush.
But that's when the unusual things began to happen.
Rising to oppose the recommendation of the Division of Parole and
Probation was ... Chief Deputy District Attorney Bill Koot. "This case has
been troublesome to me personally for as long as I've been assigned to this
case," said Koot, who rarely stands to oppose the sentencing
recommendations of the Parole Division.
But in this case, Mr. Koot said he doubted prison time would serve any
purpose. More, he said he believed jailing Gaule would send "the wrong
message," that members of the public do not want to see a citizen go to
prison in a case like Gaule's.
Judge Gibbons promptly agreed: "If there's ever a case with extenuating
circumstances, this is the one." The judge then sentenced Thomas Gaule to a
period of probation not to exceed three years -- no jail time.
For killing two men with a shotgun.
If prosecutor Koot was so troubled, of course, one might ask why he
pursued the case at all. But let's admit it did take some political courage
to do what he and Judge Mark Gibbons did last week.
Why did they do it?
What happened to Thomas Gaule on the afternoon of Oct. 25, 1998 is that
he came home to find two burglars in his house. He testified the two men
jumped him and beat him severely, shocking him repeatedly with high-powered
stun guns. He can still show the scars on his neck.
Somehow, Gaule managed to make it into another room to retrieve a
shotgun. He testified at his trial the men came at him even after he had
retrieved the firearm, wrestling with him for control of the weapon.
So Thomas Gaule shot them. Jason Allen Lamb was hit inside the house and
died in the driveway. Ricky Tripp died 500 feet down the street, after
Gaule chased him out of the house and fired again.
In the death of Jason Allen Lamb, no charges were ever filed. Kill a
burglar and assailant in Nevada, in self-defense, at the scene of the
crime, and it's "case closed." Rightly so.
In the death of Ricky Tripp, the question was whether a victim and
homeowner -- Gaule -- has a right to chase down a home invader and
assailant after that assailant turns to flee.
Was Gaule still in fear for his life at the time he fired his final shot?
The trial jury thought not. But was Gaule stunned and confused enough by
his experience that his actions are excusable -- can society reasonably
expect a man shocked with high-voltage taser blasts to the neck, on top of
the fight-for-your-life adrenalin dump which could overrule normal
deliberation for any average person caught in such a crisis, to pause at
his doorway and muse on the intricacies of the laws of self-defense?
Doubtless adding weight to Judge Gibbons' burden last Tuesday was the
fact that Thomas Gaule is a quirky character, possessed of unusual
opinions. "I think he's extremely paranoid ... obsessed with what he
perceives to be an injustice," says prosecutor Koot.
But Thomas Gaule has never been known to commit another violent act,
before or since. Nor should defendants be sent to prison for their "oddball
views," as correctly observed by Gaule's attorney, Peter S. Christiansen.
In the end, Judge Gibbons authorized probation officials to require
counseling for Mr. Gaule, and treatment for depression. And then he sent
Thomas Gaule home.
In the end -- while a felony trial and record are no picnic, and the jury
clearly issued no license for others to engage in armed pursuits -- the
county and the court decided the most important thing here was to protect
the citizen's sacred right of self-defense. The county and the court ruled
an otherwise peaceful Nevadan shouldn't go to prison for defending himself
in his own home, even with deadly force, even if -- in the heat of a fight
for his life -- he chases one of his tormentors out the door and down the
street.
It was a tough call. It's an oddity of modern American jurisprudence that
civilians are held to a much higher standard than trained cops when it
comes to shootings that aren't clear-cut self-defense.
But last Tuesday, Chief Deputy D.A. Bill Koot and Judge Mark Gibbons got
it right.
Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas
Review-Journal.
-------[Cybershooters contacts]--------
Editor: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website & subscription info: www.cybershooters.org
