This to me is one of the biggest legal travesties I’ve witnessed in a long time. Jose Luis Nazario served his country in the marines. He saw basically hand to hand combat. He got shot at. He shot at others. He did all the things normally expected during live combat in a war where the other guy’s intention is to kill him. He survived.
Then, he came home and things got tough.
Nazario was charged with voluntary manslaughter, assault with a deadly weapon and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence.
That “crime” was serving in the US Marine Corps.
The real crime in my opinion was committed by the State of California ( where else would anyone expect this to happen? ). In this state it would be called something along the lines of corruption of justice, and something along the lines of criminal coercion. To wit:
The message I think whoever the idiot was that instigated this lawsuit is trying to send is if you commit what would have been a civilian crime while serving in the military anywhere on Earth, California is gonna prosecute you. They’re gonna lose, but they’re gonna wreck your life in the process. If you live in California and wanna join the military, best not to return there.
That folks, is just extortion pure and simple.
I think Mr. Nazario has a case for suing the hell out of the state of California. How many legitimate lawsuits are filed by states against individuals where there is no victim, no evidence, no willing accuser, and no witness?
The jury even wept when the verdict was rendered. They knew how incredibly bogus this personal legal vendetta was.
Californians, you all have a serious problem going on. What you just witnessed in Riverside is BIG BROTHER
Has anyone asked what would happen if the California attorney generals decided your political views are no longer acceptable to them?
What happened to Jose needs to induce outrage and protests all over San Francisco and the usual places in California that love to be outraged. But, since the victim was a military person, you won’t hear a peep.
Comments
Comments:
Leave a Reply
clubber on 12.02.2008
You are wrong on so many different levels that I don’t know where to start. First of all, Sgt. Nazario was prosecuted by federal authorities, not by the State of California. Thank the Bush Administration, not the California Attorney General. Second, it was not a “lawsuit,” but a criminal complaint. Lawsuits are civil, not criminal. Third, the basics principles of extortion happen everyday in our criminal courts — I know because I used to be a defense attorney. However, if a prosecutor brings unfounded charges against an individual, that individuals recourse against the prosecutor is very limited. It’s due to a legal principle called sovereign immunity and it can only be pierced in very specific situations. For example, if the prosecutor had pursued charges despite knowing or having strong reason to believe the defendant was innocent. Innocent being that the defendant didn’t commit the charged crimes, not he likely would be found Not Guilty at trial.
Sgt Nazario may very well be innocent and, if so, he’s lucky that the jury saw that. However, he and other fellow Marines made statements that incriminated Nazario and that is a pretty good basis for prosecution.
Moon on 12.02.2008
OK, help me with this. You’re saying a federal attorney made a federal criminal complaint in a civilian court for crimes committed by a person in the military committed in another country during an armed conflict?
OK, so given that, I guess he couldn’t sue the state of California. But, how much do you wanna bet the US Attorney in Kentucky would never have pursued it?
I may not be a defense lawyer, but I know a few “US” Attorneys. They, like any other lawyer in this country, determine their priorities and pursue cases of their choice. And, I do know this for a proven fact in the real world, a lot of them have political agendas, goals, and ambitions as well. So, to throw the baby out with the water simply because I mentioned the wrong court is horribly misleading. Simply because I mentioned the wrong court does not mean this is not a California issue. Are we to assume that of all the military that have been in combat since 2002, representing every state in the nation, only one person fell into the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act? Or, are we to assume US Attorneys in most other states don’t feel compelled politically to attack our soldiers once they’ve made it home safely?