There's significant breaking news in the 1/4/12 Ogden Shootings story this morning, as enterprising Salt Lake Tribune reporter Nate Carlisle reveals the results of a Friday Weber County Jail interview, wherein suspect Matthew Stewart "spoke with a Tribune reporter Friday during one of his two weekly 25-minute visits he’s allowed via a video teleconference system at the jail." The lead paragraphs reveal a fact-set consistent with a theory of self defense in this case:
Ogden • The man accused of killing a police officer and wounding five others said he thought people were breaking into his home to "rob and kill me."Read the rest of this interesting Trib story here:
Matthew David Stewart, 37, said he never heard officers identify themselves or announce they were at his home to serve a search warrant. Stewart, in an interview Friday at the Weber County Jail, said his alarm clock woke him, then he heard a crash that sounded like glass breaking.
"Some parts I remember vividly," Stewart said of the Jan. 4 shootout. "Other parts it was like I was running on instinct.
"When you’re convinced that you are getting robbed and most likely killed by a group of armed men, your instincts kick in."
Whether speaking to the press at this still relatively stage of the proceedings is a good idea is anybody's guess. Whether this interview occurred in the presence and under the supervision of Mr. Stewart's defense lawyer, Mr. Richards, Mr. Carlisle's article doesn't say. Nevertheless, we'll venture to opine that the release of this information is probably a positive from a defense point of view, inasmuch as in the midst of the heretofore circus sideshow atmosphere of this case, it demonstrates that there is another possible side to this tragic story, founded upon a perfectly plausible fact set, which could logically appeal to a rational, unbiased jury during the ultimate trial of this matter.
As an added bonus we'll provide a front page link, incorporating a thoughtful and topically related Salt Lake City Weekly opinion piece, lodged in one of our lower comments sections by its author, Gentle Reader Bob Sawatzki, yesterday afternoon:
It's quite a "chewy" piece, wethinks, and we thank Mr. Sawatzki for bringing it to our attention.
That's it for now folks.
Don't let the cat get your tongues.
1 comment:
But .... but... but...
How can they run a story like this, giving Matthew Stewart's side of the story? Its so disrespectful of the officers who were injured just trying to protect the rest of us!
(Just thought I'd give this stupid argument since somebody will.)
As far as poor Matthew Stewart trying to defend himself from an assault on his home and now, after the hail of bullets, being forced to wear a poop bag at his young age and having blinding pain for the rest of his life I have one thing to say to him: Sue the bast***s.
Good points in the editorial:
Marijuana
is one of nature’s bounties, its beneficial qualities acknowledged by
many in the health-care industry. How did a common weed become a
“controlled substance?” How did things get so twisted that a veteran
wanting only to chill out ends up in a gun battle defending his turf?
Someday, the War
on Drugs will be over and Americans will look back on our era as
Prohibition II, an age of repression just as ineffective and
counter-productive as the original Prohibition. With so many casualties
on both sides, it seems that America’s War on Drugs is a war on itself.
Post a Comment