The comments from the defense attorney regarding the shower were NOT given as
justification for Angilau's violence. If one will actually read the story
and follow the timeline one will discover that they were given at the start of
the day, before anyone could have had any idea an attack might occur. My guess
is the attorney was trying to do his job: advocating for his client with the
purpose of trying to see that his client got a morning shower on future days of
the trial. Lawyers get plenty of criticism, some of it justified, but the
comments posted here accusing them of making excuses afterward for
Angilau's behavior are baseless and wrong.
While in hindsight, Mr. Angilau should have been restrained. However, at the
point that he rose and attacked his intended victim, the situation in the court
demanded quick and deadly action. Hat's off to the officer, glad there
were no innocent victims here. All should be safe in a court of law. We are
all summoned at times to do our duty as citizens and serve on juries. Armed
marshals are not there for their looks.
One thing to remember is it it often argued by the defense that the site of a
defendant in shackles can impose thoughts and feelings in the jury. Because
we're "trying" to have a innocent until proven guilty process, the
defense will do what they can to present an upstanding member of the community.
That is why he wasn't in shackles. If you're a juror and you see a
defendant sitting in orange and white scrubs, with "UT DOC " in bold
black letters, and draped in chains its hard not to come to your own conclusions
before any evidence is even presented. Unfortunately he wasn't shackled or
we would be able to see our justice system actually play out. There is an option
to have the defendant present via TV but our laws allow a defendant to face
their peers. Our system will never be perfect but its the best we have.
I'm sick of hearing about fatal shootings from an officer. Maybe we just
don't hear about the non-shoot-to-kill stories. Why are there not
alternative methods used of subduing someone? Batons, aerosols, tasers? He
didn't have a weapon. Does it HAVE to be three shots to the chest every
time? If known for violence, in a bad mood, and bringing in an already
contentious witness, why was he not already cuffed and restrained? A packed
courtroom with bullets flying can be extremely dangerous to everyone, is it
worth that risk? Yes he is a violent criminal, he needs to pay for his crimes,
and though quite provoked, this man didn't deserve to be "fatally"
shot. Maybe this was a higher risk situation than what I can glean from the
article, but can't these situations be handled with the same success of
subduement but without guns? Is that the only way officers are trained? ALWAYS
shoot to kill? I'm sure it's not, it just seems that way. From looking
at other comments, I'm probably not in the popular camp here, so "fire
away" repliers. Just don't aim for my chest...
If I didn't get to shower the first (?) day of my federal jury trial, I
would be very unhappy. Perhaps not attack someone unhappy, but very, very, very
unhappy. Requesting a shower doesn't simply help the defendant, it helps
everyone involved. It's not like he was requesting a tux.
I agree with Cats - it IS tragichis poor choices DID
lead to tragedyWhy do we hate his family so that we cannot offer our
condolences?Nothing cats said condoned or excused his behavior. I
guess some of us don't like seeing that bad choices lead to bad
consequences.I AM glad he will no longer pose a threat to anyone,
but we need not hate on his family and not recognize the overall nature of the
Strider 303 has an outstanding post and sums up my feelings as well. The real hero in this case is the fast acting law enforcement officers who
prevented this violent man from hurting more innocent people.
Let me get this straight... his lawyers are blaming this on him not getting his
shower???I mean I knew lawyers could suspend reality... but I never
knew they could go this far in looking but not seeing the obvious.You don't attack someone because you're "uncomfortable"...
I would love to see the entire transcript which was the title of the story
I don't understand the judge: "Given what this jury has just
experienced, I cannot see that we could go forward and give Mr. Angilau a fair
trial on these charges."If Angilau had been slipped some kind of
drug without his knowledge that made him do something totally out of character
for him, that might be true. But his action in court showed the jury exactly how
he chooses to deal with a situation not to his liking. I can't think of a
fairer trial of Angilau's character than that.
So he was locked up in supermax and agitated but it would have been in
appropriate to put shackles on him? Help me make sense of that nonsense.
I agree with the comment of "Strider303" and not so much with that of
Somebody that violent and that out of control will always be a danger to
society, and whether he spent his life in prison or not doesn't matter as
long as he can't continue to be a menace to society.
. "He's locked up in supermax, and he's not in the best of moods,
understandably, this morning, and it certainly makes my job a lot more difficult
when he's not — when he's not comfortable."I do
not have much sympathy for a convicted felon not having his every need met.
Apparently Mr. Angilau was a violent man, unable to control himself and struck
out when he was "not in the best of moods". I object to
painting him as some sort of victim. He was violent, dangerous and in my not so
humble opinion, lethal force was justifiable and necessary. Some serious
thought needs to be given to shackles on prisoners with violent backgrounds.
It is so tragic to see a child of God make these kinds of choices and end his
life this way. when we head down the wrong path, something bad is going to
happen. Really sad. My condolences go out to his family.