News Reports about the Acworth Carjacking

Discussion in 'Georgia In the News' started by Gunstar1, Sep 26, 2005.

  1. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    Here a list of reports about the Acworth Carjacker. These are most of the reports in Georgia about this topic. The AP is quoted by many news outlets around the state. I listed them by the media outlets name, when it was posted and whether or not the report correctly states Mr. Roberts has a Georgia Firearms License. Note: the incident took place early Monday, September 12.

    Posted Sept 13, Nothing about a license to carry ... html?imw=Y
    Posted Sept 14, Nothing about a license to carry ... html?imw=Y
    Posted Sept 17, Nothing about a license to carry ... html?imw=Y
    Posted Sept 18, "carried a licensed pistol" instead of licensed to carry a pistol ... html?imw=Y

    Associated Press (used by many media outlets outside of Atlanta)
    Posted Sept 13, Nothing about a license to carry
    Posted Sept 14, Nothing about a license to carry
    Posted Sept 23, Nothing about a license to carry ... 3&nav=E8ZQ

    CBS46 and AP
    Posted Sept 22, Nothing about a license to carry ... 1&nav=E8ZQ

    WXIA-TV 11alive (most often referenced by other websites)
    Posted Sept 13, Nothing about a license to carry ... ryid=69104
    Posted Sept 14, Nothing about a license to carry
    Posted Sept 16, Nothing about a license to carry
    Posted Sept 17, Nothing about a license to carry ... ryid=69354

    Cobb County PD public information press release
    Posted Sept 12 and 13, Nothing about a license to carry
  2. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist



    The DA for Cobb County presented the State's evidence to a Grand Jury and the Grand Jury decided to "no bill" the case, ruling that there is not enough evidence to send it to the Superior Court system to be assigned a docket number and put in line for an eventual prosecution (trial or plea).

    Here's a quote from today's article (4/17/2006)

    "A Cobb County grand jury has cleared a Kennesaw man in the shooting death of a carjacking suspect last September following a crash in which the 30-year-old mother of two who owned the car was killed.
    Grand jurors decided that Shawn T. Roberts was justified in shooting Brian Clark, said Cobb District Attorney Pat Head. The decision means that no criminal charges will be brought against Roberts, Head said Monday."


    Why was this case even presented to a grand jury at all? Doesn't the DA's office have prosecutorial discretion not to draw up a Bill of Indictment and not subpoena witnesses to the grand jury? If there is no evidence indicating that the citizen with the pistol permit committed any sort of crime, i.e. the only evidence found to date clearly shows a justifiable homicide, why even submit the citizen's name to the grand jury and suggest that they indict him?

    Or was this one of those cases where the prosecutor told the grand jury that they SHOULD "no bill" it, but he didn't want to do it summarily because of the potential repercussions, such as if (and I don't know if this is true in this case) the citizen with the gun permit were a white male and the kidnapper / felon on parole was a black man? If the DA thought that somebody among the deceased thug's family or friends or some race-baiting fool like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton might try to allege a cover up in this case, it would be better to let the case be dismissed by the majority vote of a group of 23 randomly-chosen citizens rather than by one District Attorney. What do y'all think of putting an innocent man's case before the grand jury?

  3. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    Re: UPDATE

    Gunsmoker, while your guesses as to the race of the dirtbag and the citizen are correct, I do not believe this had much to do with the prosecutor's decision.

    While I do not know the reason, I believe it to be fairly common to present self defense shootings to the grand jury and expect a "no bill." I encountered this rarely, but it was uniformly the practice in my limited experience. The explanation is that it protects the shooter from further prosecution.

    I suppose I can put this explanation to the test by asking the question: Does a "no bill" invoke double jeopardy protection?
  4. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    Effect of a No Bill

    As I understand it, there is a statute in Georgia that says if the grand jury no-bills a case, the DA has ONE MORE CHANCE to present it again (I'm not sure if only to that grand jury, or to any future grand jury within the statute of limitations period). If the second attempt at indicting it is unsuccessful, the case cannot be prosecuted in Georgia.

    The Georgia and State constitutional bars to "double jeopardy" don't really apply as such, because jeopardy does not "attach" at any point prior to a trial jury, having already been selected through voir dire, taking the juror's oath. So anything happens before is not a first instance of jeopardy, and a Grand Jury meeting is not even a "critical stage" of the prosecution of a case for consitutional purposes, since many felonies can be charged without first being taken to a grand jury, and at the grand jury meeting only the State gets to put on evidence and argument-- the defendant is not even present, nor his attorney, and the state has no obligation to tell the grand jury what legal defenses there may be in the case and what evidence leans in the defendant's favor.

    (That's why they say a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor asks them to.)
  5. Sharky

    Sharky Active Member

    Not that I know a hell uv alot about the legal system. Common sense would tell me that the Grand Jury deciding not to move forward only helps me in a civil case or otherwise. Not that I think the system should put us through this kind of process, however as a civilian, dealing with people like this BG that destroyed somebody's life, I wouldnt want any possibility of their "family" coming after me. If it takes the DA to go to the Grand Jury to make the call so people like Jackson and other wacks don't treat the situation as such then so be it. They are always looking for something as this to turn it around for their exposure.

    Sometimes I think having the process can help later on, even though a few more sleepless nights occur.

    But in no way am I saying it is right, or that I should have any civil liability for helping save a person, not knowing she was dead already, from a piece of crap like that or havin to put up with a DA or Grand Jury for being an American with my own rights!

    I rather have the Law on my side with a decision like this anyday.
  6. ber950

    ber950 Active Member

    I agree with Malum. I have heard that this is common practise in self defense cases. I have heard that this most often happens at the end of the Grand Jury term, because DA's don't like the Grand Jury to get in the habit of no billing cases early in their term.
  7. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    Gunsmoker, given the "ham sandwich" jurisprudence, I'm assuming the prosecutor didn't push hard for an indictment. I think it's more of an attempt to present unbiased facts to the grand jury, and letting them decide (which is what all grand jury sessions should be). It lets the DA off the hook ("the grand jury didn't indict") in what could be a high profile case, and it gives the potential defendant some level of closure (even though jeopardy did not attach, only a super-aggressive DA, who had wanted an indictment in the first try, would put it before a grand jury again). I don't really have a problem with this use of the grand jury.
  8. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    Moron columnist this morning, editorial page of AJC inside last two pages of section A:

    "He is not a vigilante, but I am not ready to call him a hero . . ."

    Or something very close to that . . .

    What Mr. Columnist overlooks is that is everybody were like Shawn Roberts, then maybe this guy would not have dared to try and carjack and shoot that poor woman and leave her children without a mother.

    Mr. Robert's actions in trying to save her qualify as him as a "hero" in most people's book.

    Not in mine, though, because I consider it simply discharging the duty every man has upon encountering such an incident. I see it as fulfilling an obligation. Discharging one's duties as expected is not heroic.


    That is not what this columnist meant, however . . . :roll:

    I wonder if the columnist would want me to intervene if that had been his wife :?:

    Or just drive on by . . . :shakehead:
  9. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    All these articles disappeared now. :cry:
  10. ahlongslide

    ahlongslide New Member

    Here is the only one you need, but it costs $$$

    Search for this:

  11. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    Moved to Georgia In The News