Man convicted of manslaughter for defending his family

If someone threatens your teenage son, don't you think you have a right to put forth a defense against this threat? I would think so. But now a 54-year-old man from Long Island has learned the hard way that if you defend your family, the system will throw the book at you.

Last year, a mob of several teenage hooligans showed up at the man's house late at night, yelled racial slurs, threatened to kill him, and tried to fight his 19-year-old son. Anyone would have felt threatened by such a large crowd that was obviously spoiling for a fight. But the man kept a loaded pistol in his garage, and he got his gun out to scare the youths away.

But the drunken, racist mob was stupid. One of the members of this violent crowd strolled up to the man and slapped his gun as he was holding it. From what I can gather, this caused the gun to discharge squarely in his face, killing him.

Because the man was clearly defending himself (and the shooting only happened because a member of the crowd had the nerve to slap the gun), it's hard to imagine the man actually being charged with any crime, let alone convicted. But Suffolk County prosecutors immediately came down hard, charging him with manslaughter and criminal possession of a weapon. And just a week ago, right before Christmas, he was actually convicted of these charges!

But how?????

For one thing, there was no criminal possession of a weapon, because it's perfectly legal to have a pistol in your home in the state of New York. Apparently, the thing that made it allegedly "criminal" was that someone was shot with it. Well, isn't that already covered in the manslaughter charge? If this isn't a case of unconstitutional double jeopardy, what is? And besides, since when is self-defense considered manslaughter?

The man was on his own property, protecting his family from racist hoodlums who threatened to kill him - yet still he was convicted of manslaughter and the weapons charge. Now he's looking at up to 5 to 15 years in prison for manslaughter and 2 to 7 years for the weapons offense (although these sentences would probably run concurrently).

Now it turns out that at least 2 members of the 12-person jury that convicted him say they were unfairly pressured by fellow jurors into changing their vote to guilty. I believe that. Out of 12 people chosen at random, you'll likely get approximately one Freeper type who is always out to throw the book at someone and isn't satisfied until the rest of the world agrees.

Speaking of Freeper types, where are they? Aren't conservatives supposed to be Second Amendment champions? Well, conservative commenters on other websites are praising the conviction, yapping about how the man's gun was illegal (even though it wasn't).

Um. Aren't conservatives supposed to be the ones who support gun owners' rights? Oh, I get it now. Conservatives believe in "right to bear arms for me, not for thee." Of course, I knew that already.

(Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2557746;
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--drivewayshooting1223dec22,0,1981235.story;
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/5404375.html)