The Aftermath: Fatal Attraction

thnks johnny

1 Like

Everybody is answering without know ALL of the circumstances! How long were they in a relationship? How would he know her past? How BIG was this girl,how big is he? DON’T ASSUME anything!

2 Likes

You have the best answer. But in domestic violence cases, the person being attacked can’t always walk away. Without more information, maybe he should have just took the beaten if he couldn’t run away, then call 911.

It’s a sad situation. I left my marriage of 35 years before someone got physically hurt. Was it the smart thing to do? I fell better now. The first 3 years after leaving was so had for me. I didn’t want to leave.

1 Like

“Second, guns should never be pointed to scare people.” This statement is BEYOND overly broad and unnecessarily absolute.

As lawfully and responsibly armed citizens, when faced with an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, by law, we are allowed to use force, even lethal force, in order to stop the threat. However, the responsible thing to do is use the least amount of force necessary to stop the threat.

The presentation of a firearm is far less lethal than the use of a firearm. Therefore, if pointing a gun at someone is sufficient to dissuade them from continuing their attack, I would argue that doing so is a rational choice to have available on the force continuum.

2 Likes

I agree and I think this has been discussed in some other threads, as well.
Generally speaking, if you’re going to unholster your firearm, you’d better be prepared to use it. If the circumstances don’t warrant the use of lethal force, then keep your firearm tucked away. The display of a firearm in a situation where lethal force is not justified can get us into hot water. I think that’s what the earlier member meant by “guns should never be pointed to scare people.”

On the flip side, if lethal force is justified, it shouldn’t be too difficult to articulate that I drew my firearm but did not discharge my weapon because circumstances changed.

2 Likes

…or shot.

4 Likes

Mistakes based purely on the article;

  1. Picking up a weapon when angry with no threat of emanate severe bodily harm or death. 2. Purpose to scare, in my state brandishing is a crime. 3. A rifle not in his direct possession sitting there is a disaster waiting to happen. 3. Picking up a rifle to scare shows she was a distance away and that he could have avoided the situation. 4. Firing a warning shot again to intimidate is illegal in my state and puts others in danger. 5. Testifying he didn’t think his gun could kill someone is moronic and stupid.
3 Likes

Welcome to the family brother @Ron134 and you are blessed to be here.

Welcome to the family brother @Gregory1000 and God bless you.

1 Like

Interesting. Lots of points. Minimizing a .22 stood out to me, as I had seen speed measurers clock some bullets made nowadays at 2,000 FPS (or 1,370 MPH) velocity, and it being a rifle, it can get high. Her case, a sad example of its lethality.

1 Like

His problem was lack of trainihg. I saw a test=a .22 LR can kill at 440
Yards. Know your Backstop.

2 Likes

How about a right cross?

1 Like

We’re always one decision away from a totally different life, choose your weapons and woman wisely!
I hear, restraining orders are popular and prenups are always a good choice, but warning shots never warned anyone!
I highly recommend SERE training. Survival, Evasion,Resistance and Escape.
Definitely required training for dating in the post Trump era!

2 Likes

[F]atally shooting Wierzbicki, of Orchard Park, outside a home on Edson Street the evening of Nov. 27, 2018.

“She says she can’t move,” Casado tells the woman on the other end of the line.

Even though he fired, he says he doesn’t know if he hit the person.

The call taker asks who was shot. A friend, he says. “No longer a friend,” he adds.

“Rachael, you’re fine. It’s a .22,” Casado says during the 911 call, which was played Monday in Erie County Court as testimony in the trial began.

Casado was acquitted on charges of both second-degree murder and first-degree manslaughter.

The verdict comes as a shock to Erie County district attorney John Flynn, who told 7 Eyewitness News’ Pheben Kassahun by phone, that he believed the verdict was ridiculous.

“They didn’t even give him the manslaughter,” Flynn said.

Flynn said he foresaw this happening, which is why he had offered the manslaughter plea ahead of time.

“I think his story is ridiculous. I start with that right there. His story that he was justified in shooting her. This girl who was was considerably shorter, smaller than him is going to somehow threaten him is ridiculous,” Flynn said.

He blames the jury and not his ability to prove the charges against the ex-boyfriend.

At the beginning of the trial, jurors were told Casado was charged with second-degree murder. They learned at the time of jury instructions that they could consider a charge of first-degree manslaughter.

The key moment, according to two jurors in the case contacted by The Buffalo News, came when Erie County Court Judge Susan Eagan reread the legal instructions defining the standards under state law for second-degree murder, first-degree manslaughter and self-defense.

Prosecutors were required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casado was not justified, the judge instructed jurors.

Under state law, the difference between second-degree murder and first-degree manslaughter is the defendant’s intent. For murder, the prosecution had to prove Casado caused Wierzbicki’s death, meant to kill her and was not justified in doing so.

For first-degree manslaughter, they had to prove Casado intended to seriously injure her.

The juror said she believed Wierzbicki was “the aggressor” in this circumstance.

“We believed that in that moment he did feel threatened for his well-being,” she said. “I don’t care how tall he is.”

Casado is 5 feet, 11 inches tall and weighed about 170 pounds at the time of the shooting. Wierzbicki was roughly 5-foot-5 and weighed about 120 pounds.

Members of the jury had a wide diversity of backgrounds, according to the female juror, who was one of six women on the jury.

That led to a variety of perspectives and some heated exchanges.

The female juror who spoke with The News said she believed that for most jurors second-degree murder was “off the table immediately” and those who felt there could be guilt were leaning toward manslaughter.

The female juror who spoke with The News said many jurors felt Casado “did not have a grasp of how that gun even worked.”

Another factor the jury weighed was that Wierzbicki – despite being told by Casado not to – came to his home, where Casado’s grandmother also was living, the juror said. His grandmother never locked her doors, Casado testified.

Casado also testified Wierzbicki had previously been violent with him and she had told him there were instances of violence she had with an ex-boyfriend, including allegedly striking him with a frying pan and that she “pulled a blade” on him.

“At the end of the day, he got mixed up with someone and he couldn’t break away,” she said. “Almost like a fatal attraction.”

She said the jury put a lot of effort into deliberations and called the circumstances surrounding the shooting “a tragedy all the way around, for everyone.”

“I believe we did get it right based on the task we were given.”

911 call takes focus at trial over fatal shooting of Rachael Wierzbicki | Crime News | buffalonews.com

Jury acquits Shane Casado of murder, manslaughter charges in death of Rachael Wierzbicki (wkbw.com)

Jurors: Shane Casado jury had been leaning toward manslaughter conviction | Crime News | buffalonews.com

1 Like

I’m with the DA on this one. He most certainly is guilty of first degree manslaughter as I understand the wording of the statute. He deliberately committed a dangerous act even though he may have mistakenly believed that it wasn’t that dangerous. That’s voluntary manslaughter in CA where one deliberately commits a dangerous act that results in the death of another. Bingo.

If his statements reflect his true state of mind, he should never be allowed to handle anything more dangerous than a Whammo slingshot and even that only under adult supervision.

There is no accounting for jury verdicts. I reported a drug sale case where the narcotics detail had finally nailed a major distributor. The jury hung 11-1 for acquittal. What !?!
They didn’t like the informant. Nobody likes the informant. Even the informant has feelings of self-disgust. It was one of the best handled narcotics busts I had reported in my 25 years in court. The jury should have been back with a guilty verdict in 30 minutes with contested jury foreman election. The guy was dead-bang guilty of selling regional quantities of heroin. The criminalist told me he had the dope tested by three different technicians because they had never run into dope that pure and he didn’t believe the first test.

Another time a drunken husband emptied the magazine of a 1911 .45 acp into his wife. The jury found he was not armed at the time of the commission of the offense of murder in the second degree even though they found him guilty of second degree murder. How did they reconcile that verdict with the fact that the cops found 7 empty casings at the scene and the coroner testified she had seven holes in her consistent with large caliber gunshot wounds. This many years later I don’t remember if they recovered any bullets from her body. Juries are a crap shoot. You never can predict how they are going to go. Never bet on jury verdicts. Your odds are better in Vegas.

2 Likes

Not if it is self-defense. The DA failed to prove his case. It was not a hung jury; he was declared not guilty - by the entire jury. We all have opinions, and the jury gave theirs - the only relevant opinion in this case.

I do not have any opinion of the case nor the verdict. I only posted some information as many stated there was not enough info in the OP to understand the situation. I provided the links for anyone that wants to get more information.

Neither do I have an opinion on the cases you mentioned. I believe the colloquialism is “I don’t have a dog in this fight”. Jury instructions play a large role in verdicts that may otherwise appear wrong or contradictory. In my post, the juror stated that was the factor in their not guilty verdict.

The key moment, according to two jurors in the case contacted by The Buffalo News, came when Erie County Court Judge Susan Eagan reread the legal instructions defining the standards under state law for second-degree murder, first-degree manslaughter and self-defense.

Prosecutors were required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casado was not justified, the judge instructed jurors.

The juror said she believed Wierzbicki was “the aggressor” in this circumstance.

“We believed that in that moment he did feel threatened for his well-being,” she said. “I don’t care how tall he is.”

Casado also testified Wierzbicki had previously been violent with him and she had told him there were instances of violence she had with an ex-boyfriend, including allegedly striking him with a frying pan and that she “pulled a blade” on him.

1 Like

Interesting. Poignant on the critical importance on evidence. Hats off to detectives and those science minded in their offices.

I don’t know the details of this above case Aftermath Fatal Attraction, but I understand courts look at and compare the height, weight, and gender of the two parties involved.

I wonder, when there is a form of negligence, even if found not guilty of homicide, what percentage if any lose right to own firearms or “carry”? Including in accidental discharges, or injuries.

1 Like

Only “prohibited” persons lose their RKBA, such as convicted felons.

I provided many of them, more are in the links I provided, and yes, the juror did mention that.

1 Like

Dating Rachael.

1 Like

Welcome to the family brother @Alan139 and God bless you.