Comments on: Teen pleads ‘not guilty’ in murder

By: toad

toad — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:51:35 +0000

the thing about our justice system i have a problem with is that we try to determine the severity of the “punishment” based on the severity of the crime then we say killing one man is not as bad as killing two, deciding to kill someone before doing it is worse than getting pissed off at someone and just shooting them or child molestation isn't as bad a crime as say using an image of Mickey Mouse to sell tampons without Disney permission.
I would like to see a system that makes decisions based on who we need to be protected from more and keep people locked up according to that basis

By: th3b3st

th3b3st — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:31:23 +0000

why do any of you people think you anything about what happened??
you can only assume all the bullhshit you guys are talking about is way off!!

By: ballardgurl

ballardgurl — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 23:45:37 +0000

This is not true … Elijah & the man did not stuggle over the gun, he demanded the money from the clerk, smashed his head into the glass case on the counter then shot the clerk (after he got the money) ran home and told his girlfriend he THOUGHT he just killed someone, she didnt believe hin so they walked back to the store about an hour later and the nerve to ask the cops what had happened …

By: grnwdtch

grnwdtch — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 23:02:26 +0000

He's probably entering a not-guilty plea because it wasn't premeditated. The crime happened at 6:30 in the morning. You know he didn't set his alarm to get up and do this, he was up all night and probably high.
Just because he had a loaded gun doesn't mean he planned to go in and shoot a man dead.

By: Ronvdv

Ronvdv — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 07:26:14 +0000

I was pretty good friends with Elijah's parents when he was younger and knew him fairly well. He was a decent kid and went down a disasterous road in life.
Though his parents divorced, I was shocked to learn he ended up is such a gutter. From what I have learned second hand, he was high on drugs.
What will most likely be convicted of is terrible, but I do want to let you all know he was an innocent boy at one point who played happily with my sons.

By: SPG

SPG — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:51:56 +0000

If Johnny Cash were still alive you'd like to see him in jail too?

By: LBB

LBB — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:51:00 +0000

sk was responding to pt saying they would want to kill the shooter when he got out of jail – thus being a murderer as well. sk wasn't responding to your comment – so not sure why you're upset. I often don't agree with sk's posts but this one is pretty clear to me.

By: G.Freeman

G.Freeman — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 00:44:07 +0000

The legal system in America is a huge parody of itself.

Kid will be out in 5 years and bragging how he shot a man, just to watch him die.

Ugh.

By: JACS

JACS — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 00:01:18 +0000

Nice post. I admit I have not heard his side, but I wonder why this was not brought out sooner as the security tape should show the struggle and still shots of the tape were on the news. I'll add this: he also made a choice to leave after firing at least rounds. Perhaps by calling 911 and staying after shooting Manish the clerk may have lived and Elijah would not be facing murder charges in addition to armed robbery. Attempted murder as well as armed robbery maybe or something along those lines but the death of an innocent store clerk would not now be on his conscience. I know it sounds too much to ask but I'd thought I'd put it out there.

The old adage applies: never take a gun out a holster unless you intend to use it.

By: SPG

SPG — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 23:00:34 +0000

This in no way excuses what Elijah Hall did or changes the outcome. Manish Melwani died as a result of Elijah deciding to rob a store with a loaded handgun and use that handgun.
When the first reports came out it seemed, at least to me, more like someone came into the store, shot the clerk, then took the money. A premeditated cold blooded murder for a few bucks. After he was caught it was described a little differently, that Elijah Hall was trying to open the register while Manish was in the back room. Manish came out and tried to stop Elijah which is when he shot him in the leg and abdomen. The end result is the same, Manish is dead and Elijah should be punished for that. He made a choice to rob the store, he chose to bring a gun, he chose to shoot. I doubt that he came in intending to kill like many of us thought from the first reports.

By: silence.kit

silence.kit — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 20:30:27 +0000

“This was not a mistake, not an accident, not something done in the heat of passion.”

Prove it.

By: Dogman of Ballard

Dogman of Ballard — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 08:03:39 +0000

I am not saying I am fine with executing the mentally retarded.
I believe that is unconstitutional as ruled by the Supreme Court.
I am saying that if it is determined that a person understands the charges against him and knows right from wrong and is competent to stand trial then he should, if found guilty, suffer the punishment as would anyone regardless of the punishment.
As it stands now with all the appeals the cost of a Death Row inmate is probably greater than a life in prison sentence, which is one reason the number of federal appeals have been limited in recent years by Congress. I have no problem with appealing Death Row cases, which are automatic at the the federal level and in most, if not all, states. They do need to be strictly limited however. Frankly, I have always thought it cruel to have people on Death Row for decades; their sentences need to be carried out within a reasonable timeframe.
This 17 year old kid will be tried as an adult, should he not face the same sentence possibilities, death included, as an adult? This 17 year old shot a total stranger, leaving him to die on the floor of a minimart, over a few bucks during the course of a robbery he planned ahead of time (mask and outfit and bag with a change of clothes). His lack of respect for human life is self evident. Frankly, I do not want my tax dollars going toward his keep. This was not a mistake, not an accident, not something done in the heat of passion. This was cold blooded murder and deserves to be dealt with by the death penalty, coolly, dispassionately, and as painlessly as possible after due process of law as stated in the Bill of Rights.

By: silence.kit

silence.kit — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:01:39 +0000

Let me say, once again, that I think it's pretty screwed up that a lot of people want a 17 year old kid dead, no matter what he did.

Also, I've read articles that say the death penalty is actually more expensive than life in prison.

Lastly, the fact that you're fine with mentally retarded people being executed kind of takes any legitimacy you had hoped to achieve out of your post.

In some cases, I'm not even against the death penalty (South Park, anyone), but in this case, I think it's rather sick.

By: SeaSpider

SeaSpider — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 19:22:27 +0000

"You may note that very, very few appeals on death penalty cases actually deal with new evidence or the cops nabbed the right guy."

"Very few" still means there are some. How do you deal with those AFTER you've executed the wrong person?

Also if you haven't heard of people being wrongly executed then you're not reading a decent newspaper. Do a quick Google search on the topic. Also note that in most of those cases the prosecutors fought to keep DNA evidence from being used to free the wrong person. They're rather see an innocent man die than admit they were wrong. I grew up in a cop family and trust me when I say that prosecutors have some of the biggest egos you will ever come across.

By: SPG

SPG — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:08:27 +0000

Here's a start just to show the possibility of what you think is a slam dunk case might not be…
“The story of how common and perfectly legal police interrogation procedures, procedures without violence or torture, were able to get an average fourteen-year-old suburban kid to confess to murdering his own sister … even though DNA evidence later proved that he hadn't done the crime. (12 minutes)”
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.a...

I'm not defending Elijah Hall. I think he did it, and I don't hold a very high opinion of him for that, but what we're arguing here is that you think it's fine to put life and death faith in fallible people who have their faults when we don't absolutely need to. And why? Because you want to save a few bucks? It's not exactly cheap to go through the mandatory appeals of a capital case, and when you look at how a lot of these people wind up wrongly convicted you find that the budgets of the justice system have been slashed and this is the result.
All this talk of justice is very subjective anyhow. We can't talk about how disgusted we are that some punk would kill a man, while also rooting for another kid to be killed.
Get over your base desire for simple answers and realize that sometimes you have to deal with life's complexities and shades.

By: SPG

SPG — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:30:08 +0000

What he does in jail is up to him. He hasn't exactly made very good choices up to this point, now has he?

By: Dogman of Ballard

Dogman of Ballard — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:21:52 +0000

Elijah Hall killed a man in the course of a robbery.
From the evidence I have read about he committed the crime so we do not have to worry about executing the wrong person but we can let, as we should, a jury decide. Let him appeal. If that appeal fails then execute him.
The actual killer will have been caught, tried and punished. Sounds like justice.
Elijah Hall will never again take a life or cause society any more harm or expense. From him we have no more worries.
As for a Texas inmate executed and found to be innocent can we get some facts on that. Such information wold be all over the headlines so I am surprised I have not heard about it.
If DNA evidence exonerates you then go free within a day. If it proves your guilt then dance at the end of a rope within 24 hours of the results being known; Washington still has death by hanging as a choice. Come one, any takers for that "deal" by those on Death Row? From what I know of those on Washington's Death Row they'd run from that deal.
You may note that very, very few appeals on death penalty cases actually deal with new evidence or the cops nabbed the right guy. The vast majority deal with procedural issues or the competency of one's lawyer but not with the core of the case: did X kill Y. If no then who. If yes then why.
As for the mentally retarded if they are deemed by a judge competent to stand trial and understand right from wrong they should be tried and punished like the rest of us who also pass those criteria. Those that do not require a life long stint in a mental institution.
Executing killers does not bring their victims back; neither does life in a cell without parole or letting them walk free after a certain length of time. It is about punishment fitting the crime and making sure those who murder will not do it again. Execution may bring the victim's families some sense of closure, as I understand it does in many instances.
Executing killers eliminates any chance they can do it again and spares us the expense of housing, feeding and clothing a bunch of murderers.
SPG is correct, death is something you cannot walk back from. Therefore spare no expense to prove guilt or innocence. If guilt is proven, then send them to the gallows.

By: Black_Sheep

Black_Sheep — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:56:37 +0000

He'll be a model prisoner, of course, if he's convicted at all.

This was all just a big misunderstanding, remember?

By: silence.kit

silence.kit — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:44:16 +0000

Oh please, you're the one, along with a lot of other people here, that gasp every time a homeless person asks for change and call it "aggressive panhandling."

Sorry, but psychotics that think it's okay to kill someone scare the shit out of me. That level of stupidity scares the shit out of me.

Luckily and thankfully, this blog isn't representative of Ballard.

By: chopper_74

chopper_74 — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:27:38 +0000

You frighten much too easily.

By: NoraBell

NoraBell — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:33:51 +0000

Too right. There are still too many mistakes made to completely convince me capitol punishment is a good idea.

By: SeaSpider

SeaSpider — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:08:39 +0000

Brilliant, this way we can be like Texas and execute the wrong person! Problem with the death penalty is once you apply it you can't undo it. That's a pretty big issue since prosecutors have titanic egos and will happily prosecute the wrong person just to make a name for themselves and advance their careers. There have been plenty of cases where DNA evidence came out and exonerated someone on death row yet prosecutors still fought it rather than admit they were wrong.

Also I don't think murderers deserve the dignity of being put to sleep. Why should they be given the same treatment as a loyal family pet? Better to keep them locked up alone in a tiny cell without any contact with the outside world.

By: SeaSpider

SeaSpider — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:57:05 +0000

So we can end up as bankrupt as California? Locking them up and throwing away the key sounds attractive but it's not a viable long term solution. Prisons are expensive, locking people up is expensive. How do you propose paying for that?

A much more cost effective solution would be to keep people from becoming criminals in the first place. There is a VERY direct correlation between education and crime. Doubt this? Explain why there are so few college graduates in prison, especially for violent crimes. If people have other options besides robbery they'll usually take them. No, it's not 100% effective and there will always be your unredeemable sociopaths who definitely need to be locked away from society. However, doesn't it seem kind of odd that in this country we have one of the highest incarceration rates on the planet yet still have some of the highest crime rates? Kind of shoots down that whole prison-as-deterrence argument. Also ever notice that countries with high levels of violence – Afghanistan, Congo, Sudan, Somalia, South Central LA, etc. – are also areas with very low levels of education? Yeah, it sounds all touchie-feelie but numbers don't lie.

Trying to stop a problem after it's become a problem is never a winning strategy. Preventative measures are almost always more effective.

By: silence.kit

silence.kit — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:16:15 +0000

Yeah, let's follow Texas, because they do so many things right, like execute retarded people! Yeah! Yeah!

I must say, if I were to judge Ballard on this blog alone, I think I'd be rather frightened walking down the street.

(cue Chopper's trademark wit)

Nice post, SPG.

By: silence.kit

silence.kit — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:12:41 +0000

You sound like an intelligent one, Jim.

What mentality is that? The one where I obey the law and don't shoot people.

Yeah, what a coward, I am.

And it actually sounds like you very much do believe in eye for an eye, otherwise, why be so upset by my comment?

By: jim

jim — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:52:18 +0000

“If you don't accept it,…you're in the wrong.”

Way to just lie down and take it up the ass. Not saying that I agree with the “eye for an eye” idea… but it's this mentality that really bothers me about people.

By: SPG

SPG — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:15:36 +0000

I highly doubt that Elijah Hall thought for a second about a possible death sentence. I don't think he ever thought that he'd wind up shooting and killing the clerk, or that he'd ever get caught for the robbery. With that in mind how does the death penalty act as a deterrent?
You might not want to be put to death by the state, but then again I doubt that you'd be mulling a crime of this magnitude because you're a rational thinking person. The problem there is that what would be a deterrent to you isn't to a criminal who is more likely to actually commit the crime. Ask the families of the victims a couple years after the execution and they'll tell you that the death of the murderer didn't bring them much comfort, if any at all. What killing the killer definitely can't do is bring back the victims. So what's the point? To make you feel like there are some simple answers to complicated problems? I don't think that's enough justification to kill anyone.
The other issue here is that people make mistakes. I'm not talking about the series of mistakes that ended with a 17 year old shooting Manish Melwani, because Elijah Hall is responsible for the outcome of all those choices, but rather that the system can and does make mistakes in prosecutions fairly often where people innocent of the crime wind up incarcerated for years awaiting justice. There's been way too many people released on DNA evidence that were in jail for crimes they didn't commit and some of those were on death row. One of the prisoners executed in Texas is known now to have not committed the crime he was executed for. What then? Who do we kill to get justice for that?
I have no problem with longer terms for the most heinous crimes and the chronic criminals, but death is something you can't walk back from. Given the error rate in the system it's unconscionable to even consider killing people at the hands of the state.

By: Ernie_98107

Ernie_98107 — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:07:37 +0000

Thanks Jeff. I can mark that one on the ballot right now.

By: Dogman of Ballard

Dogman of Ballard — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:56:10 +0000

This is nuts.
If found guilty, and from what I have read there is no doubt about it, he needs to be put on death row and executed.
After all, he earned it.
By the way, for the-death-penalty-does-not-deter-crimminals crowd, I can assure you that after carrying out a death sentence, the convict will never again commit a crime. No other punishment can make that statement.
For those who say capital punishment is homicide, well you are right. It is legal homicide reserved for those who commit homicide.
Ron White said of Texas, "If you kill somebody in Texas we'll kill you back."
This really needs to apply to Washington State.
If other illiterate punks learn from his example great; if not we will have to worry about one less.

By: scott

scott — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:32:30 +0000

The reason most defendants plead not guilty is so a conviction can't be used as grounds for fault in a civil case. It's also used as a bargaining chip.