A jury acquitted a Jamul man of murder and attempted murder charges Tuesday in the fatal shooting of a man and the wounding of another in December 2006 as they fled his rural East County ranch.However, Joseph R. “Bob” Orlosky will be retried on lesser charges the jury was unable to agree upon, including manslaughter and shooting into an occupied vehicle, said Deputy District Attorney Jeff Dusek.
I have posted on this case many times before, and this is one of those stories that has drawn many comments, some quite heated or heartfelt, especially from locals.
I still know very little about the facts of the case, as news reports have been stingy with details. People seem to be mostly drawn to one of two positions: either (a) Orlosky gunned down an innocent Crow in cold blood and should pay the price, or (b) Orlosky legitimately defended his property from thieves (or intended thieves), and Crow's death is regrettable but not criminal. The jury has decided (b).
This is one of those cases where I simply don't know how to react to the verdict. I am not privy to the same information the jury had, so I don't know if I'd agree with their verdict. Crow's family is understandably shocked by the result; his mother appears on some (highly insenstive) news video reacting in a way that I find completely understandable and forgiveable whatever the facts may be – she's lost her son to a violent and senseless death, and the jury just told her that she has no one to hold responsible. Bob Orlosky reportedly reacted very understandably as well, saying that this was a sad outcome for both sides (remember, he still has serious criminal charges standing against him). As a neighbor of Orlosky (I don't know him, but I live just a mile away from him), and as a citizen of Jamul, I'm disappointed that the jury could not make a decision on all the charges, for now we have to go through yet another cycle of justice (unless a plea bargain is reached, which may be the prosecutor's actual objective in announcing that Orlosky would be retried on the remaining charges).
Most of all, though, I'm left wishing that I knew what really happened a mile up the hill from me, on the night of December 1, 2006...
The mother of Charles Crow does have someone to blame for her sons death; her son and his two friends. They went out that night to steal and got caught and as sad as it is someone died. THE ONLY PEOPLE TO BLAME ARE THOSE THREE MEN, and maybe the blame should also fall on their parent after all maybe if their parents could have done a decent job of raising their kids they wouldn't have turned out to be devious criminals who should be locked up in prison for trying to kill an innocent man trying to protect his life, his family, and his property.
ReplyDeleteLet's not forget that not a shred of evidence was found implying that a) the men had stolen or b) had any intent to steal.
ReplyDeleteSo, as for your "devious criminal" accusation: at least 'try' to apply some small increment of intellegence and fact to your statements before making yourself look a fool by posting them for the public to view.
Furthermore, You seem to lack any sense of compassion. I sincerely hope you can work on that. Sad, truly.
As far as Mr. Orlosky's assertion that he only fired in self defense, that is totally contrary to the facts. If as he maintains, that he was standing in the road and the boys were trying to run him down, how is it that the fatal shot was fired into the rear of the vehicle after it had already gone by. This is not the wild west and you just can't go outside of your house and gun someone down out in the street if you believe they have stolen you property and there was no evidence brought forward that indicated the boys had any of Mr. Orlosky's precious copper wire in their vehicle.
ReplyDeleteOne more fact that is curious, is that where Mr. Orlosky lives is far out in the hills on a dirt road and if on the road you can barely see his house. How is it then, that he has such a problem with thieves stealing from him? He maintains he has apprehended others and has had to install an elaborate alarm system on his property. I am a neighbor and have lived here for many years and have never had anything stolen from my property.
I believe Mr. Orlosky is a vigilante who believes he can take the law into his own hands and now he is a cold blooded murderer.
I have spent more time and energy studying the shooting death of Charles Crow than all the lawyers involved put together. Soon you will be able to read Mr. Orlosky's testimony and cross examination from the first trial. If you study it long enough you will find that his words and his actions do not match up. He made a stupid deadly mistake that night and then spent two years covering it up because he lacked the courage to face the truth.
ReplyDeleteThis is one of the biggest injustices I have heard of locally in decades. Whether or not the man though he was being robbed of copper, which he was not and the evidence really made that clear, you cannot shoot people.
ReplyDeleteThere is no law that says that you can protect your belongings with murder. If someone walks to close to my car, can I shoot them? If kids trespass onto my property to play on my swingset, can I shoot them?
What is human life worth?
This is a disgusting verdict. An absolute failure in the justice system.