Rex Fowler found guilty

Printable View

02-25-2011, 21:26
Irving

Rex Fowler found guilty

I'm sure some of you remember this from December of 2009. We didn't hear about it, or pay attention if we did. However, we DID get to sit through the final day of this court hearing today. We heard everything today except for the jury's final decision. We were at court to observe something else, and were told there was a murder trial going on, so we went to that instead. We really wanted to stay to hear the jury's verdict, but had already been there for about 6.5 hours already and had other stuff to do today.

Here is the article before I forget.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news...70/detail.html

I'll come post in here again later. I haven't even read the article yet. I just have to say that this was an awesome experience. We got to hear each sides closing arguments, saw the autopsy pictures, and it had to do with guns, which is something I am directly interested in.

I have to say that I had to stop myself from booing one of the prosecuting attorneys during her closing argument. She was waving a blue gun all over the court room, being very dramatic (playing to the jury's emotions), but most of all, she didn't know dick about guns and looked very stupid ranting up there with a blue gun. She went on and on about how you have to pull the trigger, then, with intent, "let the trigger ALL THE WAY OUT, before firing again." At one point, she actually said, "He pulled the trigger THREE times ladies and gentlemen. And don't forget that the first trigger pull was to load a bullet into the chamber." [Bang]

I saw a picture of the gun, and it was a Glock. The forensic pathologist on the stand mentioned the ballistics of "a large caliber handgun" more than once, so I was assuming it was a .45 ACP model. What ever the full size .45 Glock is. Plus, the entry wounds looked to be the right size for a .45acp.

Oh yeah, the guy was on trial for either 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, or innocent. From what I saw today (the trial started on Tuesday), I personally probably would have only given him 2nd degree murder, but even then, just because that would have been because I would be following the rules of the court. He plead the 5th by the way, and we never heard him say a single thing. He just sat there the whole time. It was weird to hear the attorneys arguing over what they thought happened that day (no one was in the room and no witnesses), and to look over at the guy, and know that he was the ONLY person who knew what happened, but wasn't saying anything.

Guys from Channel 7 news and Channel 4 news were sitting behind us in the court (we were in the second row). The guy from Channel 7 was jabbing the keys on his laptop the whole time. Very distracting.

That's all. Discuss.
02-25-2011, 21:32
Irving

I just now read the article. Holy shit.

After reading the article, I DO remember hearing about this, because it happened in an area that I drive through TWICE a day, Monday through Friday. When it happened, I remember that Swat had everything shut down, and my fiancee called her mother to lock the doors at their house (where our daughter goes during the day) because we thought some random killer was on the loose.

This is a crazy story.
02-25-2011, 23:17
weirjf

messed up
02-26-2011, 00:37
Not_A_Llama

Did you hear anything with regard to the Scientology angle?
02-26-2011, 07:20
Byte Stryke

Mind you I am not arguing for or against the case, Simply making a statement against the ignorance of firearms.

Quote:

And don't forget that the first trigger pull was to load a bullet into the chamber."

Stupid fucking statements like this are why cases get dismissed. now they will find a Gun Expert to testify at an appeal that the prosecution mislead the jury with false statements. If you don't know what in the hell you are talking about either get educated or shut the Hell up. What ever you do... don't go spouting fairy tales and make believe and misleading the damn jury.
[Rant1]
02-26-2011, 12:20
OneGuy67

It really wouldn't have mattered in this particular case. His defense attorney didn't disagree Fowler killed the guy; the argument was for a lesser 2nd Degree Murder charge only. The prosecution wanted 1st Degree, which would have put him in prison for life without parole and his attorney wanted 2nd, which would have only been 15 or so years and then parole. The whole argument is over deliberationand intent.

Did Fowler think about killing the guy before he came to the business to pick up his check, or was it the heat of the moment at the time and he grabbed a gun and shot him? That was the whole issue here.
02-26-2011, 12:30
Byte Stryke

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneGuy67

It really wouldn't have mattered in this particular case. His defense attorney didn't disagree Fowler killed the guy; the argument was for a lesser 2nd Degree Murder charge only. The prosecution wanted 1st Degree, which would have put him in prison for life without parole and his attorney wanted 2nd, which would have only been 15 or so years and then parole. The whole argument is over deliberationand intent.

Did Fowler think about killing the guy before he came to the business to pick up his check, or was it the heat of the moment at the time and he grabbed a gun and shot him? That was the whole issue here.

Seriously, I Saw a rape case thrown out because in the prosecutors notes he wrote discriminatory remarks.
these notes were subpoenaed, he was released after a Mistrial with prejudice was declared.
Ignorance is only a defense if its the people that wield it.
02-26-2011, 22:08
Irving

Quote:

Originally Posted by Not_A_Llama

Did you hear anything with regard to the Scientology angle?

No, we didn't know anything about the Scientology stuff until we got home and read the articles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byte Stryke

Mind you I am not arguing for or against the case, Simply making a statement against the ignorance of firearms.

Stupid fucking statements like this are why cases get dismissed. now they will find a Gun Expert to testify at an appeal that the prosecution mislead the jury with false statements. If you don't know what in the hell you are talking about either get educated or shut the Hell up. What ever you do... don't go spouting fairy tales and make believe and misleading the damn jury.
[Rant1]

I thought she looked pretty dumb and was openly groaning during her closing argument.

The defense took the angle that since the police officer admitted to contaminating the scene, and that how he didn't know how one of the bullets ended up where it did, that there was a great chance that any scene diagrams are incorrect as well. That was her whole angle. It was mostly well presented, but toward the end she (defense counsel) really started pulling at straws and showing her own ignorance of firearm stuff.

I'm just telling this to point out that what you said is true, and they tried to get a lesser charge in this case based off of potentially incorrect investigation and assumptions by the prosecutors based on those investigation results.
02-26-2011, 23:45
weirjf

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irving

No, we didn't know anything about the Scientology stuff until we got home and read the articles.

I thought she looked pretty dumb and was openly groaning during her closing argument.

The defense took the angle that since the police officer admitted to contaminating the scene, and that how he didn't know how one of the bullets ended up where it did, that there was a great chance that any scene diagrams are incorrect as well. That was her whole angle. It was mostly well presented, but toward the end she (defense counsel) really started pulling at straws and showing her own ignorance of firearm stuff.

I'm just telling this to point out that what you said is true, and they tried to get a lesser charge in this case based off of potentially incorrect investigation and assumptions by the prosecutors based on those investigation results.

Their defense antics are the same reason people are against citizens being able to carry guns. They think that because we can defend ourselves that when it actually happens... it ends up like the grocery store scene in "Wanted" with bullets flying everywhere and hollywood explosions.
02-27-2011, 10:25
Byte Stryke

Quote:

Originally Posted by weirjf

Their defense antics are the same reason people are against citizens being able to carry guns. They think that because we can defend ourselves that when it actually happens... it ends up like the grocery store scene in "Wanted" with bullets flying everywhere and hollywood explosions.

Exploding Doritos FTW!
[ROFL1]