The appellate court found as well that the law under which Natrona County District Court Judge Catherine Wilking dismissed the case — which was only a month old at the time of the shooting and that had never before been tested in court — provides immunity from prosecution for those who’ve acted under the “stand-your-ground” and, like John, “castle doctrine” provisions of the law.
Although the “castle doctrine” provision already existed under Wyoming law as a defense, the court ruled that the immunity provision means judges can consider the issue once defendants have made a face-value demonstration of their right to the protection. Prosecutors will be required at a special hearing to show by a preponderance of the evidence that immunity does not apply.
The case dates back more than a year and a half, when John shot Wesley Willow, Jr. nine times with an AR-15 at the entrance to his Casper home.
Although the Wyoming Attorney General’s Office had argued on appeal that the law provided only direction for prosecutors and was not enforceable by the courts, the Supreme Court ruled against the state on that issue in it’s Monday opinion. Judges under the law are to serve a gatekeeping role, dismissing cases against people who exercise reasonable force in self-defense.
“The district court correctly interpreted the plain language of (the law). Though (the applicable subsection) nowhere uses the word “immunity,” it is clearly an immunity provision carrying with it a judicial gatekeeping function to ensure the executive branch does not prosecute individuals who exercised reasonable force in self-defense. As such, (the subsection) preserves, rather than violates, the separation of powers between the legislature, executive, and judiciary,” wrote Justice Lynne Boomgaarden in the court’s opinion.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
- Thomas Paine
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem."
Not that it's relevant to the ruling, but an interesting description of the incident.
A woman who was present at the time of the shooting said John had sent her a text message “regarding (her) and children,” the documents state. When the woman, Willow and another man went to confront John, Willow walked up the stairs to the trailer first. The woman said John fired a gun, while she and the other man took cover. Willow fell through the open door of the trailer, the documents state the woman said.
John’s mother told police she was at the trailer at the time of the shooting. She said she went to bed and awoke to gunshots. When she entered the living room, she saw John standing over Willow’s body. She took the AR-15 from him and placed it at the foot of her bed, where police recovered it.
John told police in a statement through his attorneys that he had received multiple phone calls from Willow, including one in which he said he would assault John, prior to the shooting. When Willow and the other two people arrived, John warned them away with the gun, but Willow continued through the trailer’s front door, the documents state he said. John then shot Willow, according to the documents.
According to a detective’s search of John’s cell phone, he texted the woman at 3:54 a.m., saying he would “blow you away.” Five texts sent about 10 minutes later ask where the other people are and state “I’m waiting,” and “I’m ready.”
Only one text message sent from the woman’s phone is reproduced in the documents. The message states: “Stay up homie. All good. I’m on my own s—t,” in response to John’s two initial texts.
The documents state that the woman otherwise did not text John in response to his flurry of messages.
If someone told me all of that I don't think I'd go over to their residence unless I had to, like LE related. Even then I'd take the proper precautions. (like a SWAT team)
