Young man acquitted of attempted murder

POSTED: 11/23/12 1:37 PM

GREAT BAY – Did Angel Miguel R. fire shots at Reyes Ignacio Aureano-Vicente on May 30 of last year or was it his brother Ishmael? That question may never be answered. The Court in First Instance acquitted Angel R. yesterday of attempted murder. At 3 p.m. yesterday afternoon the defendant, who spent 158 days in detention since June 18, walked out of the Pointe Blanche prison a free man again. In court the 20-year-old received a firm hug from his emotional mother after Judge Tamara Tijhuis pronounced her ruling.
Angel R. wanted the court to believe that he was not at the scene of the shooting. “I was at home sleeping,” he said, in spite of the fact that the victim and two witnesses had seen him and his brother.
Aureano-Vicente was shot several times in his legs. For reasons that remained unclear, the victim filed a complaint about the shooting a year after it happened.
“The defendant’s denials are not very strong,” prosecutor Tineke Kamps said. “I think he was there, based on the statements made by the victim and by two witnesses. But there are also question marks. This is a story of two against two. The victim first mentioned Ishmael as the shooter, and later he said it was Angel. There is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant for attempted murder I am unable to back that up.”
The prosecutor asked the court to acquit the defendant and to order his immediate release.
Attorney Shaira Bommel has nothing to add to the prosecutor’s statements. “I agree; there is no legal and convincing evidence,” she said.
Judge Tijhuis still had a message for the young defendant. “I do not consider your statement that you were not there as plausible. I take it that you were there together with your brother. Either you or your brother fired those shots. That is a serious crime that carries a high penalty. You do not solve problems by shooting at people.”
On the other hand, the judge said, there is also the requirement of legal and convincing evidence. “I am unable to establish that in this case beyond reasonable doubt. The plaintiff first mentions your brother and then you as the shooter. Other than that I do not have a clear answer to this question. There is insufficient evidence for a conviction.”
There were some laughs when the prosecutor said that two small bags containing marijuana had been confiscated from the defendant. “Do you want it back?” she asked.
Surprised, Angel R. said, “Oh, can I get it back?”
Judge Tijhuis: “If you say you want it back, I have to take a decision about it; and I’m telling you: you won’t get it back.”
Whereupon the defendant decided to let it go.

Did you like this? Share it:
Young man acquitted of attempted murder by

Comments (3)

 

  1. wooooshhhhhh says:

    This happens when the prosecutor and the police do sloppy work. They stop and frisk people for no apparent reason.

    They are now informing the public about operation vigilance. Now what does that really mean to them? They stop you, search your car illegally.

    It’s unfortunate that many persons are not familiar with the limits of the police.

    I will NOT consent to any frisk/pat down or any searches to my car without either reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

    When a police officer asks you to step of the vehicle and proceeds to search your vehicle please ask if he is detaining you, you do not consent to a search and ask if you are free to go. If there is no probable cause, the police has no rights to search your vehicle. One has the protection against reasonable searches.

    The police officers are quite aware of this. Although some of them are not too bright in determining what reasonable suspicion is or what is probable cause.

    They know every well without cause it is illegal to search one’s vehicle but yet still they go right ahead and they end up looking stupid when the issue goes to court.

    Don’t forget these three things when an officer asks you to stop and search.

    1. Officer are you detaining me or am I free to go?
    2. I do not consent to a search.

    Don’t forget that you are NOT obligated to talk /answer any questions posed by the offices. Officers need your permission to talk to you.

    If you do not wish to speak to the police officer simple say that you choose to remain silent.

    Do not be tricked by the police. They will tell you that you will have to go with them to the police station for questioning. You do not have to if you are NOT under arrest. Never talk to the police. they are not your friend

  2. woshhhhhh says:

    what happened to my comments referring to things that the police dont want us to know?

    1. The police need our consent to talk to us and can only search your vehicle if they have either a reasonable suspicion or if you give them consent.

    There is no law that states we are OBLIGATED to allow the police to search our vehicles during operation VIGILANCE.

    Sometimes these police officers are rude and aggressive and they act like we are obligated to do as they say.

    These officers do lie to you to get you to consent. They are trained to lie to you. That is a fact if you know anything about police training. My father was a cop so I know.

    I guess maybe the person who read my comments choose not to let the readers know what their rights are.

    Ok then good byeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!

  3. woshhhhhh says:

    ooooopssssss….sorry