The copper era., 1908-11-05
Judge Nave's Remarks in Robertson
Case.

CdSH.
 There may be those who feel that the verdict of guilty in this case is
 not justified. There may be others
 who feel that the verdict ought to
 have been more severe than that of
 manslaughter. There may be som e
 who feel that the court has not inn
 the defendant, when the sentence shall have been pronounced. Inas-
 much as the case has caused serious and partisan controversy, 1 am going
 to comment a little upon it.
 In the first place, under the law, ] am satisfied that verdict of nur-
 der in this case would not have been justified; that a verdict which the
 evidence supports is a verdict of
 manslaughter. Still further than
 that I am satisfied that those who
 heard all the evidence with an i'm
 partial and open mind, must have
 been impressed with the fact that
 this officer, Robertson, was facing a
 very difficult situation. The man
 whom he killed was in the actual
 commission of a misdemeanor in the
 presence of this officer, at a certain
 period of this affair. He was en-
 gagged in a breach of the peace of
 rather an aggravated nature and
 when an officer attempted to arrest
 him, he, in his drunken frenzy, knock
 ed the officer down and knocked
 many others down, friends and un-
 friendly ones alike. That put the
 officer in a position in which to insure a respect for his office and for the law: some responsibility was imposed upon him. He sought again later to arrest Pursley and Pursley seriously aggravated his previous conduct by
 violent resistance, committing not
 merely a misdemeauor, but a felony. By unanimous evidence in the case,
 MT. Pursley was guilty of a felony
 by violently resisting arrest, whether he had knife or not, because under the law of this territory, one who re- sists an officer in the lawful perform
 ance of his duty, is guilty of felony. So when the deceased resisted this arrest, inaamed though his mind may have been by whiskey: as par donable as it may appear to his friends and family, and even to this court, nevertheless in the eyes of the law; it was an act without excuie, for it was the act of a man defiant of the law. The jury have found thaC in the acts which followed the second attempt of this officer to arrest Purs- ley, the officer went beyond a reason able course for an officer. On the other hand, the officer was under a severe stress of circumstances. It was his duty, if reasona ply possible, to avoid causing serious injury to Pursley, yet as an officer he could not run away, for that would be equiva- lent to surrendering his place as an officer and almost as a man. He should have come out of that trouble without killing Pursley, but he does not merit severe punishment, because it is merely a case of yielding to an impulse, perhaps an angry, and evi- dently an unjustifable impulse-un- der severe and confusing stress. His judgment went astray. He killed man whose life he could have avoided taking, but in imposing sentence, 1 shall take into consideration the fact of the responsibility that lay upon him as an officer, and his rights as man, and shall impose a moderate sentence. A sentence must be i'm posed, because it must be understood that an officer is by no means in an position and the punish ment must be sufficient, at least, to make other officers careful not to act beyond the proper scope of their pre- It makes little difference to me whether the courts sentence meets with approval or disapproval, and I am not making these remarks for the sake ot avoiding criticism for the sentence I shall pronounce, | am making these remarks because deem it important for this community to understand the light in which i these facts appear to an impartial iudge For the right attitude upon | the part of the people of this com toward the law and their un- 1erstanding of the law, think these are useful, are important, ] are even necessary.
 There IS one verdict beyond the l judicial power of this court, but is lot beyond my thought as a man and Is a citizen. It seems to me that .here is one verdict that every per ,on who has heard. these facts must -ender, and that is that the places which are kept open for the purpose ,f attracting men, to put into their mouths that which steals away their brains aud makes imbecies of plendid, big bodied and big hearted nen. such as was the deceased, and 10 befogs their intellect that they ,reak the laws and resist it's enforce nent, do no good in community. And the expense of the criminal