4293
Comments (375)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
42
Joeret 42 points ago +43 / -1

The homeowner also is expected to be OK, and WVUE added that deputies say the homeowner won't face charges at this time.

How about the homeowner faces no charges at any time.

19
Thegreatcanadianpede 19 points ago +19 / -0

Won't face charges at this time is code for "we're not charging him but if new information comes up we will have to change him if it's incriminating". Words matter.

If they say "we will not be charging the homeowner" and then they discover he actually has an illegal sex trafficking ring in his basement they'd look pretty silly for charging the homeowner.

3
ObviousEnmity 3 points ago +4 / -1

I mean that's obviously irrelevant to the situation at hand, so it's not like they're pulling a CYA with that one.

1
undecidedmask 1 point ago +2 / -1

Lol

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
2
LessAndLessIronic 2 points ago +2 / -0

Worst case, this is what the jury box is for.

2
Marshall2 2 points ago +2 / -0

I believe in jury nullification when the situation warrants. Never let a criminal DA convince you otherwise. There's a reason for the right of a jury of your peers.

1
WowStrongWinning 1 point ago +1 / -0

How does jury nullification work again? Is it basically saying that as a juror, you disagree with the law and as such, you will not vote to convict the defendant.

Can the judge then boot you out as a member of the jury if that’s what you say when it’s time to vote?

2
Marshall2 2 points ago +2 / -0

Jury nullification is the ultimate check on an UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW, a misapplication of a Constitutional Law and malicious prosecution.