Legal question: If someone is charged with first degree murder (pre-meditated) and they cannot prove it ... does he go free? Or can he be found guilty on a lesser charge like man-slaughter?
Note: I think he’s innocent on all charges... looked like a case of self defense.
Yes, that's what happened to Casey Anthony. They charged her with the higher crime that was impossible to prove with the evidence presented, but prosecutors went with it because it was such a high-profile case. Had they sought out manslaughter, they might have had it.
I mean the evidence was pretty obvious I still don't know how she got off. I think it was her where investigators only checked her internet explorer history and not fire fox too...
Murder requires witnesses, not simply forensic evidence, which they had plenty of. There was lots of testimony, which proved she lied about a lot of things, but they could not place Anthony at any crime scene involving her daughter.
Even the duct tape on her kid's face and related chemicals in the trunk of her car were not enough to physically link her to the charge of murder.
Yeah you are right. It isn't about what you know it is about what you can prove. She so clearly did it it is insane but it was all circumstantial. Her lies were so off the rails and didn't even work and she somehow beat it. She was stumbling through that shit like mr magoo and it worked out for her.
I mean you don't have to charge somebody with just the one specific crime for something like that, you can charge them with other things. They could have charged Casey Anthony with endangering a child, abuse, all sorts of other shit. If they only charge the one higher crime that's impossible to prove with the evidence available it's basically a signal that they want the acquittal.
Like in Chauvin's case. They only charged him with first degree murder which can't be proven just off of the coroner's report that states Floyd died of a heart attack that wasn't related to asphyxiation.
Probably the same thing here for Kyle. They could've charge him with unlawful possession of a firearm since he's 17 but all they threw at him was murder? Strange.
Yes, normally they stack the charges to shoot for a realistic conviction. Anthony was charged with three counts of perjury and did the time while she was at trial. That case was botched worse than the OJ trial.
If you want my personal opinion, I think these prosecutors are just too damned young and don't know what they're doing, especially coming out of law school the past 15 years.
Maybe the DA doesn't want the kid in prison but knows passions are high right now, and he can throw the book at kid now when media's lie machine is fully geared up and people will pay attention, but he can drop it a month from now when the the media's cycle on Kyle has spun down.
I absolutely agree with that. I remember growing up everybody who wanted to be a lawyer was exactly the kind of soyim I would never want representing me in any way, I'm sure at least some of those people ended up as prosecutors.
Marxist mindrot has infiltrated all levels of society
Yes that is also why you'll see something like first degree murder but also agg assault pic pow vufa reap etc so they get convicted of the lesser crimes still. I don't think I've ever seen a murder charge without all the other little charges that compared to murder are nothing but still add up. PIC is procession of instrument of a crime. POW is prohibited offensive weapon vufa is violation of uniform fire arms act. REAP reckless endangermwnt of another person. The laws in your area may be called something else but that is basically the charges an actual shooting murder like shooting on the streets might look like
Edit also oddly they might throw manslaughter on the charges too which makes no sense because murder and manslaughter can't possibly be committed at the same time because of the way the laws are written the contradict each other. I have seen cases before where both are listed still don't get it but I'm not a lawyer
IANAL, but here is Wisconsin's statute for 1st Degree Intentional Homicide. Maybe we could get some help from a lawyer-pede here, it does seem as though they over-charged him given all of the initial video evidence of the events.
I believe it varies with jurisdiction. I was on the jury for a capital murder case once, and we were told that if we found the defendant not guilty, we might be asked to consider a lesser charge of murder.
Legal question: If someone is charged with first degree murder (pre-meditated) and they cannot prove it ... does he go free? Or can he be found guilty on a lesser charge like man-slaughter? Note: I think he’s innocent on all charges... looked like a case of self defense.
Yes, that's what happened to Casey Anthony. They charged her with the higher crime that was impossible to prove with the evidence presented, but prosecutors went with it because it was such a high-profile case. Had they sought out manslaughter, they might have had it.
I mean the evidence was pretty obvious I still don't know how she got off. I think it was her where investigators only checked her internet explorer history and not fire fox too...
Murder requires witnesses, not simply forensic evidence, which they had plenty of. There was lots of testimony, which proved she lied about a lot of things, but they could not place Anthony at any crime scene involving her daughter.
Even the duct tape on her kid's face and related chemicals in the trunk of her car were not enough to physically link her to the charge of murder.
Wait wat. This is the same case as the cop who said she went into the wrong apartment?
Yeah you are right. It isn't about what you know it is about what you can prove. She so clearly did it it is insane but it was all circumstantial. Her lies were so off the rails and didn't even work and she somehow beat it. She was stumbling through that shit like mr magoo and it worked out for her.
I mean you don't have to charge somebody with just the one specific crime for something like that, you can charge them with other things. They could have charged Casey Anthony with endangering a child, abuse, all sorts of other shit. If they only charge the one higher crime that's impossible to prove with the evidence available it's basically a signal that they want the acquittal.
Like in Chauvin's case. They only charged him with first degree murder which can't be proven just off of the coroner's report that states Floyd died of a heart attack that wasn't related to asphyxiation.
Probably the same thing here for Kyle. They could've charge him with unlawful possession of a firearm since he's 17 but all they threw at him was murder? Strange.
Yes, normally they stack the charges to shoot for a realistic conviction. Anthony was charged with three counts of perjury and did the time while she was at trial. That case was botched worse than the OJ trial.
If you want my personal opinion, I think these prosecutors are just too damned young and don't know what they're doing, especially coming out of law school the past 15 years.
Maybe the DA doesn't want the kid in prison but knows passions are high right now, and he can throw the book at kid now when media's lie machine is fully geared up and people will pay attention, but he can drop it a month from now when the the media's cycle on Kyle has spun down.
I absolutely agree with that. I remember growing up everybody who wanted to be a lawyer was exactly the kind of soyim I would never want representing me in any way, I'm sure at least some of those people ended up as prosecutors.
Marxist mindrot has infiltrated all levels of society
Yes that is also why you'll see something like first degree murder but also agg assault pic pow vufa reap etc so they get convicted of the lesser crimes still. I don't think I've ever seen a murder charge without all the other little charges that compared to murder are nothing but still add up. PIC is procession of instrument of a crime. POW is prohibited offensive weapon vufa is violation of uniform fire arms act. REAP reckless endangermwnt of another person. The laws in your area may be called something else but that is basically the charges an actual shooting murder like shooting on the streets might look like
Edit also oddly they might throw manslaughter on the charges too which makes no sense because murder and manslaughter can't possibly be committed at the same time because of the way the laws are written the contradict each other. I have seen cases before where both are listed still don't get it but I'm not a lawyer
Juries can actually find someone guilty of a different or additional charge if it’s unanimous.
IANAL, but here is Wisconsin's statute for 1st Degree Intentional Homicide. Maybe we could get some help from a lawyer-pede here, it does seem as though they over-charged him given all of the initial video evidence of the events.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/940/I/02
I believe it varies with jurisdiction. I was on the jury for a capital murder case once, and we were told that if we found the defendant not guilty, we might be asked to consider a lesser charge of murder.