arma virumque cano (et alia)
Sounds to me as if he got off easy, but not too bad.What, though, is this business about retrying him on the 1st degree murder charge? Maybe this is a dumb question, but how is that not double jeopardy?
Kurt, I believe they declared a mistrial on the first degree murder charge. Because of that, they can.
I usually can follow you, Kurt, but this one left me wondering what you mean."Sounds to me as if he got off easy, but not too bad."
I just meant that I thought there was enough to convict him of murder, so three counts of attempted murder, and one of firing into an occupied vehicle, is "getting off easy." However, it's "not too bad," because he'll still be going away for a very long time, and prison life might be very dangerous for him.Too bad.
If the dumb son-of--bitch had not carried a weapon, it would have just been one more unpleasant argument with yelling.It's nice that his fiancee testified against him. Then again, I guess she's the only one who really dodged a bullet.
If he hadn't been armed there would have been no argument. he would have minded his own business.
If the prosecution had gone for second-degree murder, he'd have been convicted of that.
Not necessarily. The Jury could have picked that or even voluntary manslaughter as lesser included offenses but apparently couldn't agree on those either.Possible someone was holding out for 1st while others wanted 2nd and all would have decided on 2nd if that was the top thing charged, but it's also possible that someone was holding out for manslaughter or even for a not guilty on that count, but agreed that he used force beyond what was allowed by shooting at the fleeing vehicle--hence the conviction on those charges. No way to know unless the jurors discuss it in detail.
True. The attempted murder convictions are not small beer, though.
Do you know what else goes down? Laci the lawyer dog's bingo cliche of saying "get away with murder law".
That's silly, TS. Calling SYG a "get away with murder law" does not mean that everyone who invokes it gets off. It has to be somewhat arguable. This case obviously was not.
If the case is somewhat arguable, then the jury could go either way with or without SYG.And that's not how you and Laci have presented SYG in the past. It has been presented as something that allows the wanton murder of black youth by white supremacists.You acted like GZ's case was inarguable, and back then you two suggested that SYG would let Dunn get off the hook.You were wrong.Again.
Oh, so maybe we'll call it the "get away with self-defense law" instead. Because if you murder someone and then "say you felt threatened" it is not going to turn out so well for you.
But Laci says these are "Get away with murder" laws and that people like Dunn can get off easily. How did Dunn get convicted?