To get the right answer one must ask the right questions. It’s not a question of why is the trial taking so long, or why isn’t it an open and shut case/a no brainer. No these are questions of ignorance of the justice system…second degree murder dictates there must be malice and intent to do harm that happens to result in a death. However, voluntary manslaughter does not, and person can be found guilty on the grounds of their actions leading up to the killing… so, any good lawyer can truly put doubt in a juries mind as to this man’s, (I use that term very loosely), intentions leading up to pulling the trigger. Did he have malice - desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another? Or did he do some dumb shit that put both him and this innocent child in a situation which ended with him taking the child’s life? The latter question is defiantly a resounding YES. The first however is left up to personal opinion and interpretation due to lack of evidence… So the real question is why would an experienced and well qualified prosecutor seek murder instead of voluntary manslaughter which with recommendation from the prosecutor and the circumstances sentencing could carry the same weight as murder II? That’s the real question and something to be angry about!! so, with that said now what is really going on?
Posted on: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 14:14:30 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015