First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Charges dropped against confessed murderer
Posted 7/10/17 , edited 7/11/17
http://www.wptv.com/news/region-c-palm-beach-county/west-palm-beach/admitted-killer-of-west-palm-beach-man-walks-free
tl;dr
Man steals service of a math tutor, gets confronted and refuses to pay, allegedly gets called the 'n word' (no recordings of course, not that it should matter legally) then proceeds to hit and strangle the tutor to death. He confessed to the murder. Now the charges are dropped and the State Attorney has made up some obviously bullshit excuses about it.

Personally don't believe in the 'talk shit, get hit' motto, since we live in a country where anyone can back their words with lead. Its just better to deescalate confrontations than to escalate them and end up in prison or dead.
But now the precedent is set that its okay to murder over words that aren't a direct and plausible threat. Even after you've committed a crime. Thoughts?


137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/10/17 , edited 7/11/17
You don't have comprehension skills?
The charges were dropped not because the murder was provoked, but because of the lack of key witnesses to testify for the trial.
Posted 7/10/17 , edited 7/11/17

LingLingJuju wrote:

You don't have comprehension skills?
The charges were dropped not because the murder was provoked, but because of the lack of key witnesses to testify for the trial.



and the State Attorney has made up some obviously bullshit excuses about it.

There were other witnesses.
Also I don't think any witnesses are needed in a murder case when the murderer admits to it
Posted 7/10/17 , edited 7/11/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:
Personally don't believe in the 'talk shit, get hit' motto, since we live in a country where anyone can back their words with lead. Its just better to deescalate confrontations than to escalate them and end up in prison or dead.
But now the precedent is set that its okay to murder over words that aren't a direct and plausible threat. Even after you've committed a crime. Thoughts?


Murder is rarely an offense that keeps you in jail for an extended period of time unless you've killed multiple people or have prior offenses (especially violent offenses). My own experience is that the murder of my mother only got 3 months for manslaughter (despite having written down a plan of action, the stages, went through the process of purchasing handgun off-record/illegally, and had made several public threats to my mother). The vast majority of her sentence was that she had purchased and owned a handgun illegally.

As for this particular issue, the State Attorney's Office didn't keep the testimony of the key witness (their claims) so they felt they would have lost the case. Sadly, this is most likely the truth. It's not hard to lose a case against someone who's confessed to their crimes. On top of the fact that the State Attorney simply didn't get a disposition from the witness before he went back to Saudi Arabia. Sadly, the law doesn't really work all that well when it comes down to it. It's all about backdoor deals, negotiation, and plea bargains when it comes to these kinds of cases. The victims (surviving family members) tend to mean fuck-all because they weren't directly impacted (physically armed; emotional damage is ignored) or because letting someone go saves time for the members involved (prosecutor, defense attorney, judge, and jury).

TL;DR:
Pretty much how the legal system works regarding most cases, nothing new here.
Humms 
12877 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / CAN, ON
Offline
Posted 7/10/17 , edited 7/11/17
At this point....

It's just one person, I'm sure everyone will forget about it other than the victims.

Just don't call me white, or I'll fucking snap
48653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 7/10/17 , edited 7/11/17
Standard Amyas thread. Oh look a black man murdered a poor white man and was acquitted. This of course never happens on the other side! Do we really have to sit here and post articles of every little incident? I mean if we did this to white people or anyone else who is acquitted from murder for ridiculous reasons there would be thousands of threads. Quit wasting everyone's time with your silly attempts to stoke racial tensions on an anime forum. It's pathetic.
137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/10/17 , edited 7/11/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


LingLingJuju wrote:

You don't have comprehension skills?
The charges were dropped not because the murder was provoked, but because of the lack of key witnesses to testify for the trial.



and the State Attorney has made up some obviously bullshit excuses about it.

There were other witnesses.
Also I don't think any witnesses are needed in a murder case when the murderer admits to it


You can walk into a station and say you murdered 5 missing persons on the wanted poster, nobody is going to charge you if they don't have the evidence/witnesses to prove that you did it. They might put you in a mental hospital though.
Posted 7/10/17 , edited 7/11/17

ninjitsuko wrote:
Murder is rarely an offense that keeps you in jail for an extended period of time unless you've killed multiple people or have prior offenses (especially violent offenses). My own experience is that the murder of my mother only got 3 months for manslaughter (despite having written down a plan of action, the stages, went through the process of purchasing handgun off-record/illegally, and had made several public threats to my mother). The vast majority of her sentence was that she had purchased and owned a handgun illegally.

As for this particular issue, the State Attorney's Office didn't keep the testimony of the key witness (their claims) so they felt they would have lost the case. Sadly, this is most likely the truth. It's not hard to lose a case against someone who's confessed to their crimes. On top of the fact that the State Attorney simply didn't get a disposition from the witness before he went back to Saudi Arabia. Sadly, the law doesn't really work all that well when it comes down to it. It's all about backdoor deals, negotiation, and plea bargains when it comes to these kinds of cases. The victims (surviving family members) tend to mean fuck-all because they weren't directly impacted (physically armed; emotional damage is ignored) or because letting someone go saves time for the members involved (prosecutor, defense attorney, judge, and jury).

TL;DR:
Pretty much how the legal system works regarding most cases, nothing new here.


That's fucked.

I don't see how they could have lost the case considering his admission and other witness testimony and evidence they have no problem taking as undeniable fact.


The State has no competent evidence to rebut the argument that when Donley is called a "n-word", he was suddenly provoked to turn and strike Mr. Grant.


18849 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / US
Offline
Posted 7/10/17 , edited 7/11/17

Humms wrote:

At this point....

It's just one person, I'm sure everyone will forget about it other than the victims.

Just don't call me white, or I'll fucking snap


mr white
Posted 7/10/17 , edited 7/10/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:
I don't see how they could have lost the case considering his admission and other witness testimony and evidence they have no problem taking as undeniable fact.


It sounds like a case should be open/shut the moment someone says, "Yes, I killed him." (being fully aware of his/herself, having been read their rights, and fully mentally alert/coherent). Unfortunately, that's just not how the legal system works. That's enough for a police officer to arrest said individual and put them behind bars until their court case. From there, their lawyer and the prosecutor will pretty much go back and forth with various statements, testimonies, and information about the victim/suspect.

Until that same individual is in the courtroom, pleads guilty, and waives his right to a trial ... anything can happen. Doesn't matter what race, nationality, religion, or gender - at the end of the day, the legal system has its stages. Note even the opening phrases that the on-air reporter stated while leading into the segment (from your link):


"While in police custody, a suspected killer admitted he killed a man from West Palm Beach. Tonight, that suspected killer is free."


Until that trial was over (or in this case, dismissed), that man was still a suspect - he wasn't a convicted murderer. The State Attorney's statement on that article (at the bottom) indicates that the defense attorney was able to frame a picture of the suspected murderer as having been suddenly provoked by having been called such an offensive word and that him holding down the victim for 15 seconds doesn't constitute a level of cruelty or unusualness in terms of the suspect's response. On top of that, it appears that cardiovascular disease contributed to the death (having made it easier to strangle him). In the eyes of the law, the suspect only used a "reasonable amount" of strength and acted within a "reasonable realm" of possibility for the offense that the victim instigated.

Not saying that it's fair, not saying that it's right - but this is how the law works. That key witness may have been close enough to have known more of the conversation that would have allowed the State Attorney to paint a more solid picture that the suspect had acted irrationally. Any holes in a story or not enough information are pretty easy to manipulate in court. In the case of my mother's murderer, she was able to get the charges of first-degree murder dropped down to manslaughter with some clever phrasing/painting of the scenario. As crazy as it sounds, the State Attorney did fuck up with not having taken the testimony of the witness before he left the country - but, as it stands, it wouldn't surprise me that without that testimony they probably would have lost the case against him anyways.

Posted 7/10/17 , edited 7/10/17

ninjitsuko wrote:
Until that trial was over (or in this case, dismissed), that man was still a suspect - he wasn't a convicted murderer. The State Attorney's statement on that article (at the bottom) indicates that the defense attorney was able to frame a picture of the suspected murderer as having been suddenly provoked by having been called such an offensive word and that him holding down the victim for 15 seconds doesn't constitute a level of cruelty or unusualness in terms of the suspect's response. On top of that, it appears that cardiovascular disease contributed to the death (having made it easier to strangle him). In the eyes of the law, the suspect only used a "reasonable amount" of strength and acted within a "reasonable realm" of possibility for the offense that the victim instigated.



Except its not reasonable or legal to assault someone or murder them because they called you a bad name. Like I said, its all bullshit excuses on the SA's part. Especially that bit about the victim's health, how can you defend that? Does this mean the murder of physically weaker and ill people is legal now too as long as there is a 'reasonable amount' of force used? Its a joke.


LingLingJuju wrote:


You can walk into a station and say you murdered 5 missing persons on the wanted poster, nobody is going to charge you if they don't have the evidence/witnesses to prove that you did it. They might put you in a mental hospital though.


This is a bit more clear cut than that. Read the full article.
15784 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 7/10/17 , edited 7/10/17
It's a fairly difficult case when you have the circumstances of death somewhere between strangulation and a heart attack/cardiovascular disease (one of which would constitute murder and the other which wouldn't). Additionally, when you factor in the fact that the key witness moved out of the country, it gets even more difficult to lay out the facts of the case.

So this seems like the state did a very poor job with this case, but I don't think the implications set up in the OP are accurate.

As a side note, legal precedent is set in court, not by things that don't go to court.
Posted 7/10/17 , edited 7/10/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:
Except its not reasonable or legal to assault someone or murder them because they called you a bad name. Like I said, its all bullshit excuses on the SA's part. Especially that bit about the victim's health, how can you defend that? Does this mean the murder of physically weaker and ill people is legal now too as long as there is a 'reasonable amount' of force used? Its a joke.


By no means am I defending the act - just explaining how the legal system works. The victim's health is going to take part in the defense attorney's statements and will focus on how the suspect didn't apply enough force to kill the "average person" .. etc etc. Like I said, it doesn't matter the race, age, gender, nationality, or religion - this is how the legal system works in a nutshell. Since the defense can manipulate the situation to illustrate that the suspect lost his cool over a slur (be it racial or otherwise) and there's not enough evidence to support that the victim had done so out of anger (or the situation).

In the legal system, it's a battle as to who can paint the picture in a more vivid way. Evidence helps to do this, sure. Testimonies do, too. But when there's not enough to add color enough to convince someone else (the jury) of this picture - the prosecutor is going to just shrug and let the man/woman go.

runec 
39520 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/10/17 , edited 7/10/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:
Except its not reasonable or legal to assault someone or murder them because they called you a bad name. Like I said, its all bullshit excuses on the SA's part. Especially that bit about the victim's health, how can you defend that? Does this mean the murder of physically weaker and ill people is legal now too as long as there is a 'reasonable amount' of force used? Its a joke.


Obviously not. But it removes the intent to kill and thus goes down from murder to manslaughter. Additionally, the guy did not give a confession in a legal sense. His admission was an emotional outburst in police custody. Not a signed confession of guilt. There also seems to be quite a bit more to it than a "bad name".

They had a strained relationship to begin with and were fighting over tutoring fees. The victim was demanding the suspect pay full price for private tutoring lessons when the suspect was actually giving group lessons. Then at some point the victim started saying "Nigger nigger" and the suspect got upset and told him to stop it. Then it all went to hell.

So yeah, that's a lot of wiggle room with a jury if it went to trial without the main witness.

I mean fuck, a jury couldn't even get it together for Cosby so.


Humms 
12877 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / CAN, ON
Offline
Posted 7/10/17 , edited 7/10/17

Lowlights wrote:


Humms wrote:

At this point....

It's just one person, I'm sure everyone will forget about it other than the victims.

Just don't call me white, or I'll fucking snap


mr white



I would be triggered, but you saved yourself

you can call me Heisenberg
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.