First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Charges dropped against confessed murderer
11614 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 7/10/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


runec wrote:

They told you that the conclusion of medical forensics is that he most likely died from complications with pre-existing heart problems.




That was a pet theory presented by the defense lawyer with no proof, based on opinions of so called 'experts' he found himself. Opinions made long after the corpse of the victim had began the decomposition process. Hell, I don't even think they had a look at the body, there is no indication of it that I have found, and for some reason I doubt they kept the corpse frozen since 2012.




Ha! Oh my god, that's golden. You just love digging yourself a deeper hole with these sorts of threads, don't you? In fact, do you know anything about the law? Like at all? I genuinely need to ask because your last few attempts at legal discussion point pretty far in the opposite direction. "No proof based on opinions of so called "experts""? That sounds like something out of a coemdy routine, not the words of a real thinking adult. What imaginary world do you live in where courts just magically accept the words of non-experts? You do know doctors are experts, right? And you do know that the law considers you innocent until proven guilty, right? If you don't know what that means, it means that the culpability of the defendant must be completely proven. I can't imagine you do know these things, because if you did there would be no reason for you not to understand why the defendant was let go.


[...]the doctor's report also opined that cardiovascular disease was a "contributory cause of death."

In addition to the State's lack of competent evidence to proceed and prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt[...]


http://www.wptv.com/news/region-c-palm-beach-county/west-palm-beach/admitted-killer-of-west-palm-beach-man-walks-free
11614 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 7/10/17 , edited 7/10/17

Kelgair wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:


Kelgair wrote:

Meh, I saw the video and read the article from http://www.wptv.com/news/region-c-palm-beach-county/west-palm-beach/admitted-killer-of-west-palm-beach-man-walks-free

What happened otherwise? They got in a fight and because one guy was fat the other guy is let off after strangling him to death? I'm not buyin it. :/

Or should I not believe local news?


What happened otherwise? He died of a fucking pre existing heart condition and there was no sufficient medical evidence or testimonial evidence suggesting otherwise. Why would you even equate that to "he was let off because the guy was fat"? Forget a jump from point A to point B, that's like a jump from point A to point Yellowstone, there isn't even a logical progression there.


He died because he was strangled. His body was secondary. A pathetic defense you don't see often, and only for fat men....


His body was not even remotely secondary. When you die of a heart attack, the heart attack is the primary cause of death, not whatever triggered it. It's not a pathetic defense, but you are presenting a pathetic accusation. Unless I'm wrong, you clearly want this guy charged with murder without proof of intent to kill. Any accusation that relies on the notion that a man is guilty whether there is proof to support the claim or not, is not only pathetic, it's flat out moronic.
runec 
36019 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/10/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:
That was a pet theory presented by the defense lawyer with no proof, based on opinions of so called 'experts' he found himself. Opinions made long after the corpse of the victim had began the decomposition process. Hell, I don't even think they had a look at the body, there is no indication of it that I have found, and for some reason I doubt they kept the corpse frozen since 2012.



Kelgair wrote:
I'm glad I've been good with my health since apparently being fat precludes me from being strangulated...

He was strangulated, health problems were secondary. The intent to kill was there, and resulted in the desired result. ;P


You could both try reading the actual articles and SA's statement instead of repeatedly insisting the version of events you personally decided on is gospel.

Then you could both realize you're just proving the point here about how difficult the case would be in a court of law.

19929 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 7/10/17

octorockandroll wrote:


Kelgair wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:


Kelgair wrote:

Meh, I saw the video and read the article from http://www.wptv.com/news/region-c-palm-beach-county/west-palm-beach/admitted-killer-of-west-palm-beach-man-walks-free

What happened otherwise? They got in a fight and because one guy was fat the other guy is let off after strangling him to death? I'm not buyin it. :/

Or should I not believe local news?


What happened otherwise? He died of a fucking pre existing heart condition and there was no sufficient medical evidence or testimonial evidence suggesting otherwise. Why would you even equate that to "he was let off because the guy was fat"? Forget a jump from point A to point B, that's like a jump from point A to point Yellowstone, there isn't even a logical progression there.


He died because he was strangled. His body was secondary. A pathetic defense you don't see often, and only for fat men....


His body was not even remotely secondary. When you die of a heart attack, the heart attack is the primary cause of death, not whatever triggered it. It's not a pathetic defense, but you are presenting a pathetic accusation. Unless I'm wrong, you clearly want this guy charged with murder without proof of intent to kill. Any accusation that relies on the notion that a man is guilty whether there is proof to support the claim or not, is not only pathetic, it's flat out moronic.


Might be true if you died like that, but like I've said before. He died from Strangulation, not a Heart Attack. Even if you gave a heart attack as proof, it was caused by the strangulation and it's at least; Manslaughter... isn't it?

Or is strangling a fatty for 15+ seconds free reign and let their body do the dirty work a good defense in your eyes?
19929 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 7/10/17

runec wrote:


Amyas_Leigh wrote:
That was a pet theory presented by the defense lawyer with no proof, based on opinions of so called 'experts' he found himself. Opinions made long after the corpse of the victim had began the decomposition process. Hell, I don't even think they had a look at the body, there is no indication of it that I have found, and for some reason I doubt they kept the corpse frozen since 2012.



Kelgair wrote:
I'm glad I've been good with my health since apparently being fat precludes me from being strangulated...

He was strangulated, health problems were secondary. The intent to kill was there, and resulted in the desired result. ;P


You could both try reading the actual articles and SA's statement instead of repeatedly insisting the version of events you personally decided on is gospel.

Then you could both realize you're just proving the point here about how difficult the case would be in a court of law.



I kinda wish I was arguing this case in a court of law. But I'm not, so I'm just gonna keep bringing up what the coroner said the cause of death was, I just want people to know that he died cause someone choked him to death. A lot of people seem to think that him being fat was the cause of death. When really it was someone with an honest chokehold.

It wasn't cause he was fat, it was cause he pissed someone off and they decided to go for the throat.
runec 
36019 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/10/17 , edited 7/10/17

Kelgair wrote:
I kinda wish I was arguing this case in a court of law. But I'm not, so I'm just gonna keep bringing up what the coroner said the cause of death was, I just want people to know that he died cause someone choked him to death. A lot of people seem to think that him being fat was the cause of death. When really it was someone with an honest chokehold.

It wasn't cause he was fat, it was cause he pissed someone off and they decided to go for the throat.


The only one saying that anyone said it was because he was fat is Amys. What everyone else is actually saying is what the medical report says: That heart disease was a contributing factor in his death. That right there undercuts getting a murder charge to stick, so it was downgraded to manslaughter. You likewise can't use his "confession" to support a murder charge because his "confession" came after hearing the victim had died. If he had intent to kill, he would not be surprised the victim died and thus had the emotional outburst that was the "confession".

Then the problem from there is exactly as the SA said: They don't have the only witness that saw the entire fight.

Despite Amys's ranting no one is saying the guy is innocent. They're saying what the SA is saying: That bringing this to trial would be tough for the prosecution. The defense has the medical reports, a case for Excusable Homicide and the "confession" itself as evidence against an intent to kill. With no witness to the fight and the only evidence suggesting that the assault would not have been fatal to the average person ( and thus you could argue a reasonable person would not have expected to kill with that level of force ) a good defense could get the guy off with the jury.

Ye old problem of Reasonable Doubt(tm).

15076 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 7/10/17 , edited 7/10/17

runec wrote:


Kelgair wrote:
I kinda wish I was arguing this case in a court of law. But I'm not, so I'm just gonna keep bringing up what the coroner said the cause of death was, I just want people to know that he died cause someone choked him to death. A lot of people seem to think that him being fat was the cause of death. When really it was someone with an honest chokehold.

It wasn't cause he was fat, it was cause he pissed someone off and they decided to go for the throat.


The only one saying that anyone said it was because he was fat is Amys. What everyone else is actually saying is what the medical report says: That heart disease was a contributing factor in his death. That right there undercuts getting a murder charge to stick, so it was downgraded to manslaughter. You likewise can't use his "confession" to support a murder charge because his "confession" came after hearing the victim had died. If he had intent to kill, he would not be surprised the victim died and thus had the emotional outburst that was the "confession".

Then the problem from there is exactly as the SA said: They don't have the only witness that saw the entire fight.

Despite Amys's ranting no one is saying the guy is innocent. They're saying what the SA is saying: That bringing this to trial would be tough for the prosecution. The defense has the medical reports, a case for Excusable Homicide and the "confession" itself as evidence against an intent to kill. With no witness to the fight and the only evidence suggesting that the assault would not have been fatal to the average person ( and thus you could argue a reasonable person would not have expected to kill with that level of force ) a good defense could get the guy off with the jury.

Ye old problem of Reasonable Doubt(tm).



Not just the coroner's report, but the second opinion believes that a heart attack was the cause of death.

Like you said, reasonable doubt. If you can't prove that the suspect killed the victim, you lose a lot of the prosecution's argument. Could be downgraded to perhaps simple assault? The law on this stuff starts getting a bit messy.
Posted 7/10/17

sundin13 wrote:


Not just the coroner's report, but the second opinion believes that a heart attack was the cause of death.

Like you said, reasonable doubt. If you can't prove that the suspect killed the victim, you lose a lot of the prosecution's argument. Could be downgraded to perhaps simple assault? The law on this stuff starts getting a bit messy.


He had the man's blood on his shirt after he was tracked down for the attack. And he had to be tracked down, he didn't turn himself in. There was more than enough proof.
Source on the 2nd opinion? Unless they looked at the corpse, its irrelevant and the SA office brought it up as an excuse to cover up for their incompetence.
19929 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 7/10/17

runec wrote:


Kelgair wrote:
I kinda wish I was arguing this case in a court of law. But I'm not, so I'm just gonna keep bringing up what the coroner said the cause of death was, I just want people to know that he died cause someone choked him to death. A lot of people seem to think that him being fat was the cause of death. When really it was someone with an honest chokehold.

It wasn't cause he was fat, it was cause he pissed someone off and they decided to go for the throat.


The only one saying that anyone said it was because he was fat is Amys. What everyone else is actually saying is what the medical report says: That heart disease was a contributing factor in his death. That right there undercuts getting a murder charge to stick, so it was downgraded to manslaughter. You likewise can't use his "confession" to support a murder charge because his "confession" came after hearing the victim had died. If he had intent to kill, he would not be surprised the victim died and thus had the emotional outburst that was the "confession".

Then the problem from there is exactly as the SA said: They don't have the only witness that saw the entire fight.

Despite Amys's ranting no one is saying the guy is innocent. They're saying what the SA is saying: That bringing this to trial would be tough for the prosecution. The defense has the medical reports, a case for Excusable Homicide and the "confession" itself as evidence against an intent to kill. With no witness to the fight and the only evidence suggesting that the assault would not have been fatal to the average person ( and thus you could argue a reasonable person would not have expected to kill with that level of force ) a good defense could get the guy off with the jury.

Ye old problem of Reasonable Doubt(tm).



I know prosecutors who have successfully charged people with manslaughter with that kind of confession alone. He really should've been. So again, WTF FLORIDA?

Maybe I'm a cynic. No, Amys wasn't the only one saying it's cause he was fat. You're practically echoing the defense if you bring up his health conditions. I've said before, maybe strangling a fatty for 15+ seconds and then letting his body do the work for you might be a reasonable defense for you, but it doesn't cut my mustard. Manslaughter, at least.

There is no doubt he died from strangulation, and there is no doubt who the perpetrator of that was.

I find you calling the medical report a case of "excusable homicide" for the defense... umm "odd" and yeah, the one apparent witness they had returning to Saudia Arabia is again, "odd".

I would think the corpse and confession themselves would be plenty to convict.
15076 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 7/10/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


sundin13 wrote:


Not just the coroner's report, but the second opinion believes that a heart attack was the cause of death.

Like you said, reasonable doubt. If you can't prove that the suspect killed the victim, you lose a lot of the prosecution's argument. Could be downgraded to perhaps simple assault? The law on this stuff starts getting a bit messy.


He had the man's blood on his shirt after he was tracked down for the attack. And he had to be tracked down, he didn't turn himself in. There was more than enough proof.
Source on the 2nd opinion? Unless they looked at the corpse, its irrelevant and the SA office brought it up as an excuse to cover up for their incompetence.


No one is denying that he was involved so that doesn't prove any facts that were in dispute.

As for the second opinion, again, we do not have the full testimony so there is no way of knowing the details, however, to write off the testimony of forensics experts because they are the defense's witnesses is tantamount to throwing out our entire justice system. Just as much is required of defense witnesses as prosecution witnesses.
runec 
36019 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/10/17

Kelgair wrote:
I know prosecutors who have successfully charged people with manslaughter with that kind of confession alone. He really should've been. So again, WTF FLORIDA?


He was charged. Convicting on the other hand is a different problem.



Kelgair wrote:Maybe I'm a cynic. No, Amys wasn't the only one saying it's cause he was fat. You're practically echoing the defense if you bring up his health conditions. I've said before, maybe strangling a fatty for 15+ seconds and then letting his body do the work for you might be a reasonable defense for you, but it doesn't cut my mustard. Manslaughter, at least.


I'm echoing the medical reports and you and Amys are the only ones that keep equating "heart disease" with "cus he's fat". His health conditions are relevant because they are listed in the reports as having contributed to his death. That introduces doubt because you can argue that someone without a heart condition would not have died under the same circumstances. The suspect certainly didn't think "I bet I can induce a fatal heart attack" when he assaulted the victim.

So yes, it got downgraded from manslaughter. But from there, they lost the only witness to the physical fight itself. So the ball would be in the defense's court.



Kelgair wrote:I find you calling the medical report a case of "excusable homicide" for the defense... umm "odd" and yeah, the one apparent witness they had returning to Saudia Arabia is again, "odd".


Please read the State Attorney's full statement. I am referring to the benchmark of Excusable Homicide in Florida law. Which is:


782.03 Excusable homicide.—Homicide is excusable when committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent, or by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or upon a sudden combat, without any dangerous weapon being used and not done in a cruel or unusual manner.





Kelgair wrote:
I would think the corpse and confession themselves would be plenty to convict.


And you would be wrong. The problem with a jury of your peers is most of them tend to be idiots.

Also, it's Florida.
55073 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
101 / M
Offline
Posted 7/10/17
If Justice system failed us, sent Shinsengumi after them! :p



19929 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 7/10/17 , edited 7/10/17


Ahh, you're right, I should've said "convicted". Still true....



You're echoing a defense medical report, attributing his death to his physical condition(He was overweight). Which is that he died cause he suffered a heart attack! What could possibly have caused that heart attack? Well from the Defense you'll never know.

From the first medical report, he died cause he was strangulated. Someone chocked him for dozens of seconds, and he died.

"You're honor! I gripped his neck for awhile and he eventually passed out, how was I supposed to know he died from that?" Good defense sir, good defense. Again, easy manslaughter.



I'm sorry NO, JUST NO. This wasn't an accident or misfortune. A Tutor got in a fight with his pupil about money and the pupil choked the life out of him. This is by no manner a lawful act or done by lawful means. STOP IT. The SA is full of shit. what part of that was "sufficient provocation"??


Kelgair wrote:
I would think the corpse and confession themselves would be plenty to convict.


And you would be wrong. The problem with a jury of your peers is most of them tend to be idiots.

Also, it's Florida.



Unfortunately you're right on the last few of these marks.

"Florida man..." is both amusing and terrifying...

(edit: Manner, heh)
1159 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28
Offline
Posted 7/11/17
legalize murder.
28138 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 7/11/17

ad_arbitrium wrote:

legalize murder.


Move your ass to The Philippines.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.