LogFAQs > #963162129

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, Database 10 ( 02.17.2022-12-01-2022 ), DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Grand jury declines to charge a man who murdered homeless man
darkknight109 03/04/22 11:51:26 AM #12:	Veedrock- posted... Even if the shooter's actions were extreme it doesnt seem the shooter was trying to kill him. If you shoot someone, you're trying to kill them. The fact that the victim didn't die right away doesn't somehow ameliorate his actions. Veedrock- posted... This isn't a judge dismissing a case or a DA choosing not to prosecute; a grand jury is made up of citizens and they made the call based on evidence and testimony. Grand juries hear what the prosecution wants them to hear. It is not, by any means, a fair and impartial system, nor is it intended to be. Veedrock- posted... It doesn't have the malice or premeditation for murder. You could try manslaughter but it'd be argued against self defense, the only court admissible account of events. Malice and premeditation are not prerequisites for a murder charge (unless you're going for first-degree murder); all you have to prove is intent to kill, which is pretty easy in this case given that, y'know, he shot the victim. The defence would, indeed, argue self-defence, but that's an affirmative defence that requires that the defence prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooter's actions fell within the scope of Texas's self-defence laws. I'm not familiar enough with those laws to comment on whether they do or don't, but acting like this is a foregone conclusion is a mistake. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:963162129] in Grand jury... [t:79927003]...</cite> <quote>Veedrock- posted... </cite> <quote>Even if the shooter's actions were extreme it doesnt seem the shooter was trying to kill him.</quote>If you shoot someone, you're trying to kill them. The fact that the victim didn't die right away doesn't somehow ameliorate his actions. Veedrock- posted... </cite> <quote>This isn't a judge dismissing a case or a DA choosing not to prosecute; a grand jury is made up of citizens and they made the call based on evidence and testimony.</quote>Grand juries hear what the prosecution wants them to hear. It is not, by any means, a fair and impartial system, nor is it intended to be. Veedrock- posted... </cite> <quote>It doesn't have the malice or premeditation for murder. You could try manslaughter but it'd be argued against self defense, the only court admissible account of events.</quote>Malice and premeditation are not prerequisites for a murder charge (unless you're going for first-degree murder); all you have to prove is intent to kill, which is pretty easy in this case given that, y'know, he shot the victim. The defence would, indeed, argue self-defence, but that's an affirmative defence that requires that the defence prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooter's actions fell within the scope of Texas's self-defence laws. I'm not familiar enough with those laws to comment on whether they do or don't, but acting like this is a foregone conclusion is a mistake. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1