Poll of the Day > Grand jury declines to charge a man who murdered homeless man

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.kens5.com/article/news/local/grand-jury-declines-to-charge-man-who-shot-and-killed-a-homeless-man-near-downtown-corner/
273-09f19c1c-7afc-406f-92b0-500f2cbd5587?fbclid=IwAR2L1pY4rxet2INKmjRHAHI_VJXh8y423kDX6w81u12cM-D8oNVjyCKyaj4

That makes me sick honestly. Dude most likely was just asking for spare change and gets gunned down without a second thought.

Link is broken :/

Far-Queue posted...

Link is broken :/

Had to break it up to post it. I don't use those link shortening sites since I don't trust them. So I don't share links that way. Just remove the line break and it should work.

SAN ANTONIO A Bexar County grand jury has failed to file any charges against the person who shot a homeless man to death last fall at a busy downtown corner.
The unblinking eye of a security camera across the street captured that event.
William Hawkins can be seen approaching a man in the parking lot of a convenience store, as if to ask for a handout.
The surveillance video shows that in just seven seconds, Hawkins fell to a gunshot. The man with the gun can then be seen stepping around the body on the ground, getting in his truck and driving away.
At the time, San Antonio Police said the gunman drove a short distance away and called authorities to report the incident, telling them he fired the shot because he felt threatened.
The shooting happened directly across the street from the Christian Assistance Ministry and Hawkins was well known by people who work at the nonprofit that provides services to the homeless.
We just learned that they're not going to take this case to trial and no charges were going to be put upon anyone," Dawn White-Fosdick, who leads the group, said. "I don't know what the next steps are but it's very distressing for all of us.
White-Fosdick said the young man who grew up locally and graduated from Clark High School.
My perception is that his life is not as valuable as other lives," she said.
While admitting that there are people on the street who are dangerous, White-Fosdick said she and her colleagues never considered Hawkins a threat.
Our experience with William was that he was a soft-spoken person, that he was an encourager. He was not aggressive, White-Fosdick said. We had a lot of interaction with him in this area and he would be the last person that I would expect this to happen to.
At a time when the pandemic has forced many people out of shelters and into desperate situations, White-Fosdick said It concerns us that someone who is vulnerable, on the street, could ask someone for money and that alone could get them shot.
The fact that the shooting happened across the street from a homeless ministry, she said, is even more distressing.
We just don't understand how that could warrant being allowed to call that self-defense, that someone walking up to you in broad daylight, at 10am, across the street from a place like ours, a busy gas station, in broad daylight, that that could warrant allowing someone to get murdered, White-Fosdick said.
Further, White-Fosdick said they were concerned about justice from the outset because just moments after the incident, a San Antonio Police Department spokesperson held a media briefing and said that with preliminary information, it was unclear if charges would be filed.
It was shocking for us to watch the news that day, just a few hours after he was killed, to learn that the police response was kind of like 'We're not sure we're going to charge anybody,'" White-Fosdick said. It gave us the impression that little to no investigation had already occurred, and yet, a decision had been made.
We asked District Attorney Joe Gonzales what led to the decision not to prosecute. He sent the following statement:
Last week, a Bexar County Grand Jury declined to indict this case. Because this case may be the subject of further review or investigation, we can make no further comment on it.
The Hawkins family said they met with Gonzales for two hours this week. They said they have hired an attorney and when the shock wears off a bit, they will consider what action they will take in their fight for justice.
We asked SAPD for a response. They have not yet replied to our request, but the information will be added if it becomes available.

*makes assumptions*

*Google search*

yep

That article conveniently leaves out that he was shot in the stomach and died in the hospital. Even if the shooter's actions were extreme it doesnt seem the shooter was trying to kill him.

So what charge are you hoping to stick? 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. That's not gonna pass in Texas of all places.

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. It's a feel-bad story but appealing to the court of public opinion does fuck all.

Veedrock- posted...

That article conveniently leaves out that he was shot in the stomach and died in the hospital. Even if the shooter's actions were extreme it doesnt seem the shooter was trying to kill him.

You don't attack people with lethal force unless you're trying to kill them. Period. It doesn't matter how long after shooting him he died from his injuries, this man was deliberately killed.

Veedrock- posted...

It doesn't have the malice or premeditation for murder.

It's hard to be more malicious than responding to somebody asking for money by shooting them. Premeditation is only a requirement for first-degree murder, and even then, it's not nearly as clear-cut as having a defined plan to go murder somebody so much as it's a matter of making a clear-headed decision to kill somebody when you had plenty of opportunity to make a better decision (as opposed to second-degree, which entails committing murder in the heat of a conflict that has escalated). Second-degree murder would be pretty easy to push for here, even if we accept the claim that there was a confrontation of some sort (which is questionable, given that the interaction lasts all of seven seconds and shows no physical confrontation of any sort).

Veedrock- posted...

You could try manslaughter but it'd be argued against self defense, the only court admissible account of events.

The security footage is admissible and shows the entire incident.

Fam_Fam posted...

*makes assumptions*

*Google search*

yep

It really shouldn't be so easy to correctly make assumptions like that, but here we are.

Veedrock- posted...

That article conveniently leaves out that he was shot in the stomach and died in the hospital. Even if the shooter's actions were extreme it doesnt seem the shooter was trying to kill him.

Oh, well being shot in the stomach is basically harmless, I wish I was shot in the stomach, sounds like a fun time.

adjl posted...

The security footage is admissible and shows the entire incident.

Presumably without audio, so it doesn't validate intent.

Yellow posted...

Oh, well being shot in the stomach is basically harmless, I wish I was shot in the stomach, sounds like a fun time.

Your words, not mine.

Far-Queue posted...

Link is broken :/

Im perfect fine! Thank you very much!

hypnox posted...

Had to break it up to post it. I don't use those link shortening sites since I don't trust them.

Whats there to not trust?

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.

Veedrock- posted...

Presumably without audio, so it doesn't validate intent.

It does, however, show that the victim did nothing more than speak to the guy. He'd be hard-pressed to claim that a handful of words constituted enough of a threat to his safety to justify killing the guy. Except, of course, the victim was a homeless black guy in Texas, so convincing people to be afraid of his mere existence is pretty easy.

The prosecution probably thought there was no way they'd win even a smaller charge like Constructive Manslaughter...

Isn't that the plot of Law Abiding Citizen? It's better to trial and fail than to not trial at all?

Fam_Fam posted...

*makes assumptions*

*Google search*

yep

The main details of the case paint a pretty clear picture.

• Guy killed for literally no reason
• No punishment
• Texas

Veedrock- posted...

That article conveniently leaves out that he was shot in the stomach and died in the hospital. Even if the shooter's actions were extreme it doesnt seem the shooter was trying to kill him.

*Someone comes up and double taps a random man*

"Meh, doesn't look like he tried to kill him to me"

You dumb as hell.

Does this dude just shoot everyone that approaches him?

"Excuse me sir, which way to the station-
BANG BANG BANG

evilpresident posted...

Does this dude just shoot everyone that approaches him?

"Excuse me sir, which way to the station-
BANG BANG BANG

Yes but that's okay as long as a grand jury says it's okay

adjl posted...

It does, however, show that the victim did nothing more than speak to the guy. He'd be hard-pressed to claim that a handful of words constituted enough of a threat to his safety to justify killing the guy. Except, of course, the victim was a homeless black guy in Texas, so convincing people to be afraid of his mere existence is pretty easy.

it takes seconds to threaten someone. you can't say he didn't threaten him with 100% certainty and still be logical

Krazy_Kirby posted...

it takes seconds to threaten someone. you can't say he didn't threaten him with 100% certainty and still be logical

It takes a whole lot more than a couple seconds of just words to credibly threaten someone. There are almost always body language and further actions involved. It's not impossible, and you are correct that I can't say it with 100% certainty, but you can rarely say anything with 100% certainty when dealing with testimonies like this, which is why you have to rely on other information to judge how credible the claim is.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

it takes seconds to threaten someone. you can't say he didn't threaten him with 100% certainty and still be logical

Problem is, if you're going to argue self-defence, you have to make your case with 100% certainty (or, rather, "beyond a reasonable doubt") that he was threatened.

darkknight109 posted...

Problem is, if you're going to argue self-defence, you have to make your case with 100% certainty (or, rather, "beyond a reasonable doubt") that he was threatened.

Of course, the problem here is that "He was homeless and black" qualified as "beyond a reasonable doubt" for this grand jury.

rexcrk posted...

Whats there to not trust?

Someone could link you to anywhere and you wouldn't know. :D and I don't like making people use or do things I am personally not okay with <3

adjl posted...

Of course, the problem here is that "He was homeless and black" qualified as "beyond a reasonable doubt" for this grand jury.

I'd argue it's worse than that. The grand jury is meant to consider the case in the light most favourable to the prosecution. Unlike the actual trial, all assumptions are made in the prosecution's favour and they're basically running the show.

As the old phrase goes, you could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, if you so wanted. If this guy wasn't charged, it's because the prosecution wasn't particularly interested in seeing him charged.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

it takes seconds to threaten someone. you can't say he didn't threaten him with 100% certainty and still be logical

The guy didn't say he threatened him he just said he felt threatened because he is a piece of shit with a gun and eager to use it

Veedrock- posted...

That article conveniently leaves out that he was shot in the stomach and died in the hospital. Even if the shooter's actions were extreme it doesnt seem the shooter was trying to kill him.

Wonder if Veedrock will backpedal on this at all.

darkknight109 posted...

Problem is, if you're going to argue self-defence, you have to make your case with 100% certainty (or, rather, "beyond a reasonable doubt") that he was threatened.

In a trial, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense. The defense can allege self defense and the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it doesn't apply.

rjsilverthorn posted...

In a trial, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense. The defense can allege self defense and the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it doesn't apply.

Wrong.

Self-defence is an affirmative defence - you are affirming that you did, indeed, commit the acts which are being ascribed to you (in this case, killing someone) but are claiming that it was legally justified due to the circumstances of the act in question. Other examples of affirmative defences include duress, insanity, and entrapment.

When alleging an affirmative defence, the burden of proof shifts to the defence and it is now up to them, not the prosecution, to prove their case to the jury (to what standard depends on the laws governing the case). For that reason, defence attorneys tend to hate using them, since it typically makes their job harder. As soon as you claim an affirmative defence, the prosecution technically doesn't have to do a thing beyond that point - they could, if they so chose, present no witnesses or evidence and still have a chance of winning the case, because unless the defence proves their assertion the defendant is guilty by default.

This guy is going to shoot more people.

Reminder that if you acost people in a parking lot, it will be taken a lot worse than anywhere else.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Reminder that if you acost people in a parking lot, it will be taken a lot worse than anywhere else.

Reminder that describing somebody asking you for change as "accosting" would be hilariously melodramatic if it weren't routinely used to justify some truly disgusting attitudes and behaviour, up to and including murder.

Weird, I thought Texas had shipped all their homeless people to California. I guess they missed one.

Far-Queue posted...

Link is broken :/

His remote bombs take a lot of skill to use properly but you can do amazing things with them, not to mention nis NAIR

adjl posted...

Reminder that describing somebody asking you for change as "accosting" would be hilariously melodramatic if it weren't routinely used to justify some truly disgusting attitudes and behaviour, up to and including murder.

accost

verb
accosting:
approach and address (someone) boldly or aggressively.
"reporters accosted him in the street"

you don't know how someone asked.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

accost

verb
accosting:
approach and address (someone) boldly or aggressively.
"reporters accosted him in the street"

you don't know how someone asked.

The video footage, however, would have shown the body language associated with "approaching someone boldly or aggressively." I also know that the vast, vast majority of instances of panhandlers asking for change do not fall under such an umbrella, but that many people think they do because they've conditioned themselves to be afraid of homeless people (the "melodrama" angle I presented).