Almost certainly not a hate crime (he was attacked, after all), but unfortunately, I'm positive that he will be charged with a crime - prosecutors will claim that the attacker was no longer an imminent threat.
If he had pulled while still on the ground he may have a better chance but walking out the door and turning back is going to get him charged with something
Almost certainly not a hate crime (he was attacked, after all), but unfortunately, I'm positive that he will be charged with a crime - prosecutors will claim that the attacker was no longer an imminent threat.
Yes, he cannot claim self defense. Revenge killings are not legal. So this would be considered second degree murder, or maybe voluntary manslaughter depending on the jurisdiction.
And he will very likely be charged. I would demand a speedy jury trial and base my defense on trying to hang the jury. You only need 1 based juror who is willing to refuse to convict.
If I were on the jury I wouldn't say he was guilty. He was well within his rights to blow that motherfucker away.
However, jury trials can almost always be overruled by the judge. Or the judge can replace a juror for "reasons". A white guy shoots a black guy in Chicago.......they're going to pull out all the stops.
However, jury trials can almost always be overruled by the judge. Or the judge can replace a juror for "reasons".
As a lawyer, not really. A judge can "instruct" you, but if you choose to disobey that instruction there is nothing the judge can do. There are no directed verdicts in criminal trials.
Sure he can. "I was confused and in terror, blood pounding in my head, I thought he was going to kill me if I turned my back on him again."
Probably won't convince a leftist judje or jury though.
Anyway, he took out a violent criminal who had for passtime a "game" of beating people in the head, possibly maiming or killing them. Part and parcel of diversity.
Lawyers never want to get you a speedy trial. I dunno of it's because they get paid more or if it's some kind of tactic. But they always want to waive the right.
It is rarely a good idea because delay usually benefits the defense, but in a case like this forcing speedy trial puts the prosecution in a poor position and doesn't give them the time to dig up dirt.
If he had then kept his mouth shut and just gone about the rest of his life, he might never have been found.
Best line in the whole piece. Everyone needs to read this.
Cops don't care about dead scumbags. They really don't. They aren't going to pull out the CSI crime team for a stone cold whodunnit. They want the easy clears.
Watch him get charged with a hate crime
Not letting a Kang enrich you is a capital offense these days.
Almost certainly not a hate crime (he was attacked, after all), but unfortunately, I'm positive that he will be charged with a crime - prosecutors will claim that the attacker was no longer an imminent threat.
If he had pulled while still on the ground he may have a better chance but walking out the door and turning back is going to get him charged with something
Yeah. That's the iffy part. It was over. Unless there is something the camera didn't catch.
It's Chicago, that is a given. He will be charged and the key thrown away.
Yes, he cannot claim self defense. Revenge killings are not legal. So this would be considered second degree murder, or maybe voluntary manslaughter depending on the jurisdiction.
And he will very likely be charged. I would demand a speedy jury trial and base my defense on trying to hang the jury. You only need 1 based juror who is willing to refuse to convict.
If I were on the jury I wouldn't say he was guilty. He was well within his rights to blow that motherfucker away.
However, jury trials can almost always be overruled by the judge. Or the judge can replace a juror for "reasons". A white guy shoots a black guy in Chicago.......they're going to pull out all the stops.
As a lawyer, not really. A judge can "instruct" you, but if you choose to disobey that instruction there is nothing the judge can do. There are no directed verdicts in criminal trials.
A judge can only overrule a guilty verdict in a jury trial. Not a not guilty verdict.
Sure he can. "I was confused and in terror, blood pounding in my head, I thought he was going to kill me if I turned my back on him again."
Probably won't convince a leftist judje or jury though.
Anyway, he took out a violent criminal who had for passtime a "game" of beating people in the head, possibly maiming or killing them. Part and parcel of diversity.
Lawyers never want to get you a speedy trial. I dunno of it's because they get paid more or if it's some kind of tactic. But they always want to waive the right.
It is rarely a good idea because delay usually benefits the defense, but in a case like this forcing speedy trial puts the prosecution in a poor position and doesn't give them the time to dig up dirt.
What I immediately thought about: https://archive.ph/DSnEm
The language and capitalization being used here is what you can expect in the current year. Here's a very different take lol: https://archive.ph/qqKDO
Best line in the whole piece. Everyone needs to read this.
Cops don't care about dead scumbags. They really don't. They aren't going to pull out the CSI crime team for a stone cold whodunnit. They want the easy clears.
Worth it.