Father charged with "headshot" killing of drunk driver that killed his 2 sons

[Jimzz]

But they'd present one with only circumstantial evidence and hope people take the DA's word for it...nice.

Hahahaha... if cases that only had circumstantial evidence never saw the court room at least half the cases today would not happen.
Hell Texas convicted a guy on circumstantial evidence, put him on death row, and killed him. Now much of that circumstantial evidence has been cast as either faulty or just bad.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Hahahaha... if cases that only had circumstantial evidence never saw the court room at least half the cases today would not happen.
Hell Texas convicted a guy on circumstantial evidence, put him on death row, and killed him. Now much of that circumstantial evidence has been cast as either faulty or just bad.

That's just sad.

 

[Phoenix86]

Hell Texas convicted a guy on circumstantial evidence, put him on death row, and killed him. Now much of that circumstantial evidence has been cast as either faulty or just bad.

Let's not kid ourselves, when racism was more rampant this was common all across the south and not uncommon elsewhere.

I'm pretty torn on this case, I certainly understand the heat of the moment but like I said before, he had time to think. I also think he made serious judgement failures, of course that feeds into the heat of the moment argument. I'd really have to see what was presented to the jury... Tragic case all around.

 

[smackababy]

Can't say I am entirely surprised by this verdict. Even if I actually believe this guy did it, there wasn't evidence to prove it.

 

[Linflas]

Hahahaha... if cases that only had circumstantial evidence never saw the court room at least half the cases today would not happen.
Hell Texas convicted a guy on circumstantial evidence, put him on death row, and killed him. Now much of that circumstantial evidence has been cast as either faulty or just bad.

circumstantial evidence

n. evidence in a trial which is not directly from an eyewitness or participant and requires some reasoning to prove a fact. There is a public perception that such evidence is weak ("all they have is circumstantial evidence"), but the probable conclusion from the circumstances may be so strong that there can be little doubt as to a vital fact ("beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal case, and "a preponderance of the evidence" in a civil case). Particularly in criminal cases, "eyewitness" ("I saw Frankie shoot Johnny") type evidence is often lacking and may be unreliable, so circumstantial evidence becomes essential. Prior threats to the victim, fingerprints found at the scene of the crime, ownership of the murder weapon, and the accused being seen in the neighborhood, certainly point to the suspect as being the killer, but each bit of evidence is circumstantial.

Nothing wrong with circumstantial evidence however if a law was proposed that the death penalty be off the table for cases in which there is nothing but circumstantial evidence I would support it.

 

[her209]

Why? I (and many others) would never have found this man guilty given the circumstances. Never. Look at what that man did to his family. Animal deserved what he got. Thank G-d for Texas.

So under what circumstances is it OK for you to execute someone on the street?

 

[dank69]

So under what circumstances is it OK for you to execute someone on the street?

Apparently all you have to do is be in shock. Free pass to act as judge, jury and executioner.

 

[Attic]

So he obviously killed the guy. But it can't be proven based on lack of evidence.

He beat the justice system and he's not a multi millionaire. I think it was a selective application of justice in this case based on the death of his two sons by the deceased. In this case at least the selective application was not soley based on money and power.

 

[cronos]

So under what circumstances is it OK for you to execute someone on the street?

You have to be a member of neighborhood watch, of course

 

[RPD]

Apparently all you have to do is be in shock. Free pass to act as judge, jury and executioner.

Didn't realize watching someone kill your sons was "free".

 

[highland145]

So he obviously killed the guy. But it can't be proven based on lack of evidence.

No because of your second sentence. No gun, no gsr, other shots fired in the area, the cousins that left the scene and didn't contact police for days...

I think the wife did it.

 

[smackababy]

No because of your second sentence. No gun, no gsr, other shots fired in the area, the cousins that left the scene and didn't contact police for days...

I think the wife did it.

If it was obvious, you'd think he would have been found guilty right?

I think he did do it, but there just wasn't enough evidence to remove that reasonable doubt. Our system is set up that way.

 

[highland145]

If it was obvious, you'd think he would have been found guilty right?

I think he did do it, but there just wasn't enough evidence to remove that reasonable doubt. Our system is set up that way.

Obviously.

 

[Craig234]

Uh, pretty sure this case was pretty clear cut. The prosecution did not have enough evidence to convince a jury to convict this man of murder. Why are you bringing race into this situation? If you want to race bait, go to P&N.

Because jury nullification for the purpose of allowing the law against murder not to be enforced was praised as an important right, and the actual history of jury nullification is one of the racist south using it for white juries to refuse to convict a white defendant of any crime against a black person, including murder.

Jury nullification was praised; I pointed out a factual problem with its history.

 

[BlitzPuppet]

So under what circumstances is it OK for you to execute someone on the street?

I can understand how distraught the guy was seeing as some idiot who decided it was okay to drink and drive plowed over his two sons, killing them.

Let's see how reserved and non-violent you are when someone wipes out 40% of your family.

Stay in Canada please.

 

[highland145]

Because jury nullification for the purpose of allowing the law against murder not to be enforced was praised as an important right, and the actual history of jury nullification is one of the racist south using it for white juries to refuse to convict a white defendant of any crime against a black person, including murder.

Jury nullification was praised; I pointed out a factual problem with its history.

Irrelevant to this thread.

 

[dank69]

Irrelevant to this thread.

What's irrelevant? Jury nullification?

 

[smackababy]

What's irrelevant? Jury nullification?

Was jury nullification done in this case? And, if so, what relevance is it that white juries used it a hundred years ago concerning white defendants and crimes against blacks? None of that had anything to do with this case.

 

[dank69]

Was jury nullification done in this case? And, if so, what relevance is it that white juries used it a hundred years ago concerning white defendants and crimes against blacks? None of that had anything to do with this case.

Yes, but Craig was just responding to someone else who brought up jury nullification. Why are you guys acting like Craig is the one who brought it up?

 

[smackababy]

Yes, but Craig was just responding to someone else who brought up jury nullification. Why are you guys acting like Craig is the one who brought it up?

We aren't protesting jury nullification being discussed as one of the possible outcomes. We are protesting someone bringing up that a hundred years ago it was used as a process to clear racists. That has zero bearing on anything going on in this thread, other than to fuel some sort of race baiting.

 

[Craig234]

We aren't protesting jury nullification being discussed as one of the possible outcomes. We are protesting someone bringing up that a hundred years ago it was used as a process to clear racists. That has zero bearing on anything going on in this thread, other than to fuel some sort of race baiting.

Yes, you are protesting jury nullification being discussed.

The most prominent use of jury nullification historically has been the use of it to protect racist evasion of the law and to deny black citizens the protection of the law.

There are multiple arguments for and against nullification; we could talk about the principle issues such as the nullification of the democratic process in which society is given the power to decide the laws and how the people are denied that power when a handful of jurors refuse to respect the law.

But it's quite relevant, in discussing the pros and cons, and the risks to nullification, to note its actual history, so people who are running around with smiles thinking how they're going to stick it to tyranny by ignoring the law are informed that supporting nullification can have unintended consequences, such as the history for supporting racism.

'Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it', yet here you are demanding not to have the history be told to people which informs them of the sorts of harms that the policy under discussion has caused in the past, for them to consider in looking at the risks to the policy today.

The same mentality that led to that history, could lead to a jury 'nullifying' the law to refuse to convict a clearly guilty politician they like, to refuse to convict anyone for tax evasion because they're anti-tax activists, to refuse to convict anyone for violence against Muslims because they're bigot against Muslims - more widespread nullification has a lot of issues to consider, and the history where it's hurt so many people by denying them the protection of the law is a very relevant issue to discuss.

It'd be like saying 'hey, let's make concentration camps - but you can't say anything about past abuses of such camps, that's not relelvant to the issue.'

 

[Craig234]

Irrelevant to this thread.

Relevant to the topic of jury nullification, which was advocated in the post I responded to.

 

[Craig234]

So he obviously killed the guy. But it can't be proven based on lack of evidence.

He beat the justice system and he's not a multi millionaire. I think it was a selective application of justice in this case based on the death of his two sons by the deceased. In this case at least the selective application was not soley based on money and power.

Why don't we just pass a law, anyone who cares about a murder victim is allowed to kill who they think/know the murderer is. What could go wrong? That's what's being advocated.

 

[Craig234]

nm

 

[smackababy]

This case, and the idea of jury nullification, which didn't happen in this case, have nothing to do with racial prejudice that happened in a time long since past. If the jury believed that the man was guilty, but the laws in which he was being tried of were either unjust or inappropriate for this case, it STILL wouldn't any anything to do with the racist past in which this act had been previously used.

The entire idea of bringing it up as an argument for this case is stupid. "Oh, the jury can't use nullification because people might think this is like what happened when a white man murdered a black man in 1850!" That isn't applicable or relevant to this case in any way.