I think most people in this thread should take a few steps back and realize that none of us knows much about what evidence was presented at the trial.
He’s white, he shot two blacks, and the jury did not convict him.
Regards,
Shodan
The girl was white, so they won’t be frothing out the mouth quite as much.
Edit: the guy was white too. They used the place to shoot meth, got shot up with lead instead.
Why are you assuming that testimony is true?
Meth-heads in Nevada turn out to be white. Who would’ve every guessed?
Dammit pool, quit trying to inject obvious logic into a perfectly good emotional and hysterical debate.
I expect if ballistics/splatter had shown otherwise, the article would have mentioned it and the defence lawyer would have objected to the allegation. Can’t really be a “he said, she said” when bullet holes are involved, can it ?
Beyond that, had they been awake, the old guy would a) have had to be aware of that fact (lights on, conversations etc…) and b) have had even less justification to come in and antagonize them *or *put himself at risk. That’s what the police is there for.
Sure it can. “Bullets holes involved” does not always imply death, and one of the victims in this incident did not die.
I meant bullet holes in the ground/walls.
Wow, it is like people see a headline and rant about it without ever bothering to find out what actually happened.
The properties in the area have a lot of squatters. Previously other squatters in the area had pulled knives on the property owners.
This particular gentleman went to his property and yelled for the squatters to come out. There is a witness to this.
When the squatters did not come out he entered his property. He claims that one of the squatters grabbed a weapon. The police found a flashlight, apparently a rather large one, The police believe that this is what was grabbed and that it was mistaken for a weapon.
That is when he fired.
Given the circumstances the best option would have been to call the police. However, from what I have read the proper owner had called the police in the past and nothing was done.
It is a sad situation but it could have been solved if the meth users had simply left the property when asked. It could have also been solved if the police had handled the situation when they were previously called.
Note, one of the squatters had her drivers license updated with the address of the house they were squatting in, so this was a long term thing.
Slee
My mistake, then. I misread Janai as Jamal.
I’m not sure if “White Meth-heads Discover They Have Broken into the Wrong House” is better, or worse.
Regards,
Shodan
Right? Isn’t that how the jury works? They get to decide if there should be a conviction, “legal” has nothing to do with it.
No. The jury’s verdict must rest on the evidence adduced at trial.
Now, admittedly, if the jury is convinced of the factual guilt of the accused and nonetheless decides to acquit, there is no remedy for this error.
Shodan, by now we all know that you’re a racist; there’s no real need to keep proving it.
No real need, but there you go again.
Let’s go down to the quarry and throw Snowboarder Bo in!
Regards,
Shodan
Yes.
What did the jury do wrong?
Seems to me that the jury had the option not to buy the self defense theory. Under it, any person who grabs anything could be assumed to be grabbing a weapon and may be killed with impunity. Surely they could have said, no we don’t buy the self defense gambit. If the law says you can create a situation which will lead to you being in fear of your life, then the law should change. But even under current law, I don’t think that acquittal was the only possible outcome.
But they did buy it – that is, the jury believed the guy was telling the truth.
I guess I don’t understand how they would have had an option to force themselves not to believe him, when they did in fact believe him.
In other words, their belief wasn’t an act of will – they didn’t say to themselves, “We’re going to believe this guy.” I suppose they could have decided, as an act of will, “We’re going to acquit even though we don’t believe him,” or in the alternative decided, “We’re going to convict even though we do believe him,” but I don’t quite understand how they could have willed their belief into existence, or away.
Wasn’t there a case a few years back when some chap went down into his basement and wasted a few kids ?
Not knowing all the facts in any of these cases, I always refrain from judgement, but as ever I envy Americans their freedoms.
I’m not saying they had to force themselves not to believe him, but they had that option. The jury COULD have come up with a guilty verdict under existing law, but I think the law needs tweaking to make convictions more likely in such cases.