You know the part he just sees that the whaco had cut off his wife’s head and then he(Brad) kills him for it.
I don’t think a jury in the world could convict him for that. Could they? I mean could a DA make a strong enough case against him for executing him? Because it definetely was not murder that Brad Pitt did it was an execution.
Why?
Sure there was no jury or judges or lawyers to get the water muddied to get this crazy off but that sucker killed his wife and there was no doubt about it and he knew that and so did his partner. Why waste the court’s time and effort to have some tricky lawyer have the chance to get him off? HE DESERVED TO DIE!!!
So Brad Pitt just saved the citizens of the US alot of money. I mean he didn’t deserved to be fed in jail once while waiting to be executed not with my tax money. He(brad pitt) just eliminated a pest a insect if you will that does mankind no good only harm. And what do you do with bugs that’s right you eliminate them.
I would have killed him and not thought twice about it. How about you? You know the idiot killed a bunch of other people and now you see your wife’s severed head at the hand of this loser whaco. Would you have arrested him? If you said yes, that is bull you would have killed him too. Be honest with yourself and you will admit it. So how could a jury convict someone of something they would have done themselves.
Haven’t seen the movie, and have no interest in it since I saw the previews where the detectives are going over the crime scene in the dark. Jesus, people, turn on a freakin’ light switch! Too stoopid.
Anyway, the circumstances you describe would make Pitt the perfect candidate for a little thing called “manslaughter,” generally defined as an unlawful killing upon adequate provocation. If he wasn’t doing it to protect himself or others, he won’t have a defense walk on those grounds. But if the guy just killed his wife, there’s your adequate provocation.
What juries would do is an entirely different question.
I once knew a country lawyer in Georgia who said that the only two questions in a murder trial were:[ol][li]Did the victim “need killing”? and[/li][li]Was the Defendant the right person for the job?[/ol][/li]
No jury would convict the guy. The barest “My finger slipped,” defense would be enough to get him off.
But from the events you describe, it’s unlikely that he’d be convicted – still, it is possible. If a jury convicted him, there sounds as if there would be adequate support in the record for their verdict. As the finders of fact, the jury is entitled to believe some testimony and disbelieve other testimony, and their verdict will be upheld as long as it has rational support in the record.
If Brad Pitt’s character got a good lawyer, he could be found not guilty by reason of temporary insanity, or at least get a reduced sentence. However, no matter the provocation, a detective shooting a bound, unarmed suspect at point blank range is not going to get a slap on the wrist.
If Morgan Freeman had kept his damn mouth shut and let Pitt shoot the guy, Pitt would have a better chance of getting off. The prosecution could make a powerful case that, since Freeman explained at length why Pitt shouldn’t shoot, Pitt was clearly presented with “right” and “wrong” choices and opted to do wrong.
At least, that’s how I’d argue it. And since they were wearing mics and presumedly recorded in full…
Well he * IS * guilty. He did shoot the guy infront of several witnesses, however if I were his defence attourney I’d go with temporary insanity, given the provocation.
I agree first that Morgan should have kept his mouth shut or at least said “shoot that sucker”. The part I don’t agree with is that Brad opted to do wrong. The guy killed his wife and unborn baby horribly. He was guilty why waste a jury trial and food on that guy until trial and years of waiting until the death penalty could be carried out. Also Spacey probably would get off on same lame insanity plea. Obviously, he is crazy but if I were Pitt I wouldn’t guy in a plush mental facility I would want him dead.
How about a some sympathy are a commendation for taking this wacko out and saving the taxpayers money. Or maybe even some compensation because his wife was killed by the killer because Brad was doing his job of catching the insect.
Also, what would have you done if you were him in that exact situation(Brad Pitts)?
The reason he would be tried (and from a legal standpoint he should be convicted) is because in the U.S. we have a legal system that is responsible for determining punishment. Encouraging vigilante justice sets a bad precedent. If you knew that all people who shoot murderers got off scot free you wouldn’t think twice about taking the same action to avenge a family member. This becomes a problem when people start taking out their vengeance on people who turn out not to be the murderer. (There was just an episode of Law and Order: SVU where this happened. A man was arrested and shot by the victim’s father and it turned out he wasn’t the killer. I know it’s just a TV show–but 7 was just a movie.)
Now–I agree that it would probably be easy to have him tried for a manslaughter or an even lesser crime and many jurors would not vote to convict him. However–it is still necessary that he go through a trial and in all likelihood his police career is over regardless of the trial outcome. Regardless of how horrific a person is they are still entitled to a trial–and Pitt violated that system. When you open up the “he deserved it” can of worms you run the risk of that escalating to one where people lose their basic right to trial and presumed innocent status.
You got a debate about the criminal justice system here, Bill? Or do you just want to declare that the guy, like, totally deserved to get shot and stuff? 'Cause personally, I think the first option is likely to be a lot more interesting.
You bring up some very good points. But how can you presume Kevin Spacey innocent you know he wasn’t and so did Pitt and when you kill someone’s loved one and then rub it in their face how can you expect not to get shot. He planned to get killed so why let him down. But I think he died to easy compared to the way he made his victims suffer.
Still no one has said if they would have shot or not shot spacey in pitt’s position. Well?
But to answer your new question, hell yeah I’d shoot! Then I’d get a really good criminal defense attorney and have him present the time-honored “He needed killin’” defense. (Sometimes, it’s especially good to live in Texas.) And even if I don’t get acquitted, I think most states permit probation for manslaughter (although 5-10 years is teh more typical sentence).
But as ASD said above, that’s why there’s a justice system in the first place. You definitely deserved to get charged and tried for such actions, then we let the jury sort it all out.
Sure I’d have shot him. Even knowing I might do time, at that moment there would have been no restraint in me.
Now, the reason we presume Spacey innocent legally is that while we movie viewers and Brad Pitt know Spacey did it, the jury doesn’t know that. From their point of view, he is entitled to the presumption of innocence until the evidence shows otherwise.
Wow, I am surprised at the number of vigilantes out there.
Just because some one hints at being the perpetrator of the crime, does not mean that he or she is. Many a people have ‘confessed’ to committing a crime only later to have their ‘confession’ debunked.
It is OK to take another life when you perceive your or someone else’s life is in immediate danger. Sorry, but Brad Pitt’s life was pretty damn far from being in immediate danger.
Whether he’d be convicted of the crime is a whole 'nother story, though. I believe no jury in the world would return a guilty verdict if his lawyer pleaded temporary insanity. I don’t think, however, he should be allowed to remain an officer of the law (not that he would have even if he hadn’t shot him, in my opinion).
To answer you last question; would I have shot him? I guess I’m gonna chicken out and say I don’t know. I do know when Pitt shot Kevin’s character, though, it was a let down for me. But even considering the ending, it still remains one of my top ten favorite movies.
Thanks for your answer. And thanks for being honest.
Now the next question. What if Brad would have made him suffer first? You know shot em in the…you know. Then in the hand the foot and let em be in pain for a while then popped him in the head. Would a temporary insanity plea still work?
Was there ever a case of a police officer on duty actually being convicted of murder? In the United States, I mean? I’d like to see a few cites if anyone has any.
You betcha. Convicted, sentenced, and long gone. Why? Because he was a cop. And cops don’t get cut the same slack that the rest of us might. Cops get carefully trained in when you can’t shoot someone.
Even the shaky “But Your Honor - The guy just made me SOOOOO mad!” defense won’t work - no matter the circumstances. You or I might get a little sympathy from a jury - but cops are exempt. They are expected to know better. Cops have fewer rights than the rest of us - this is one of the reasons I respect those cops that give up those rights for the rest of us, and one of the reasons I declined to carry a badge.
Now, for the second half of the post. Sure. I’d have blown the guy a third eyehole. You betcha. Then I’d have dropped the weapon, submitted to arrest, and held my head high while I pleaded guilty.
Well, now you’re crossing into some murkier waters Bill. If the suffering was along the lines of:
BLAM! “How do you like that?” BLAM! “Feeling like a big man now?” BLAM!
Then it could still be a temporary insanity plea IMO. If it were a few hours of slow torture, then I think manslaughter would end up being the flavor of the day.
