MAMEWorld Forums - Welcome to the War Room - Trump thinks homeless Mexican is a crackshot sniper

> I won't assume you're saying he wasn't guilty of ANY crime, because, I'm pretty sure,
> nobody in their right mind would think that.
>
> I know the "court of law" is steeped in bureaucracy, legalese, etc. By saying he was
> guilty of 1st degree man-slaughter, or whatever, isn't right... when it could be
> "argued" that what he did was an "accident". Like when someone gets drunk, drives,
> and ends up killing a family of 5 is also an "accident". What that person should be
> charged with....? I'm no lawyer, but, yeah... If someone did something, it needs to
> be well defined, if for anything, to avoid what happened in this case.

I don't know if you're being intentionally stupid or you're really this ignorant of the law. I'll lay this out in bullet points:

To be guilty of murder there must be intent to kill.
There is another crime called manslaughter that doesn't require intent to kill.
To be found guilty in a court of criminal law, the evidence must support conviction beyond reasonable doubt (not beyond all doubt, just reasonable doubt).
A judge/jury cannot alter charges, only decide whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty as charged.
The guy was charged with first-degree murder, not manslaughter.
There's no evidence that this goon intended to kill, so he can't be found guilty of murder.
All the judge/jury could do was find him not guilty of the murder charge brought against him.
Due to double jeopardy laws, it may be impossible to bring manslaughter charges for the same crime.

The problem is charging a guy with a crime he didn't commit. This is done as a matter of course in the US to scare people out of exercising their right to a day in court.

> If it was proven that the gun was indeed left unattended, then yeah. Whoever is
> responsible for that should be reprimanded. But, there's no way that person would be
> responsible for the woman's death. That'd be like if you got your car stolen because
> you forgot to lock it, maybe left the keys in it, or the perp hot-wired it, then took
> it racing, lost control of your car, and ends up killing people. If the person that
> lost the gun would be responsible for the death of the woman, you'd be just as guilty
> for someone stealing your car (you weren't in it at the time, so it's "unattended")
> and killing the people the crook hit. That's not what I'd call fair.

There's a big difference here. A car's primary purpose is transport, although negligent use can cause harm. A handgun's purpose is to cause harm - it's for shooting people. If you've got a handgun, and particularly a loaded handgun, you need to take responsibility for it. You also need to be aware that a gun you're carrying is a gun that can be taken and used against you (or someone else).

> "Gun culture". If you were here in America (not all places, but some), you would be
> infinitely less likely to be shot by a gun-toting citizen that is law abiding (unless
> you're committing a crime, or by some astronomical coincidence, caught in
> cross-fire), and more likely to be shot by a gang-member or some other low-life that
> has no regard for the law (when you're minding your own business). The case this
> topic is about is a PERFECT example of this.

And you'd be far less likely to be shot full stop if there weren't guns everywhere. Angry men do stupid things; angry men with guns within reach do stupid things with guns. In Australia, there's one legal gun for every four people, plus fuck knows how many illegal guns, yet we don't go around shooting each other. I think a big part of that is that we don't have the "gun culture" along with the guns. Arguments don't escalate into shootings, because guns are used on the farm or on the range, not carried everywhere. There are occasional gang assassinations, but they're very targeted, and you're incredibly unlikely to get shot if you aren't the guy they're after.

> > The trouble is, a large chunk of the US is unwilling to engage in any serious
> > self-examination, and just wants to point fingers at brown people, or poor people, or
> > Russia, or some other convenient bogeyman. As long as you pretend there aren't
> > serious issues, you'll never address them.
>
> So it'd be better to pretend the illegal alien was innocent because he was brown?
> Point being; People of all colors and economic statuses commit crimes. We shouldn't
> bow to some BS PC dogma that says just because someone is brown non-white or poor we
> should make excuses for their crimes.

I'm having trouble believing that you're really this stupid, but here we go. No-one's making excuses for his crime. You're making excuses for the massive fuckup of a legal system that's designed to deliver high conviction rates while avoiding jury trials. That's the issue here. If he was charged with the right crime, this would've been an open-and-shut case. I doubt any jury wouldn't have found him guilty of manslaughter, he likely even would have pled guilty. The problem is the legal system being engineered to put money in lawyers' pockets and scare people into plea bargains.

Oh, and if he was a white guy, would you be arguing like this? Do you support kangaroo courts when the defendant isn't Mexican? Or do you think white people are actually entitled to fair trials and proportional punishment?