Found not guilty, then judge says he may be guilty

[Coito ergo sum]

Doesn't the US have a constitution that is meant to stop things like legalising murder?

No, we have a constitutino that is meant to delegate powers to the federal government, provide for separation of powers among differing branches, and to provide for limitations on those powers.

And, murder has not been legalized.

[pErvinalia]

Well clearly the judiciary thinks it's fine to shoot someone in the back after a contractual disagreement and call it self-defence. What point are you trying to make?

On what basis do you make the allegation that "clearly the judiciary thinks it is fine to shoot someone in the back after a contractual disagreement?" Where do you get that?

He was fucking acquitted of it. Are you even aware what we are talking about?!?

[Coito ergo sum]

Well clearly the judiciary thinks it's fine to shoot someone in the back after a contractual disagreement and call it self-defence. What point are you trying to make?

On what basis do you make the allegation that "clearly the judiciary thinks it is fine to shoot someone in the back after a contractual disagreement?" Where do you get that?

He was fucking acquitted of it. Are you even aware what we are talking about?!?

yes, but, it seems you are making an unwarranted leap in logic. The acquittal was not based on any determination that it is "fine to shoot someone in the back after a contractual disagreement."

First of all, genius, it was jury acquittal on the charge of murder, which entailed an allegation of "intentional killing of another human being with malice aforethought."

One of the defenses raised was that the guy shot at the tires of the car. If the jury believed that, then they would be justified in acquitting on the murder charge.

If the jury found that shooting at the car was "reckless" - which it seems so to be -- they could have convicted him of manslaughter. But, the prosecution did not bring the lesser included offense of manslaughter. They left that out -- they may not have wanted to give the jury that option, figuring murder was a likely outcome. I don't know what the prosecutions strategy was.

So, since we don't know the basis of the jury's decision, we don't know what swayed them. So, we don't even know if the jury thinks it is fine to shoot someone in the back after a contractual dispute. We absolutely cannot conclude, also, that "the judiciary" in Texas thinks it is fine to shoot someone int he back after a contractual dispute, since no member of the judiciary has expressed this view of it.

[pErvinalia]

Facts: Women was shot in the back after a contractual dispute. She died. The self-defence law was invoked as the legal defence. The accused was acquitted. Nothing I said goes against this. Go and fucking troll someone else.

[Coito ergo sum]

Facts: Women was shot in the back after a contractual dispute. She died. The self-defence law was invoked as the legal defence. The accused was acquitted. Nothing I said goes against this. Go and fucking troll someone else.

Yes, but those aren't all the facts.

The jury received more than one defense, and we don't know which one they relied on. One of the defenses raised was that the killing was not intentional. If the jury believed that, then murder in the degree charged would not be warranted. The prosecution fucked up by not charging him also with manslaughter, which would not require intent.

You also extrapolated out that "the judiciary" in Texas thinks it's fine to shoot people in the back after a contractual dispute. The judiciary are judges. We don't have any information that the judge IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE thought it was fine to shoot people in the back after contractual disputes, and there certainly is no reason to think the rest of the judiciary thinks that either.

Your posts on this topic illustrate what your problem is in most of the arguments you involve yourself in. You don't think clearly, and then you personalize it.

[pErvinalia]

I don't personalise anything, you ass-bandit!

Regarding your trolling, keep going. I never said anything about "murder". That's you YET AGAIN erecting strawmen. Regarding the "judiciary" comment, mea culpa. I meant "the legal system".

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't personalise anything, you ass-bandit!

Regarding your trolling, keep going. I never said anything about "murder". That's you YET AGAIN erecting strawmen. Regarding the "judiciary" comment, mea culpa. I meant "the legal system".

You didn't have to say anything about murder. The charge in the case you're referring to was murder. It's not a fucking strawman -- ffs, dude, look it up and read what a straw man is.

Now the entire Texas legal system thinks it's "ok to shoot people the back after a contractual dispute?" Do tell how this acquittal on a murder charge, which may well have been based on a failure of proof on the intent element, reveals that the entire Texas legal system thinks that....

[pErvinalia]

He got away with it. As far as I understand he can't be tried again due to "double-jeopardy".

[Coito ergo sum]

He got away with it. As far as I understand he can't be tried again due to "double-jeopardy".

It being "murder."

Therefore, it is not a strawman to explore why, in fact, the jury may have acquitted him. Once again, your overuse of the word strawman where it obviously doesn't apply makes you look silly. For your own good, stop it.

He can't be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. They could charge him with a different crime requiring different elements.

He got away with it -- yes -- however, that does not mean that the judiciary, or the Texas legal system, or even the judge and jury on this particular case, thought it was fine to shoot someone in the back over a contractual dispute. What they found was that under the facts this case "murder" was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and they never had the opportunity to convict the guy of manslaughter, or even assault/battery.

You extrapolate from the acquittal and presume that it means that the judges, jury and the whole legal system thinks it's o.k. to kill people by shooting them in the back after a contractual dispute. If you can't see why that is an unwarranted conclusion, then you may need to go back to school and take a logic class.

[pErvinalia]

Can he be tried for manslaughter now? If so, then I retract my statement.

[Coito ergo sum]

Can he be tried for manslaughter now? If so, then I retract my statement.

Double jeopardy is complicated, but I think not because it arises out of the same operative facts.

But, that doesn't have anything to do with your statement anyway. The prosecution could have brought the manslaughter charge in the case that was just decided. I.e., they can bring a string of offenses in one case -- multiple charges. The fact that they chose not to is the prosecution's fault. They never gave the jury the opportunity to convict on manslaughter.

Why would the potentiality of him being charged now with manslaughter change your statement?

[pErvinalia]

Because my statement holds true while ever he is allowed to get away with killing someone with a gun shot in their direction.

Aside from that, I decided to reread my original comment and discovered it was in reply to a ridiculous comment from Seth. It wasn't ever intended as a rigorous literal comment. It was meant to be dismissive of Seth's bollocks. If you've got a hard on for this issue, perhaps take it up with Seth. Because he truly believes it. I honestly don't have a clue what the Texans think or how their legal system works.

[Coito ergo sum]

Because my statement holds true while ever he is allowed to get away with killing someone with a gun shot in their direction.

It doesn't, actually, because the key point is why he was allowed to get away with it. You offered the assertion that that Texans and/or the judiciary and/or the Texas legal system as a whole think it's just fine to shoot people in the back over contractual disputes. That isn't necessarily, or even probably, true when you look at the charges in this case and the defenses presented to the jury.

Aside from that, I decided to reread my original comment and discovered it was in reply to a ridiculous comment from Seth. It wasn't ever intended as a rigorous literal comment. It was meant to be dismissive of Seth's bollocks. If you've got a hard on for this issue, perhaps take it up with Seth. Because he truly believes it. I honestly don't have a clue what the Texans think or how their legal system works.

Oh, o.k., then.

[pErvinalia]

Seth awaits your cutting cross examination.

[Coito ergo sum]

Seth awaits your cutting cross examination.

Don't you have to pick up your dole check?