[Tricks]

llama66 llama66:

Tricks Tricks:

llama66 llama66:

Kinda have to side with Bart here, Murder 1 is premeditated and intentional, Murder 2 is not premeditated and intentional. I suspect they chose M1 to see if he'll plead out, take M2 and do life without parole in exchange for the death penalty coming off the table, and no real trial. Otherwise they'll go to trial and convict on M2, and he'll be eligible for parole in the year 2449.

Its not Manslaughter though. He intended to use the car to cause damage, and injure.

And yet, felony murder is a thing on the law books in 46 states. Agree with it or not, it does apply.

That's usually if someone dies during the commission of an offence... We have a similar rule here.

Not anymore. It was ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court. And normally this wouldn't apply (felony murder doesn't normally apply to assault) but because there were other people involved, who also got hit, it can still apply here.

[BRAH]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The case will be appealed because the argument to establish intent was based upon the reposting of a meme on social media.

If that is to become a standard for establishing state of mind when someone commits a crime then a whole hell of a lot of people are going to be in trouble.

He was tried and convicted in the court of social media, he didn't have a chance at a fair trial which was his right.

[Thanos]

2018 - "conservatives" go to the most extreme distance they can as play amateur-hour lawyers in defense of an actual murdering Nazi just because they hate the person the Nazi killed as much as he did.

Anyone else ever think that the world wasn't supposed to turn out this way?

[Freakinoldguy]

BRAH BRAH:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The case will be appealed because the argument to establish intent was based upon the reposting of a meme on social media.

If that is to become a standard for establishing state of mind when someone commits a crime then a whole hell of a lot of people are going to be in trouble.

He was tried and convicted in the court of social media, he didn't have a chance at a fair trial which was his right.

All the arguing about rule of law or whatever likely won't matter because the guy is just plain batshit crazy which means while it's nice for the victims families to get some closure with this ruling it likely won't stand.

$1:

Testifying for the defence, University of Virginia School of Medicine professor and psychologist Daniel Murrie told the jury that while Fields was not legally insane at the time, he has a long history of mental health issues.

Fields had inexplicable volatile outbursts as a young child and was diagnosed with bipolar disorder at age six, Murrie said. He was later diagnosed with schizoid personality disorder, which the Mayo Clinic describes as an uncommon condition in which people avoid social activities, consistently shy away from interaction with others and have a limited range of emotional expression.

Murrie said Fields went off his psychiatric medication at 18 and built an isolated "lifestyle centred around being alone."

So, given the fact it's the states and not Canada this guy will be institutionalized for the remainder of his life in either, a prison or mental institute which is where he belongs. A fact which is fair since you can't have mentally disturbed fanatics running over and killing people just because they don't agree with their beliefs.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

First Degree can't be made because the street was not scheduled to be blocked off therefore when he entered that street he could not have known the crowd would be there. Neither did the drivers in the vehicles he hit know that the street would be blocked by a protest.

Is he of a murderous mind set? Yes.

Could he have planned this crime? No.

Yes, he planned the crime when he hit the accelerator instead of the brake. At every single point from the time he saw the street was blocked, to the time he decided to pin it, he had the chance to avoid killing and injuring people.

[raydan]

Personally, I don't fucking care if any murder was premeditated or not... the question should be, did the person intend to kill.

[llama66]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

First Degree can't be made because the street was not scheduled to be blocked off therefore when he entered that street he could not have known the crowd would be there. Neither did the drivers in the vehicles he hit know that the street would be blocked by a protest.

Is he of a murderous mind set? Yes.

Could he have planned this crime? No.

Yes, he planned the crime when he hit the accelerator instead of the brake. At every single point from the time he saw the street was blocked, to the time he decided to pin it, he had the chance to avoid killing and injuring people.

Tenuous. They have to be able to prove planning past a shadow of a doubt for premeditation.

[DrCaleb]

I don't see how you can intend to drive a motor vehicle into a crowd of people at high speed, and not intend to kill someone.

I could see driving it at low speed, but then you definitely still intend to hurt someone.

[llama66]

He'll claim his breaks failed or that he panicked

[Thanos]

It's all moot. Whatever defense the evil little bastard tried in court already failed and in the absence of proof of jury corruption ("they did what social media told them to do!" is especially pathetic) or of any severe errors by the judge conducting the trial his appeal is likely to fail too. This fucker is going to rot in a cell for the rest of his life, if not get a needle in his arm if he's found guilty again in a federal trial, and his internet fanboys on the psycho right making all these pathetic excuses for the murdering piece of Nazi filth can just suck it.

Don't assume he's going to get away with anything. His lawyers have already done the defense strategy most likely to win and they lost anyway. Thinking an appellate judge is going to fall for some nonsense like "his brakes failed", in a newer car where obviously the brakes didn't fail or it would have already been introduced as a defense attempted, is giving him way too much credit.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I don't see how you can intend to drive a motor vehicle into a crowd of people at high speed, and not intend to kill someone.

People panic, they get confused, they do crazy shit. Old people have done the same thing and had this been an 80yo black grandmother who was in the same car, doing the same thing, killing the same girl, no one would be claiming to magically perceive her premeditated intent.

[BartSimpson]

Thanos Thanos:

It's all moot. Whatever defense the evil little bastard tried in court already failed and in the absence of proof of jury corruption ("they did what social media told them to do!" is especially pathetic) or of any severe errors by the judge conducting the trial his appeal is likely to fail too. This fucker is going to rot in a cell for the rest of his life, if not get a needle in his arm if he's found guilty again in a federal trial, and his internet fanboys on the psycho right making all these pathetic excuses for the murdering piece of Nazi filth can just suck it.

Don't assume he's going to get away with anything. His lawyers have already done the defense strategy most likely to win and they lost anyway. Thinking an appellate judge is going to fall for some nonsense like "his brakes failed", in a newer car where obviously the brakes didn't fail or it would have already been introduced as a defense attempted, is giving him way too much credit.

His attorneys will get the death penalty sentence set aside.

[llama66]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I don't see how you can intend to drive a motor vehicle into a crowd of people at high speed, and not intend to kill someone.

People panic, they get confused, they do crazy shit. Old people have done the same thing and had this been an 80yo black grandmother who was in the same car, doing the same thing, killing the same girl, no one would be claiming to magically perceive her premeditated intent.

Here is the reasonable doubt.

[Tricks]

llama66 llama66:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

First Degree can't be made because the street was not scheduled to be blocked off therefore when he entered that street he could not have known the crowd would be there. Neither did the drivers in the vehicles he hit know that the street would be blocked by a protest.

Is he of a murderous mind set? Yes.

Could he have planned this crime? No.

Yes, he planned the crime when he hit the accelerator instead of the brake. At every single point from the time he saw the street was blocked, to the time he decided to pin it, he had the chance to avoid killing and injuring people.

Tenuous. They have to be able to prove planning past a shadow of a doubt for premeditation.

I really don't know how many times I have to say that felony murder applies here.

[llama66]

Still doen't change criminal law operates on the predication of innocence until proven guilty, and the accused's right to a defence. Further, it doesn't change the State still has to prove the Actus Reas and the Mens Rea. It may apply, but can the prosecution prove beyond the shadow of a doubt remains to be seen.

"actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea"