|
I am baffled at how inept these guys are. What an absolutely senseless loss of life. drat.
|
| # ? Mar 30, 2013 21:06 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 04:00 |
|
|
Petr posted:Wait... so, he thought the phone was bugged (of course it was, it's a prison phone), so he's willing to talk about killing the guy but not about payment? My only guess is that he figured if he didn't talk money, they couldn't say he "hired" a hitman and he wouldn't get in trouble because...
|
| # ? Mar 30, 2013 21:12 |
|
|
He can just argue that he knew he was talking to an FBI Operative and be found not guilty right? Or does that only work for rich people?
|
| # ? Mar 30, 2013 21:18 |
|
|
Decrepus posted:He can just argue that he knew he was talking to an FBI Operative and be found not guilty right? Or does that only work for rich people? Was this a thing that happened or is it just sarcasm? I'm cynical to believe that things could have turned out this way.
|
| # ? Mar 30, 2013 21:25 |
|
|
Buried alive posted:Was this a thing that happened or is it just sarcasm? I'm cynical to believe that things could have turned out this way. Texas vs. Davis A man shot and killed 2 people trying to kill his ex, was imprisoned, tried to hire a hitman to kill the judge, got caught, claimed he was the puppetmaster, and got off.
|
| # ? Mar 30, 2013 21:40 |
|
|
Sapper posted:Yeah, and it loving blows. We bought our home for $180K...the insurance policy is for $1.2 million. This is why arson investigation has come so far in the past few decades. Insurance companies have been pushing research for a while. Mark Leonard must have thought this was going to be the easiest pay day ever, mostly just filling out paperwork and getting a big insurance check.
|
| # ? Mar 30, 2013 21:41 |
|
|
Buried alive posted:Was this a thing that happened or is it just sarcasm? I'm cynical to believe that things could have turned out this way. I can't remember the details, but some stupidly rich guy got caught trying to hire the FBI to kill his wife or business partner or something I don't remember, and he told the court he was in on it and was asked by the FBI to be part of a sting for some unknown third party and got a mistrial even though that doesn't make any loving sense.
|
| # ? Mar 30, 2013 21:42 |
|
|
ClemenSalad posted:That would make as much sense as charging the car dealership involved with that robbery as far as knowledge and intent are concerned. No dipshit, the problem with felony murder rule is that it goes straight to murder 1 but manages to sidestep intent. You drat well want to wish that person harm, and the prosecutor doesn't even need to do so prove that you intended to commit murder 1, all they need to do is prove you intended to do a felony, and bam! You're stuck with a murder charge. Unlike house bombers, Ryan Holle had zero intent to murder. He didn't even have a criminal record, he probably had no idea how to hold up a house. He was hung over and hung around assholes, the worse you could charge him with is accomplice to armed robbery. http://www.ncfelonymurder.org/Whats...whatswrong.html
|
| # ? Mar 30, 2013 22:10 |
|
|
I was really hoping this whole thing would turn out to be a CIA drone strike, but I just realized that it is exactly as likely that these bozos were CIA plants and/or manchurian candidates, so now I'm holding out for that.Phobophilia posted:No dipshit, the problem with felony murder rule is that it goes straight to murder 1 but manages to sidestep intent. You drat well want to wish that person harm, and the prosecutor doesn't even need to do so prove that you intended to commit murder 1, all they need to do is prove you intended to do a felony, and bam! You're stuck with a murder charge. I don't know, I think that in some circumstances it makes sense, as in if two people decide to hold up a liquor store under the understanding that they won't be shooting anyone, but then one of them decides to shoot someone, I think the other guy still has some culpability for that because he knew the risks of committing an armed robbery. On the other hand, I can't think of any reason charging that hypothetical person with accessory to murder wouldn't suffice, so I think ultimately I agree with you. thehumandignity fucked around with this message at Mar 30, 2013 around 22:25 |
| # ? Mar 30, 2013 22:22 |
|
|
thehumandignity posted:Of course he did. Why would you agree to ten years in prison if you knew you were innocent and there was no proof of your guilt? He almost certainly knew exactly what evidence they had against him when he rejected the plea bargain. He and/or his lawyers gambled that a jury wouldn't find him guilty on the basis of that evidence and they lost the gamble. I hate the whole US plea bargain system with a passion and I'm astonished at the harshness of sentences (including the plea bargained sentence offered to this guy) given to those who accept plea bargains, but it's highly unlikely that he didn't know he was looking at life if he took his chances at trial.
|
| # ? Mar 30, 2013 23:02 |
|
|
Lolie posted:He almost certainly knew exactly what evidence they had against him when he rejected the plea bargain. He and/or his lawyers gambled that a jury wouldn't find him guilty on the basis of that evidence and they lost the gamble. I don't see what any of that has to do with what I said?
|
| # ? Mar 30, 2013 23:59 |
|
|
Lolie posted:I hate the whole US plea bargain system with a passion and I'm astonished at the harshness of sentences (including the plea bargained sentence offered to this guy) given to those who accept plea bargains, but it's highly unlikely that he didn't know he was looking at life if he took his chances at trial. Really the whole system of settlements and plea deals and whatnot is an issue of time; you either resolve cases quickly and are able to complete X cases per day, or you carry them all out to the fullest extent and end up running out of time for Y cases at the end of the day. Sure, it would be ideal to have a system where everyone got individual treatment and a full trial with bells and whistles--its a pipe dream that reality won't get close to matching up to. At least with non-criminal settlements there is sound incentive for terminating the whole issue early; plea bargains are more dicey but still, its a lot better than any alternative I can think of. vvv Agreed. Maybe Lolie meant differently but I read the post as suggesting the US would be better off without the system at all, just letting everything go to full trial, which would be quite the clusterfuck in more than a few states. Cursed Lumberjack fucked around with this message at Mar 31, 2013 around 03:54 |
| # ? Mar 31, 2013 00:10 |
|
|
Cursed Lumberjack posted:Really the whole system of settlements and plea deals and whatnot is an issue of time; you either resolve cases quickly and are able to complete X cases per day, or you carry them all out to the fullest extent and end up running out of time for Y cases at the end of the day. Sure, it would be ideal to have a system where everyone got individual treatment and a full trial with bells and whistles--its a pipe dream that reality won't get close to matching up to. At least with non-criminal settlements there is sound incentive for terminating the whole issue early; plea bargains are more dicey but still, its a lot better than any alternative I can think of. They've definitely got their good side, but a lot of plea deals are used to railroad innocent people with "Well we're gonna loving charge you with murder one and terrorism and anything that I can think of off the top of my head! You better accept this manslaughter charge and a reduced sentence or you're hosed, buddy." The DA (and even the cops, which is funny because they aren't the ones that charge you) say outlandish poo poo all the time to scare people into a plea bargain, and that is twisting the purpose of them for truly nefarious reasons (a DA's job performance is judged on percentage of people convicted, regardless of innocence or guilt). They know those charges will never stick in court and probably have no intention of ever filing them, but they still scare most people not versed in the law into signing a plea deal. I don't really have a problem with the concept of a plea deal for the reasons you said though; it's just too bad our justice system is so loving loony. Between the corruption and rewarding DAs and police for percentage of people arrested and thrown in jail - which I think is loving ridiculous considering the fact that the trial is supposed to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but if the person isn't guilty the DA looks like poo poo so they do everything they can to put you in jail regardless - it's just a mess. Moridin920 fucked around with this message at Mar 31, 2013 around 02:52 |
| # ? Mar 31, 2013 02:49 |
|
|
ClemenSalad posted:That would make as much sense as charging the car dealership involved with that robbery as far as knowledge and intent are concerned. I disagree. He was drunk, has no prior criminal record, routinely lent the car to his roommate, and says he thought the robbery talk was a joke. I've been young, drunk, and had roommates before. If one of them asked to borrow my car after I'd been partying all night, I might not have thought any different if they had said "yeah, I need to rob our friend/acquaintance X that we were just partying with." Particularly if I routinely loaned him my car as I don't tend to think of my roommates of being people capable of robbing, let alone killing, anyone. I do, on occasion have friends who are sarcastic assholes who might make a terrible joke--and depending on how drunk I was (this guy was from what I understand the "I'm so drunk I'm sick" kind of drunk)--I might have a real hard time parsing the seriousness of the comment. That's not loving intent. That's I'm drunk, sick, and my friend who wants to run to Hilbertos to get a loving burrito in my car is being a jackass. So the State of Florida is lucky I wasn't on that jury, because there is so much reasonable doubt there I'd be more likely to be convinced the aliens crashing in Roswell was real. And even if the State's position is accurate and the guy did believe his roommate might actually rob someone, I have never heard a mor asinine application of the felony murder rule. That rules exists, in the states it exists, to prosecute people who voluntarily took part in a felony which resulted in a murder by participating in the planning or participating in the crime (like the getaway driver or the other 3 dudes who busted down the door but didn't pull the trigger.) The spirit of the felony murder rule is thrown out the window when you charge a puking drunk guy with no stake in or premeditated plan to participate in felony who just hands his car keys to a guy who says he needs them. This to me is the epitome of our stupid application of law and sentencing rules in the United States. Even 10 years for this is loving ridiculous, and I completely understand his desire to not sign on to "deal" (some deal) that would have put him in prison this long, not to mention destroy his life by putting a loving homicide on his record.
|
| # ? Mar 31, 2013 05:03 |
|
|
The most asinine thing was the prosecutor's argument of "No car, no murder". You could replace "car" with a million things in that statement and you'd have to hand out felony murder charges to hundreds of thousands of people. If Chevy hadn't manufactured the car, no murder! If the killers' parents hadn't procreated, no murder! I hope I never go on trial, because a trial by my "peers" is loving scary if the average juror buys that logic. Lord Of Texas fucked around with this message at Mar 31, 2013 around 13:51 |
| # ? Mar 31, 2013 13:48 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 04:00 |
|
|
Petr posted:Wait... so, he thought the phone was bugged (of course it was, it's a prison phone), so he's willing to talk about killing the guy but not about payment? The best is this: quote:Leonard drew the map and signed a document promising to pay $15,000 for MD's killing. 
|
| # ? Mar 31, 2013 14:33 |
|
