Crime and Punishment: Oklahoma (& Texas) style!

[williatw]

In sane courts with a competent prosecutor, jurors are given the option of finding guilty lesser included crimes from the primary charge. Such as finding guilty for second degree murder when the defendant is charged with first degree but the element of premeditation is unproven.

If the prosecutor actually charges you with said lesser offense(s) before your trial yes; however my understanding is that under Florida law you can be convicted by a jury of a "lesser offense" that the prosecutor didn't even charge you with (to start with). Seem to remember hearing about such being the case during the Zimmerman/Travon Martin trial; if so I would take issue with describing that as a "sane court". Seem to recall hearing that there was a push in the jury to convict Zimmerman of said lesser offense after his defense had rested; charges never previously made by the prosecution.

[TDPerk]

In sane courts with a competent prosecutor, jurors are given the option of finding guilty lesser included crimes from the primary charge. Such as finding guilty for second degree murder when the defendant is charged with first degree but the element of premeditation is unproven.

If the prosecutor actually charges you with said lesser offense(s) before your trial yes; however my understanding is that under Florida law you can be convicted by a jury of a "lesser offense" that the prosecutor didn't even charge you with (to start with). Seem to remember hearing about such being the case during the Zimmerman/Travon Martin trial; if so I would take issue with describing that as a "sane court". Seem to recall hearing that there was a push in the jury to convict Zimmerman of said lesser offense after his defense had rested; charges never previously made by the prosecution.

Fortunately for Zimmerman and justice both, said putsch was defeated. He was innocent of doing anything illegal, or even untoward.

However, it is not necessarily untoward for juries to find a defendant guilty of a lesser charge than what a prosecutor recommends, or a greater one. Prosecutors can be corrupt, venal, and merely unwise -- where jurors who are intended to put a hand on the process representing society, and being more then one person and having little to gain from any such machinations, have the effect of annealing out such machinations.

[TDPerk]

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/loca ... 74093.html

What we will discover if we are wise as a society is that the voices of "educators" who are so far Left they deny the right to self defense exists, either as a matter of special pleading or generally, are ones we should ignore. If they are unable to continue in that profession because they cannot bear the possibility of being in the presence on campus of a mere tool of self defense, the salubrious statistics of those who chose to carry notwithstanding, that class of professionals is improved by their absence, and educational outcomes for students also.

The sole just means of addressing school shootings generally is to make it far more common for the insane to committed -- the current safeguards of a finding of insanity by bench and jury are sufficient to protect the sane from such, but how we approach the prospect now is not working and cannot work.

[paperburn1]

In sane courts with a competent prosecutor, jurors are given the option of finding guilty lesser included crimes from the primary charge. Such as finding guilty for second degree murder when the defendant is charged with first degree but the element of premeditation is unproven.

But the lesser offence option has to be ask for from the court or by the court.
Lesser included offenses can be an important part of a criminal jury trial. Some offenses, like misdemeanor DWI, don’t have any lesser included offenses. Others, like Aggravated Assault, are full of lesser included opportunities. we are going to use Aggravated assaults as an example.
The difference between an aggravated assault (felony) and a misdemeanor assault is “serious bodily injury”. Aggravated assaults require that someone suffer a serious bodily injury, where misdemeanor assault just require some injury. So if you are on trial for aggravated assault, and you want to argue over whether the injury was “serious”, then you can ask that the jury be allowed to consider the lesser included offense of assault. That means, instead of just deciding if the defendant is guilty or not guilty of aggravated assault, the jury could consider finding the defendant guilty of only a misdemeanor assault. Confused?

This being Texas, she did not ask for a lesser offence than murder one to be considered , and as murder one was not proven she was found not guilty. The courts and prosecuting attorneys work hand in hand with bail bonds so they did not pursue a lesser charge as well(wink wink nudge nudge) .It is extremely unlikely they will attempt a conviction on a lesser charge at a later date because of this relationship. She was removing his bail as he had made mention on social media that he was heading to florida because they normally do not vigorously pursue extradition orders and that would leave her liable for the full amount. ( Which I am sure she made the prosecution fully aware of)
Self-defense laws vary drastically from state to state, so what might happen in one state cannot be used to infer what might happen in another. Best to familiarize yourself with the specific self-defense laws where you live to be sure what would or would not be permitted. It is most probable that the family does not have the funds to secure a lawyer for a wrongful death civil action so basically she got away with shooting him. It is a 13 billion dollar industry after all.
This is why is some states bail bonding is no longer legal and in others Bounty hunters have been banned. Only 18 or 20 states still allow bail bond and bounty hunter together; Texas being one of them.

[choff]

Now that the bail bond killer is free to walk the streets, what happens if her victims mom shows up with a gun and puts 6 bullets in her.

[TDPerk]

In sane courts with a competent prosecutor, jurors are given the option of finding guilty lesser included crimes from the primary charge. Such as finding guilty for second degree murder when the defendant is charged with first degree but the element of premeditation is unproven.

But the lesser ... one of them.

<-- Gobbledygook elided.

There is no required entanglement of the traditional bail bond process necessarily involved here. There is no "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" to it. Either someone is held on bail or they aren't, either they make bail through bail bondsmen on the bondsman's term or they don't. What they are charged with has nothing to do whether bail is made through a bondsman or not. If the prosecutor is nefarious or incompetent in what charges they make, that is the prosecution's bailiwick.

What I see in you paperburn, is a continual pressure to centralize and aggrandize government power. This does not speak well of you.

[TDPerk]

Something about she was tried for first degree murder which precluded being convicted for second degree murder if she was found not guilty in the first degree.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7smTC0Sq4ec

I wouldn't want to be her kid.

Why not? You think her child likely has a bail bond contract with her?

If he didn't want to be shot, and likely shot dead, he needed to submit to the arrest his contract empowered her to place him under.

If you fight the police under like circumstances, you are likely to be shot as well.

Meanwhile, paperburn wants to empower these sort of police, as if that's somehow better:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OflGwyWcft8

At least she stood a fair trial. The policeman pulling the trigger here had "You're F----d" inscribed on his rifle--and the judge decided that was inflammatory and didn't let the jury know.

[TDPerk]

Now that the bail bond killer is free to walk the streets, what happens if her victims mom shows up with a gun and puts 6 bullets in her.

They likely get tried for murder as they should, and likely convicted.

[choff]

What if the genders of the shooter and victim were reversed, would that alter the outcome?

[Diogenes]

Something about she was tried for first degree murder which precluded being convicted for second degree murder if she was found not guilty in the first degree.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7smTC0Sq4ec

I wouldn't want to be her kid.

Methinks the prosecutor deliberately threw the case. I wonder if there is a non apparent connection between the prosecutors and this woman. This smells like the fix was in.

[Diogenes]

The courts and prosecuting attorneys work hand in hand with bail bonds so they did not pursue a lesser charge as well(wink wink nudge nudge) .

That is exactly what I think happened. They gamed the system to make certain she received every consideration in being acquitted.


People not in the club would have been convicted of murder in the second degree.

[Diogenes]

If he didn't want to be shot, and likely shot dead, he needed to submit to the arrest his contract empowered her to place him under.

No reasonable person would assume that someone would shoot them if they attempted to leave through a window of a bail bond office. If someone is not offering a threat, then by what justification can they be killed?


I think cronyism between the district attorneys and the bail bond people contributed to the prosecutors doing a piss poor job at her trial. Certainly if they wanted her in prison, they would have included the lesser charge as a possibility.


They deliberately let her slip out of a second degree murder conviction.

[TDPerk]

If he didn't want to be shot, and likely shot dead, he needed to submit to the arrest his contract empowered her to place him under.

No reasonable person would assume that someone would shoot them if they attempted to leave through a window of a bail bond office. If someone is not offering a threat, then by what justification can they be killed?


I think cronyism between the district attorneys and the bail bond people contributed to the prosecutors doing a piss poor job at her trial. Certainly if they wanted her in prison, they would have included the lesser charge as a possibility.


They deliberately let her slip out of a second degree murder conviction.

It seemed obvious to me from the video he was becoming violent with her in order to leave, and her contract with him gave her the right to use force to seize and arrest him.

" If someone is not offering a threat, then by what justification can they be killed? " <-- Because they agreed to it beforehand.

[williatw]

[paperburn1]

What I see in you paperburn, is a continual pressure to centralize and aggrandize government power. This does not speak well of you.

This is just how things work, people in the court system look out for each other. lawyers, Judges ,LEOs and bail bonds persons.
Cops don't get speeding tickets, lawyers / prosecutors generally work out what is going to happen before they go in front of the Judge. The list goes on.
Bails bondsmen are notoriously quick on the trigger, they have the force of law behind them and they generally have the favor of the court because they provide a valuable service.
Doctors hang out with Doctors, cops hang out with cops, construction workers hang out with construction workers. you generally support the peer group your associated with, that's just being human 101.
Why would they try hard to convict her, she is a valuable member of her peer group? She was legally in the bound of her contract, just not morally.
The person she shot was not. What is legal and what is fair sometimes are very far apart