Log in
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 |
The prosecutors of Tyler Robinson for the murder of Charlie Kirk, in their anger, are making a very serious legal error. Tyler Robinson is guilty of simple murder, by Utah Law, not aggravated murder, which requires circumstances that do not apply here. The prosecutors are attempting to argue, that because the shot he fired could have hurt someone else in the area, that he put others in "extreme danger". This is patently false, unless virtually all gun crimes are considered aggravated murder, and, they are not. The reason they are doing this, is because they want Tyler Robinson to inevitably be either executed, or have life in prison without parole, which are the only options for aggravated murder, under Utah law.
Now, Utah Law has a simple murder charge, which involved penalties from 15 years to life in prison. And, the judge has the option of stipulating that the defendant does not have the option of parole, if convicted. That is the correct charge here. Sure, Tyler might be out in 10, 15 or 20 years. That is a possibility. However, that is the normal procedure in these cases. The fact is, because Donald Trump took such an interest in this case, they're making a special issue to try to ensure Tyler is punished as severely as possible, whether this is legal, or not.
The problem from the prosecutors point of view here, is that Tyler is simply not guilty of aggravated murder, under Utah Law. He may have slightly increased the danger for the people in the area, but, he was obviously a skilled marksman, he only fired one carefully aimed shot, and no one else was touched, as he quite reasonably expected. The "extreme danger for others" criterion simply does not apply, and that is quite obvious.
Sure the prosecutors might talk the jury into a conviction. They don't care what the law says, they're just thinking that this is a guy who killed someone, and they want him punished as much as is possible.
However, Tyler can, quite literally, get dozens of appeals, over a period of decades. And, this conviction is illegal, and some judges with a legal bent are going to see this, and, they're going to acquit him. And, he can't be tried for simple murder, after the aggravated murder acquittal. Ever. That's double jeopardy, totally illegal under US law. Tyler will get acquitted, he will have no criminal record, and he will have an excellent case against the state of Utah for prosecutorial misconduct, that will make him a rich man. Is that what the prosecution really wants?
The prosecutors should go for what they certainly can get, a conviction for simple murder. They are making a serious legal error here, that they will certainly regret, in a few years, if not sooner.
The argument makes sense. Also if he did get out in 20 years it wouldn't be the end of the world. I know there are people who want blood. I don't think that's what law is for. He is not going to have an easy time in prison. Even the guy who shot Reagan has gotten out.
This may be a controversial opinion for this forum. I know folks have mostly taken a side. But if I was a judge I wouldn't hand out greater than 15 years for almost anything on a first time offender. Even for some very serious offenses. Greater than 15 years is for people who have demonstrated patterns. In 10 years he's going to be a completely different person. It's different if there is a pattern and you know he isn't going to be a different person. If he were a serial torturer with 20 victims that would be a pattern even if it was a first conviction. But beyond 10 years I think you are punishing a different person than committed the crime.
He did something very stupid, and he did something very stupid because he allowed himself to become a stupid person. In 10 years he might not be that stupid. And it's not like he became stupid in isolation. I have family that are about as brainwashed as he is. If anything Tyler is braver than anyone in my family. The only saving virtue for some of my family is that they are cowards.
I'm not saying Tyler is virtuous. He is responsible to not become as delusional as he was. But if you add a virtue on top of a vice he deserves zero understanding? As opposed to vice on top of vice. I don't think he deserves much understanding, but not zero. But we are surrounded by people who are just vice on top of vice (sloth/cowardice above delusion) and we are somehow cool with these people? Or worse yet the people who actively spread lies. Cough MSNBC CNN. There are people there who have shown equal or greater recklessness, higher awareness of their wrong doing, for longer, are older than 25 and have fully developed frontal lobes, and have educations that should demonstrate they know exactly what they are doing and what the impact is. And because they actively worked in lies there isn't a world for understanding that they got swept up in someone else's lie completely naive to there being manipulations afoot.
Maybe they haven't committed crimes but I do think Rachel Maddow is a more vile sack of shit than a confused 22 year old.
Unless we address the root cause we can throw TR in jail for life but there will be another willing to do the time in 3 months, and then again and again, until we actually do something to address that. Maybe Charlie's family can sue these people. Theses companies really should be bled dry. Might as well make his wife a billionaire just to get sufficient punitive damages for this to stop.
Of course, buddy. And, let's face it, Timothy McVeigh, this guy is not. He took one very carefully aimed shot, Timmy McVeigh slaughtered 168 people and caused 1000 casualties to avenge Waco.
Yeah, but he killed government workers instead of an innocent guy just trying to have an open discussion about things.
So, Timothy McVeigh is cool with you, buddy? By the way, many of the victims were children in day care.