[Girlesq]

Originally Posted by Exaday

You don't have to prove that they fired first. That's not how court cases work. You just have to prove that it was possible that they fired first.

Reasonable doubt, remember that. All the kid needs is good counsel.

Now I don't know what other evidence to police have, but none of the evidence I've heard about so far convicts him 100%

I'm not saying he won't be convicted, I'm saying it might be hard to convict him.

It doesn't matter if the Meyer's car shot first-- displaying a gun is enough to put someone in reasonable apprehension of fear for their life (example-- all of the justifiable police homicides)-- but, there is caselaw in Nevada, and the jury would be instructed, that if it is proved he was the initial aggressor, he loses the ability to claim self defense. So, then it is an imperfect self defense, which is more difficult for him. It could be enough to reduce it to voluntary manslaughter or second degree murder. Or the jury could nullify on the initial aggressor and acquit. That's the thing with juries-- you just can't predict the outcome, which is why, even with a decent defense, most cases will not end up in trial, and will negotiate.

[ScoopLV]

I'll wager this one goes to trial. I'll also wager that since it's been almost two years since the last time I was called for jury duty, I'll be getting a summons in the next month or so.

[icarian]

Originally Posted by Exaday

He's a kid, not in the legal sense, but he's a kid.

I don't think you really understand how the criminal justice system works very well it seems. You also seem to be neglecting the fact that he was not driving the car. I can tell by your response that separating what is important from what is not, is an area where you lack proficiency. You'll take my criticism as an insult, but it's true. There are a lot of pieces to this story and it will continue to evolve. He might plea for all we know. at


You've already convicted this kid based on hearsay from newspapers and that's a little discomforting but not at all shocking.

Nice backhand.

I am saddened that I cannot separate the important from the not (critical thinking). Alas, I am forever banished to level 1 of Bloom's Taxonomy because you have relegated me there. Woe is me.

If I ever make it to Level 2 (understanding), perhaps I will begin to grasp how his allegedly shooting ~ 22 times (which would include a reload / magazine change with most clips) at the end of that cul de sac is not important in his prosecution (and begin movement towards the application and analyzation levels?). I am striving to understand how his driver is the more important piece of this puzzle, and not just a contributing factor. But as I did not stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, can't recall with certainty the last time I perused a CSI or NCIS drama, have not made it through my first cup of caffeine this AM (perhaps MOST important?!), it's rainy and cold out, and I must turn away from my critical thinking schooling to, well, actually work, I leave my training on this subject in your more than able hands.

Regards,
Tadpole

[BBMW]

Guns are neutral. They're inanimate objects. The do nothing by themselves. Whether they're used for good or evil is completely dependent on the intentions and skill/ineptitude or the person holding the gun.

Originally Posted by UKWildcat1981

Guns are good, people are bad end of story.

[BBMW]

Okay, that would be hilarious.

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

I'll wager this one goes to trial. I'll also wager that since it's been almost two years since the last time I was called for jury duty, I'll be getting a summons in the next month or so.

[observer53]

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

I'll wager this one goes to trial. I'll also wager that since it's been almost two years since the last time I was called for jury duty, I'll be getting a summons in the next month or so.

If you do, it won't be for this case. This one won't go to trial for months.

[Packrat1]

I would suspect that there is a good chance that one, or both, of the shooters are felons in possession of a firearm a Federal Charge so that would enter into the mix.

[von949]

Originally Posted by observer53

If you do, it won't be for this case. This one won't go to trial for months.

Possibly years. I got called for a murder trial last year that happened several years earlier. Remember the off duty metro officer that was shot in his own driveway?

During the initial screening, there were a lot of questions about my opinions/feelings towards capital punishment. That might be another reason for why the case took so long to go to trial.

[ScoopLV]

Originally Posted by BBMW

Okay, that would be hilarious.

My last summons was for the gang hit at Gold Coast. Prior to that, it was another capital murder case. I don't think prosecutors will go for the death penalty for this one, though. There's so much reasonable doubt at this point, everything the family did that night and the following couple days would have to be kept away from the jury.

[BBMW]

I guess you're just lucky. I got one murder case, but I was an alternate.

I think you're overstating the degree to which the family's actions will affect this. Also, the perp seemed very talkative after the fact. All that will be used against him. I think the self defense aspect in his regard is very weak. He went there with a gun looking for a fight. That throws it out right there.

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

My last summons was for the gang hit at Gold Coast. Prior to that, it was another capital murder case. I don't think prosecutors will go for the death penalty for this one, though. There's so much reasonable doubt at this point, everything the family did that night and the following couple days would have to be kept away from the jury.