Gonna be hard to defend him if you're his lawyer. Yes, he may have hammered this mannequin, but he definitely did not hammer the other two homeless people sleeping at the same intersection that were also killed with hammer attacks, your honor. Not guilty!
Actually I think you can, I remember in law class at college there was a case where somebody thought he was smuggling heroin but it was just harmless leaves, and the House of Lords ruled you can still be considered to be attempting a crime even if the facts means it's impossible to actually do it.
Also no if you do something that you think is illegal but it isn't that's not a crime.
Actually I think you can, I remember in law class at college there was a case where somebody thought he was smuggling heroin but it was just harmless leaves, and the House of Lords ruled you can still be considered to be attempting a crime even if the facts means it's impossible to actually do it.
Also no if you do something that you think is illegal but it isn't that's not a crime.
EDIT: that's just the case in the UK, like I said I don't know if that's the case in the US
Gonna be hard to defend him if you're his lawyer. Yes, he may have hammered this mannequin, but he definitely did not hammer the other two homeless people sleeping at the same intersection that were also killed with hammer attacks, your honor. Not guilty!
yeah it will be hard to prove because of the amount of people who carry heavy duty hammers and put their hoods up so as to hide their identity to bash random sleeping humanoid looking objects with said hammers in the area where all those hammer based murders took place its just to hard to pin anyone down
OK gotchaI'm speaking from the U.S. perspective.
Not sure how a jury can stay blind to the connection though, even if the prosecution flubs the case or the facts aren't a slam dunk.
It's circumstantial at best. I wouldn't convict this guy if I was on the jury based on JUST what we know right now.
I'm assuming at this point they have other evidence but aren't publicizing it to weed out any false confessions that could cloud their case
Not sure what this accomplishes other than deterring him from doing it again maybe.
That's not how it works. This takes place in North America where people are innocents until proven guilty, not the other way around. They will need more evidence directly connecting him to the other two murders or his lawyer will have a very easy case.
This is also a strong possibility.
I kind of doubt the guy killed two people with a hammer at the same general spot and left zero evidence behind, and with him in custody they can narrow down connections, as well as search his home, etc. They might just be holding onto their cards to let more circumstantial evidence pile up.
It's circumstantial at best. I wouldn't convict this guy if I was on the jury based on JUST what we know right now.
Of course innocent until proven guilty. But dude's actions are very suspect and will color peoples' perceptions of him before the prosecution even gets a go at him. If I was a jury member, I would think guilty from the start, and hopefully the defense lawyer will not keep me in the jury pool.
This guy will be fed and sheltered in prison. Meanwhile the homeless will continue to suffer
Isn't it better to execute him, then use the liberated resources to feed and shelter the homeless? We treat monsters and murderers better than regular people
The legal costs w/ the death penalty far outweigh the cost to just imprison someone.This guy will be fed and sheltered in prison. Meanwhile the homeless will continue to suffer
Isn't it better to execute him, then use the liberated resources to feed and shelter the homeless? We treat monsters and murderers better than regular people
This guy will be fed and sheltered in prison. Meanwhile the homeless will continue to suffer
Isn't it better to execute him, then use the liberated resources to feed and shelter the homeless? We treat monsters and murderers better than regular people
There's not enough evidence but I would convict him anyway, because of course he's the killer.
Isn't it better to execute him
The police probably have the murder weapon now, right? This guy doesn't seem like the sharpest tool in the box (no pun intended) so there's likely a decent chance there's evidence to be found there to link him to the murders.
armchairing here, but an interesting thing about serial killers is they tend to stick to a consistent method in how they murder, even if it easily leads to their capture. 3 victims in the same spot? (even if the third was fake) ? All with a hammer? And he just happened to randomly be a guy that wanted to vandalize a mannequin with a hammer in the same location?..
Get out of here with that shit. I need to be damn sure someone committed a crime before I make the decision to lock them in jail the rest of their life.
Yes.. hence why we'll hold a trial and we'll see all the evidence they have.
I've been on a jury twice, I know to not pre-convict people, jesus.
Execution costs more than life in prison.
I've heard this before. To me that's a separate problem with the justice system itself, the costs need to be reduced.The legal costs w/ the death penalty far outweigh the cost to just imprison someone.
This may very well be true. But people don't want to stop eating hamburgers, so we keep giving resources to livestock. Maybe capital punishment is more palatable than vegetarianismThere are enough resources to both feed the homeless and not execute prisoners.
Oh my sweet summer childisn't killing people wrong.
There's not enough evidence but I would convict him anyway, because of course he's the killer. And even if by some infinitesimally small chance chance he's not he didn't know that was a mannequin before he hit it. Come the fuck on. So maybe he's only a copycat killer.
There's not enough evidence but I would convict him anyway, because of course he's the killer. And even if by some infinitesimally small chance chance he's not he didn't know that was a mannequin before he hit it. Come the fuck on. So maybe he's only a copycat killer.
No offense but your last post does not indicate that at all.
Is it difficult to prove his guilt? It will be only if he used new hammers everytime he killed or thoroughly washed it off with peroxide.
I am sure they can get a warrant to search his house & vehicle and they may just find some DNA matching the homeless dudes.
First post is in such poor taste I am not quoting that shit but reasses your sense of humor dude. Also shame on that lawyer of his, I get she is just doing her job but isn't there a thing called conscience? The lady should desperately need money or probably a psycho too.
Is it difficult to prove his guilt? It will be only if he used new hammers everytime he killed or thoroughly washed it off with peroxide.
I am sure they can get a warrant to search his house & vehicle and they may just find some DNA matching the homeless dudes.
First post is in such poor taste I am not quoting that shit but reasses your sense of humor dude. Also shame on that lawyer of his, I get she is just doing her job but isn't there a thing called conscience? The lady should desperately need money or probably a psycho too.
Please don't ever be on a jury.
Is it difficult to prove his guilt? It will be only if he used new hammers everytime he killed or thoroughly washed it off with peroxide.
I am sure they can get a warrant to search his house & vehicle and they may just find some DNA matching the homeless dudes.
First post is in such poor taste I am not quoting that shit but reasses your sense of humor dude. Also shame on that lawyer of his, I get she is just doing her job but isn't there a thing called conscience? The lady should desperately need money or probably a psycho too.
Is it difficult to prove his guilt? It will be only if he used new hammers everytime he killed or thoroughly washed it off with peroxide.
I am sure they can get a warrant to search his house & vehicle and they may just find some DNA matching the homeless dudes.
First post is in such poor taste I am not quoting that shit but reasses your sense of humor dude. Also shame on that lawyer of his, I get she is just doing her job but isn't there a thing called conscience? The lady should desperately need money or probably a psycho too.
Please be less smug about being willfully ignorant.
But there was no way for him to know it was a mannequin. This was clearly intend to kill. So they can at least prove he is dangerous.
Isn't this a similar trap like the ones set in "to catch a predator" where an adult woman posed as a little girl to trap pedos? Did these people walk because she wasn't really a child in the end?
A lawyer has a duty to their client, who is innocent until proven guilty.