Guilty of manslaughter

[Brian Carlton]

My sister was on a murder trial this week. The location is New York City, borough of Queens.

I post this to allow all the conservatives to get a good, hearty laugh.

The individual on trial is a 19 year old male. The facts of the case, as best as I can relay them are as follows.

Alleged perpetrator is known to the individual who was killed (DM). Apparently the perpetrator was going to confront the DM regarding some unknown issue. The perpetrator was carrying a loaded handgun when he went to visit the DM.

The DM was not an "esteemed member society" to put it nicely. There clearly was no outporing of grief over his death.

After shooting the DM three times, he vacated the location and left the state.

When he was located, the police brought him back to NY and extracted a confession from him. However, in the confession, he stated that he shot the DM in self defense.

The police did their usual bogus job in the investigation. No witnesses for the prosecution. No handgun. No physical evidence, whatsoever, to connect this man to the crime. However, there was motive present.

So, the jury is charged with finding him guilty of murder II, or manslaughter II or not guilty.

This is where it gets interesting.

The first vote is 2 in favor of murder, 7 in favor of manslaughter, and 3 who don't understand the process well enough to decide anything.

Some of the logic from these idiots:

-----Carrying a loaded gun, without a license, is typical these days. You can't convict someone of murder if he had no intent to kill the DM. Just because he was carrying a loaded gun does not mean that he was going to use it.

-----The police might have coerced the confession from the perpetrator. You can't necessarily believe a confession extracted by the police.

-----The fact that he shot the DM is not evidence that he meant to kill him. He many have just meant to injure him. But, he died from his injuries.


So, eventually the jury went 10-2 in favor of Man II. It didn't take much to cause the other two to rollover. My sister was one of the last two, but, she has no constitution to holdout against 10 people.

Her logic, and it might make some sense, is that it is better to hang him for Man II rather than hang the jury. The next jury might just acquit him.

The prosecutor was happy with the verdict. Apparently, in some areas of NYC, you can't convict someone of murder under just about any circumstances because the "jury of peers" don't trust the police.

I'm with the Bonehead on this one.