Have you heard about this case?

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MoW

Moderator
This was the original story:

http://www.fairfieldcitizen-news.com/local/ci_4272514

Turns out the child was NOT molested after all. The legality of it becomes quite interesting however. The accused killer(Mr. Edington) is only responsible for his frame of mind at the time of the killing, regardless that it turned out not to be true. Instead of doing 30+ years, he will most likely end up plea bargaining down to manslaughter and at best get 5 years. Tragic situation for the James family who turns out he did absolutely nothing wrong---what must have been going on in his head.as he was being murdered!:(
 
Yup, it's a tragedy.
Anyone who watches the news is aware of it and says, "Yup, it's a tragedy". Is there a truly Legal and Political point here, other than the fact that it's a tragedy and the Courts will be involved???
Rich
 
Yes, oh cynical one. Did you see the part where the legality of the case comes into play? Where as the man simply ended up murdering an innocent man, under the "law" he will only be held responsible for what he thought at the time of the murder. Raises some interesting legal questions. What's to stop anybody who commits a murder to say "well at the time I thought..." when all he really did was murder an innocent man. 5 years seems awfully weak to me. It's exactly why they had a Judge on discussing the matter----legality of the case.:rolleyes: Does this fall under the category crusading?
 
he will only be held responsible for what he thought at the time of the murder.
Click to expand...
Expand on that, please. Should he be judged on something other than what a Reasonable Man might believe? This is gonna get REAL good, just before it gets real mundane.
Rich
 
Sure, what was his reasoning---he heard it maybe? What were his facts---he had none. Had he either called the authorities or waited until he actually had some proof, then Mr. James would still be alive. Bottom line is he murdered the man, but will essentially get away with it---no reason others can't/won't use the same excuse. He should be held accountable for his actions----not what he thought!
 
I think...but I could be wrong. I think in the American Justice System there's a group of "people" called "peers" that will wrestle with this very issue based on far more evidence than you have presented.

And, so, I ask again:
What on earth is the POINT of this thread?
Rich
 
but I could be wrong. I think in the American Justice System there's a group of "people" called "peers" that will wrestle with this very issue based on far more evidence than you have presented
Click to expand...


Go with your first instinct----the case will almost certainly be plea bargained--in case you missed it in the opening thread, which means the "peers" will NOT wrestle with this very issue. What would be the far more evidence then presented---do tell?

The "point" would be the legal issue of somebody committing murder and getting away with it(essentially) due to the speculation of what he might have been thinking instead of his actions. I guess if this situation ever happened to somebody you knew you would take the same laissez faire attitude towards the lawyers and judicial system.:rolleyes: Seems there might be quite a big loophole for people to go through here.
 
The "point" would be the legal issue of somebody committing murder and getting away with it(essentially) due to the speculation of what he might have been thinking instead of his actions.
Click to expand...
Yup, I get it now. The problem is the shocking revelation of the ways of time-honored American Jurisprudence.

Thread closed for lack of substance.
Rich
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top