Oh look an attempt at a funny. About as whitty as the ****e you actually post on the joke thread fella.
It was easier than that for the jury. The defence case was that he was acting in self defence. If the jury didn't agree, on any of the counts as they were individual charges, he would have been found guilty of murder, not manslaughter, but if he was charged with manslaughter the same defence applies.
That’s not how it works though. It’s the jury’s job to find him guilty or not of the charge faced, with the measure being beyond reasonable doubt. They failed to find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt on the 1st degree murder charge, but that doesn’t mean by default that the jury would have reached the same verdict for a manslaughter charge, that’s my entire point.
You were questioning the legal system which is based on a prosecutor that argues for a conviction on the charge brought and the defence. This argument is made to a jury of your peers. You won't like this but consider that you, who has maybe watched snippets of the case on TV knows better than 12 jurors who have sat through all of it. Don't you think that's arrogant?
It totally does follow that they would have acquitted him on manslaughter as well because the act of self defence does not distinguish. They didn't find that he didn't shoot the people, they decided that it was justified innself defence. That is the key.
It's not. You just don't seem to understand. There was no question about what happened, it's on video so it wasn't a question whether there was intent or not. He testified that he used deadly force each time so the burden was whether it was justified. The jury decided that it was
I never mentioned intent. The jury decided he was not guilty of 1st degree murder, it’s impossible to say what verdict they may reached had the charge been manslaughter, you have assumed they completely bought the defence, you have no idea of whether that’s true or not. The only demonstrable fact is that the jury found him not guilty of 1st degree murder and 1st degree reckless murder, it took them 4 days to reach their verdict.
When he admits on the stand that he intentionally used deadly force the jury has to decide whether that was justified. Manslaughter is no different in his defence.
I don't think you're going to accept it because you have an opinion so rather than me repeating myself over and over I'll leave it. Emu sums it up perfectly
Victim. A bit rich coming from a scouse. So are you that naive to think that every poster who presses the report button has no agenda. I thought you were intelligent. I try to be respectful but you bring out the victim narrative card. You really are a nasty piece of work, how you were given mod power is beyond.
You are wasting your time with him Blono. He will twist what you say or ignore what you say to suit his agenda. He should be stripped of his mod powers Imo.
