Hernandez guilty of 1st degree murder

[Wingman]

I'm not arguing his guilt. I think he is guilty. However, many in the legal arena thought he might get off as the evidence was all circumstantial. What was the intent? I never heard that proven either but maybe I missed that. Either way, intent doesn't mean anyone did anything. How do they know he pulled out a gun? Is there a gun? Is there a witness? Did his home security show him shoot him? Even if, as someone mentioned, it is an automatic appeal for this conviction, there is no doubt he would appeal even being guilty. OJ got off and there was more circumstantial evidence against him. Just saying here because I do think he killed the guy.

There are many elements to a crime. Intent is one. He took the individual to a location with the intent of killing him there. Nothing else happened there. There is a bullet hole in the body it was fired from a gun. There is video tape of him with a gun. The gun was hidden and as of this time not found. Witnesses are horribly unreliable and are the reason for most wrongful convictions many of which are later overturned by DNA evidence.

The jury in the OJ case would not convict anyone regardless of evidence. There are people like that. Some folks are convinced they should not judge someone or something similar to that and will not convict anyone.

 

[wig]

Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example.

Thought you had your old friend "Conspiracy Wig" didn't ya? Well I aint bitin' today my friend. Aint bitin'!

 

[Steelr4evr]

While i think he should rot in jail or be shot at dawn. Those firearms charges are ******* horseshit! I don't give a **** what bullshit state law they pass. I know what the constitution says.

 

[Wingman]

While i think he should rot in jail or be shot at dawn. Those firearms charges are ******* horseshit! I don't give a **** what bullshit state law they pass. I know what the constitution says.

Interesting that the only people bothered by those laws are the ones not misusing firearms. Last time I checked it was illegal to kill someone no matter what method is chosen to do so, makes all the stupid firearms laws really seem like a waste of time. Incidentally Hittler, was a big fan of gun control laws as well.

 

[Steelr4evr]

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
-Thomas Jefferson

 

[Steelr4evr]

Interesting that the only people bothered by those laws are the ones not misusing firearms. Last time I checked it was illegal to kill someone no matter what method is chosen to do so, makes all the stupid firearms laws really seem like a waste of time. Incidentally Hittler, was a big fan of gun control laws as well.

Any oppressive government wants to disarm those who they mean to rule. If you can't fight back or are severely limited to defend your keep it's rather easy and you really only aid criminals who could care less.

 

[Wingman]

1st degree murder isn't based on circumstantial evidence. It is based on intent.

If in the heat of the moment you and I argued and I pulled out a gun and shot you, its 2nd degree. If I plan it out and know I am going to set you up ahead of time, its 1st degree. I know this from my best friend being murdered after a set up.

One of the keys regarding intent is it can occur in an instant. To use your good example the argument happens and gets out of hand and one of the combatants dies it could be as low as manslaughter or even self defense. But while this fight goes on one of the combatants decides he is going to kill the other and does so: say by drawing a 45 and shooting the other one 14 times it is likely to be 1st degree.
In this case with Hernandez I have heard it described as an execution type killing which would not be confused with accidental or a confrontational event.

 

[Xc944]

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
-Thomas Jefferson

funny that the states that do t allow to carry have lower my urder rate then the ones that do. It's also comical to think more guns means less murders

 

[Wingman]

funny that the states that do t allow to carry have lower my urder rate then the ones that do. It's also comical to think more guns means less murders

The most interesting thing for me is the fact that Gun control areas like chicago and new york have shootings as does detroit. Another interesting factoid the swiss send their military home with their small arms has a very low rate and England and Japan that have very strict gun control laws have a fairly high rate. Good Gun Control should mean holding it with both hands. I also suspect there is a better correlation to drug use, welfare, and unemployment to murder as well.

Archie Bunker and Gloria were having a nice conversation about gun control. She told him what ever the number was about how many people were shot and killed last year, I believe around 8000, to 10,000 or a similar number. Archie replied well little girl would it make you feel any better if they was pushed out a window? The other interesting thing to think about is the number of people killed by cars is about 3 to 5 times the amount killed by fire arms... so maybe we should take away the cars to save the greater number of people.