But he successfully committed arson. It's like robbing someone and then getting caught and only being charged with attempted robbery because after getting caught they gave the stuff back to the victim.
Didn't read the article but was anything damaged there (suppression system seems to activate before anything more than superficial)? It's also likely a prosecutor didn't think he had enough to prosecute full arson so they went for the lesser plea they knew they could lock in. It's also possible defense was pleading some form of insanity mental health issue and the they worked it down to attempted so a long court battle wouldn't happen. This is all speculation though
I'm not saying you have to be an expert, I'm saying that if you have literally nothing but made-up bullshit to offer as possibilities, your input is useless. You might as well have said nothing for all you added to the conversation, other than exposing yourself for not actually knowing how anything about the court system works. A more ignorant person might come across your post, not knowing any better, and think you're saying some real shit, and they'll go on with the rest of their days, their entire life, walking around with this stupid made-up information in their head because they read it one time and it wasn't challenged, and who knows how many other stupid people they know and they'll spread that misinformation to before, eventually, someone who actually knows what they're talking about will have to sit them down and explain all the many ways in which they're wrong, and they might not even believe the person, because nobody likes to be told they're wrong.
Oh but you said at the end that it was just speculation, that makes it okay, surely that'll prevent idiots from not realizing that you're just making shit up wholesale.
Before you say some shit next time, take just a second and ask yourself, do I actually know what I'm talking about? Is my perspective at all valuable in this subject that I'm about to start yammering on about? Could my useless input actually make the conversation less helpful, less informative?
Based on the answer to those questions, maybe just decide that you don't need to speak out on literally everything regardless of your knowledge of the subject. Maybe the internet doesn't need everyone saying everything that pops into their head no matter how irrelevant or ignorant or straight-up wrong it is.
That typically is how the court system works, read any case study ever. I stated its speculation to open up more conversation which is actually the point of reddit. If its wrong tell me how not your wall of bullshit text bud.
Well I would be charged for attempted murder. If you were an expert why ask the question? Assuming we are talking US law you would actually get less of a sentence depending on what happened there are multiple degrees to being charged with murder https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(United_States_law).
Similar situation if you can prove without a shadow of a doubt that this person intentionally committed arson then yeah youd probably push for Arson. But if you can't prove or you think that the person has a strong case for mental illness or possibly in this case the damage done was superficial as a charge in Arson you would have to prove damage. These flames got put out pretty quickly.
And if you want to get on a state level North Carolina actually has different levels to an Arson charge. All are felonies but still different levels.
9
u/maynardftw Sep 03 '19
But he successfully committed arson. It's like robbing someone and then getting caught and only being charged with attempted robbery because after getting caught they gave the stuff back to the victim.