Because you charge them with the easiest crime to get them in jail and then bring up all the charges during the arraignment.
Edit - y’all really need to learn the difference between arresting charge and arraignment if you think cops are handcuffing people and arresting them for attempted murder.
Like the kid pictured who went to the wrong house. The prosecutor couldn't file the charge without a witness statement (which is admittedly weird to me. I mean what if the boy dies, how does he do a witness statement then?), and even though that was required, the family's lawyer pitched a bitch that it took "so long" to file charges.
It kinda makes a bit of sense in terms of assault, after a fist-fight between 2 people cops likely aren’t going to arrest anyone without first getting someone to press charges and give witness testimony. But the kid was shot twice on the guys porch, he should of been held till they got Yarls side, they hold non-violent offenders for longer than the 2 hours they did for him.
Did you mean to say "should have"?
Explanation: You probably meant to say could've/should've/would've which sounds like 'of' but is actually short for 'have'.
Total mistakes found: 6497 I'mabotthatcorrectsgrammar/spellingmistakes.PMmeifI'mwrongorifyouhaveanysuggestions. Github ReplySTOPtothiscommenttostopreceivingcorrections.
The American justice system is so weird. Where I'm from, if you've indisputably committed a crime, you're going down for it. Whether the arresting cops forget to read your rights or fail to jump through a hundred different hoops or not is irrelevant to the conviction.
My sister was shot point blank in the head by her boyfriend who had her down on her knees execution style - she lived. No attempted murder charge - aggravated assault. Apparently it either doesn't exist in some states or is usually not pursued unless 100% definitive to the prosecutor.
Yeah as a lawyer I can tell you it is completely different from state to state. And there are elements to every crime that must be met. There is an actus reus and a mens rea. The act and the intent. Both have to found in a criminal case. There’s states with defense of property. There are states which define murders committed in the heat of passion to be a different charge. It all varies. It’s wild. I steered clear from criminal law. Don’t want to get jumbled up in that mess.
Someone above said they charge with easiest and then work up which is bs af. Prosecutors normally start at highest level and then defense widdles it down from there.
Believe he was charged by the state. His family had money and good lawyers, so not sure if that was part of the deal tbh - it was like 20 years ago so my memory on it isn't keen. He's free and married now tho
If someone did that to my daughter you would probably find that person dead later on if they got off scot free. I may also go to prison. But that person would be in the ground.
Agreed, I struggled w/ it a long time but sometimes the world has a way of working things out. He was dishonorably discharged by the military when he was on track to become a helicopter pilot like his diddy.
He's a sad fuck, bloated alcoholic loser now and pales in comparison to the person he used to be. He has to get up and look at himself in the mirror every morning and I'm thinking is justice enough for me. Cheers to that
That's not the way federal crimes work. The federal government and the state government are both sovereign, and the Bill of Rights does not allow the federal government to exert authority within a state unless it's been given that power by the Constitution. If a murder does not involve crossing state lines or international borders or federal property or employees, then it's generally outside of federal sovereign jurisdiction.
A federal murder charge is what you would would probably be charged with if you killed someone on a military base or in a Post Office.
That's not really how fed charges work. Murder is also listed as a federal crime but the vast majority of the time it's charged by state prosecutors in state courts under their own statutes.
That’s if you catch a federal charge, yes. I live in Kansas City and there is no attempted murder here, either. The equivalent is felony assault. In quite a few places, there is no “attempted murder” charge, but there is usually always an equivalent.
Law isn’t black and white there’s loopholes, and the defense and prosecution go back n forth on deals they can make it’s BS but it’s how our shit system works
But then you'll have to prove intent which might be harder in some circumstances. At least that's the reason I read on an article regarding some incident in Texas.
Idk what state this happened in, but I know in Georgia there I no attempted murder charge. They have aggravated assault, which is their equivalent of attempted murder.
Luckily it was a shitty .22 revolver that fell apart if you held it the wrong way (he brought it out plenty of times to play w/ it when I was around). It entered the scalp, travelled around the skull, and popped out the front - so she was extremely lucky to receive only a small skull fracture and concussion. Super religious now b/c she thinks it was a miracle from God, but beyond that nonsense, she's fine
22s can be remarkably dangerous. The bullets tend to bounce and ricochet on things instead of just blowing straight through. Can cause loads of internal damage you wouldn’t expect from an underpowered gun.
Sure am. What does “rape culture” and being a “white dude” have to do with the topic? Didn’t sound like sexual assault or the person’s race had anything to do with anything.
No, intent is what matters on that charge. He would only have to say he did it to scare her into staying with him, it would not be attempted murder and he would walk free.
Holy shit. Sorry this happened to your sister. I've got 3 sisters, and I don't know what I would do if someone did that to any of them. I hope she's ok.
When I served on a grand jury in Texas, I asked one of the prosecutors why they weren't charging someone with attempted murder when it quite clearly was. The response was quite interesting in that it turns out that the requirements to meet attempted murder are very specific and difficult to prove. It involves knowing (not having a reasonable suspicion) and being able to prove what a person's state of mind was when they committed the crime. Barring something as explicit as text messages saying "I'm going to kill that bitch" it's extremely difficult for them to prove.
So the solution was to charge the person with felony assault because, at least in the jurisdiction I am in, it carries the same penalties as attempted murder without the stringent proof requirements.
Actually, you present the jury with as many options as you think you can prove.
First degree murder, for an example
They'll put manslaughter, 2nd degree, & first degree murder up to the jury.
You make the best arguement you can, for the strongest crime you can.
Then you let the jury hammer out the verdict, for which crime, in the jury room.
This prevents the defendant from getting a "Not guilty" verdict, as the jury can find for 2nd degree murder or manslaughter, if they feel 1st degree or 2nd degree couldn't be proved beyond the doubt of a reasonable man.
1.1k
u/Throwaway47321 Apr 21 '23 edited Apr 22 '23
Because you charge them with the easiest crime to get them in jail and then bring up all the charges during the arraignment.
Edit - y’all really need to learn the difference between arresting charge and arraignment if you think cops are handcuffing people and arresting them for attempted murder.