Prosecutors said Kelly recklessly fired nine shots from an AK-47 rifle toward a group of men, including Cuen-Buitimea, about 100 yards (90 meters) away on his cattle ranch. Kelly has said he fired warning shots in the air, but he didn’t shoot directly at anyone.
If he wasn't shooting "at" them, only firing into the air, I don't understand how he killed someone. But, you know, shooting an AK-47 towards a bunch of other humans is a totally normal response to seeing people on your land, so I'm sure it's just me misunderstanding. Not like he's some racist, xenophobic, piece of shit. It can't be that.
Hung jury for a guy who fired his rifle at a passing crowd and killed someone. They couldn't even reach a verdict on a lesser charge. That means at least one jury member just thought that it wasn't a crime to kill people because they were walking across your lawn.
First they come for your lawn, then they take your jobs and before you know it they’re turning your boys into girls to destroy the whitewhatever the small minded bigot in question thinks is the superior race.
/s
The sad irony is I’m being sarcastic but this is the core belief for way too many people out there.
edit: on further reflection of my choice of words I concluded that this is not a white vs black or brown problem, as nationalism and religious nationalism specifically, are not exclusive to delusions of race supremacy in the western world.
That means at least one jury member just thought that it wasn’t a crime to kill people because they were walking across your lawn.
Not Arizona, but Texas does let you kill people under some circumstances to stop them from, say, egging (throwing eggs at) your property, as that'd be criminal mischief:
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41 (Protection of One’s Own Property); and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
The thing about jury's is that people use their morals. If they don't think a the crime should be a crime they may not want to comvict them even tho they know the person broke the law.
If I'm sitting on a Jury for someone arrested for feeding the homeless I will never vote to convict even if the evidence is as clear as day.
I'm not comparing shooting people to feeding the homeless buy just showing an example of why people don't vote to convict when the evidence is clear.
Jury nullification (US/UK), jury equity[1][2] (UK), or a perverse verdict (UK)[3][4] occurs when the jury in a criminal trial gives a not guilty verdict regardless of whether they believe a defendant has broken the law. The jury's reasons may include the belief that the law itself is unjust,[5][6] that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case,[7] that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favor of the defendant.[8] Such verdicts are possible because a jury has an absolute right to return any verdict it chooses.[9]
I was on a jury in a civil case where the entire case was built on sympathy for the plaintiff. She'd been rear-ended at very low speed by a company owned truck and was suing the insurance company for >3 million dollars even though there were no injuries.
The plaintiff was a very elderly woman and she was brought in in a wheelchair, the accident was almost two years prior. They submitted volumes of medical records that couldn't possibly be related to the accident but claimed somehow the accident had caused 'suffering' that manifested as medical issues that most 80 year olds face. I pointed out to the jury that one of the receipts was for the wheelchair she was sitting in and was dated only a week ago.
Myself and one other juror thought the 50K the company was offering was more than appropriate, but the rest of the jurors wanted to award the full 3 million. I was arguing with one of the other jurors about the amount and she said "If it was your grandmother, wouldn't you just want to give her more money?". I briefly tried to explain that wasn't our role as jurors, but I kind of gave up after that- you can't talk sense to sentiment. And since a civil case didn't require unanimous jury she got the 3 million or whatever that was after her scummy legal team took their cut.
I will say the lawyer for the insurance company was a bumbling fool that didn't seem to care one way or the other so that didn't help, but it was clear to me this was just lawyers using an old lady and the legal system to pull money from a tap.
I've only been called once, and it was quite clear to me that the evidence they expected to present was shaky and circumstantial at best.
I took great pains to get myself excused, because I did not believe I could be impartial - 'Not guilty' means exactly that, the absence of proof of guilt. The state just didn't have the goods, IMHO, and I'd have been forced to vote not guilty as a result - even if I thought the person did the thing they were accused of, the state wasn't going to be able to prove it.
Wasn't feeling being the 'debating people who don't understand the threshold for guilty' part.
After the experience I had the one time, I'll try to get kicked out of any and all jury trials. Also, my politics have moved quite far left and I couldn't in good conscience contribute to someone being locked up without a hell of a lot of evidence of truly terrible harm.
Hung jury for a guy who fired his rifle at a passing crowd and killed someone. ... That means at least one jury member just thought that it wasn't a crime to kill people...
Is there one juror who was purported to be a Fox News viewer on Trump's hush money trial? My cynical self sees a similar result coming there.
No, it just means there wasn’t enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. People like to bring emotion and opinions to the jury room but in the end you are instructed to ONLY go by the evidence allowed in the courtroom.
Right, but the evidence was he said he shot someone for walking across his lawn. The facts of the case are not in dispute. He saw a bunch of people walking across his property, got his AK-47 rifle, and fired "warning shots" at them, killing man. That is what we know happened because there were many witnesses, including the defendant.
No. That’s what You know. That’s not the same with how things were presented in the courtroom. This is why people get so mad and don’t understand how a jury could come to said conclusion. I’ve been in several juries and this is how they work.
I mean sure prosecutors don't always go after a case maybe the way they should, but it'd be pretty hard to believe that they wouldn't be able to establish the admitted facts of the case. I would have to see something telling me that they neglected to inform the jury of the literal basis of the case before I give them a pass.
To use an example, this would you be like you arguing that the lawyers in the OJ Simpson trial failed because they neglected to tell the jury that OJ been accused of killing two people. That's not messing up DNA evidence that's literally why they're there. It's a stretch too far.
