No matter how they tried to generate sympathy for him, the fact is he was guilty of premeditated 1st degree murder because of his prejudice and hate against someone who's served his time.
So the films message is if you're rich and powerful and can hire scumbag lawyers, you will get off lightly and have a fairy tale ending without ever feeling any remorse for your actions.
They generated sympathy perhaps, but they didn't romanticize the character or what he'd done.
“Hate speech is the modern term for heresy."--Ayaan Hirsi Ali
No, in fact he was not guilty of 1st Degree Murder. The verdict of Voluntary Manslaughter was accurate.
And actually, his case was won and he could have skated on the whole charge if he'd kept his mouth shut--which he obviously knew--but he chose to be totally truthful and tell the jury that he couldn't remember but he believed he had killed the man. He chose to be held accountable for his actions.
Time to re-evaluate your conclusions, DF79. The various levels of accountability--and the ensuing degrees of punishment, earned versus applied--was the message of the movie, as shown with multiple characters and storylines.
actually, none of that was clear cut. His son thought he had peppered the case with reasonable doubt but that doesn't mean it was true. There was a lot of physical evidence. So really the only doubt was intent. Did he have intent? That is not clear either. He "lost time". That does not mean it was an accident. Maybe it was, maybe it was not. He was clearly guilty of voluntary manslaughter regardless of what he said on the stand. He was possibly guilty of first degree murder but it could not be proven.
I would say my memory is not what it used to be. But I don't remember what my memory used to be.
It was not first degree murder. First degree murder requires premeditation.
shareHe was clearly guilty of voluntary manslaughter regardless of what he said on the stand.
None of that is necessary. He had a medical condition, he took medication for it, it caused him to "lose time" and he knowingly got into a motor vehicle and drove it which resulted in the victim's death. That is all it takes. Very similar to DWI resulting in death. Voluntary manslaughter, open and shut.
I would say my memory is not what it used to be. But I don't remember what my memory used to be.
First off, it is state by state what constitutes the degrees of murder.
Secondly, just because you are drunk while driving doesn't mean you are guilty of voluntary manslaughter. If it is determined that you could not have avoided the accident while sober, you wouldn't be expected to avoid it when drunk.
So, again, you were there to witness that the judge saw the victim and made no attempt to avoid a collision? You were there and didn't see the victim swerve unexpectedly in front of the judge giving him no time to react?
That would be interesting if it were true. But alas, it is not. In every jurisdiction DUI resulting in death will be some variation of DUI manslaughter. The prosecutor does not have to prove negligence in the actual driving of the vehicle. The driver is presumed to be negligent if he is intoxicated. It could even be murder if there is gross negligence involved. Your second paragraph is flat out wrong. Your first is irrelevant and your third is moot.
I would say my memory is not what it used to be. But I don't remember what my memory used to be.
I'd agree with you if you were right. But since I've actually known people who have gotten out of DUI-wreck cases because it was proven they didn't do anything wrong....
And in addition, if the judge was not told to not operate a vehicle, then that makes it even less damning on him.
I would love to hear the docket numbers and names of those cases which involved a death and where the driver was intoxicated when the accident occurred.
You say they did nothing wrong? Yes they did, they drove drunk which is a crime.
I guarantee the medication he was talking gave the requisite warning. Further he knew he was "losing time" and thus knew there was an inherent danger in driving.
I would say my memory is not what it used to be. But I don't remember what my memory used to be.
I'd love for you to be right, but since we both don't have the specific information, we can't provide it.
A guy I played softball with was sitting at a red light, driver cut the turn too close and ripped of my friend's front bumper.
Cops showed up, smelled beer on his breath, he blew a .08 and they hauled him away.
When the case came before a judge, the lawyer got it dismissed. They acknowledged he'd been drinking, but his drinking had nothing to do with him being hit. He could have been sober and it wouldn't have changed what the other driver did. He also couldn't back up to get out of the way because he had a car behind him.
The judge chewed my friend out and tossed the case.
If you can't stand being wrong so much you want the docket # and such, I'll direct you to the county courthouse where this happened and you can find it yourself.
That scenario has nothing to do with what we are discussing. I have actually seen the opposite result in a vary similar case to the one you described. But that is neither here nor there. Your friend got very lucky. But that was not an accident involving a death or serious bodily injury. You can believe me or not, it really doesn't matter to me.
I would say my memory is not what it used to be. But I don't remember what my memory used to be.
That scenario has nothing to do with what we are discussing.
You can believe me or not,
had the judge ended his testimony with, "No." he would have been found innocent on both charges.
The only thing you can say is you think the judge was wrong for driving at all, but that is just your opinion.
And, as tough as that prosecutor was, do you think that if the judge really had been told he shouldn't have been driving that the prosecutor wouldn't have had his doctor on the stand testifying to that? Or calling in medical experts saying that a responsible doctor would have told him not to drive?
Again, so what? That is as dumb as saying if he did not get in the car he would not be guilty. It simply did not happen that way.
Anyone who admits to "losing time" (blackouts) should not be driving. If you disagree with that, I cannot help you.
First of all, that helps the defense case so why would the prosecutor do that?
very mature. sorry you are too much of an idiot to continue this nonsense.
I would say my memory is not what it used to be. But I don't remember what my memory used to be.
Awww, so sad the moron can't even understand how wrong he was.
Seriously. First you say that it was Voluntary Manslaughter because he was on medicine, then you say that admitting to being on medicine would actually help his defense.
You are so fuqking retarded that you don't even know how retarded you are.
The judge certainly was not a "bad man". There was no premeditation involved, the accident was a result of his chemotherapy (which led to his lack of memory). Was he criminally irresponsible? Yes. Was he a murderer? No.
shareLol, what a ridiculous post. What the judge did was actually justice, whether he intended it or not. Doing 20 years for the murder that criminal committed was not justice... I guess the OP is one of those people who think vicious murderers are just victims of society, while people frustrated by the lack of justice, who end up doing justice by their own hand, and even people who defend themselves or their family, are the real "bad people".
shareLol, what a ridiculous post. What the judge did was actually justice, whether he intended it or not. Doing 20 years for the murder that criminal committed was not justice... I guess the OP is one of those people who think vicious murderers are just victims of society, while people frustrated by the lack of justice, who end up doing justice by their own hand, and even people who defend themselves or their family, are the real "bad people".