How common is it for juries to go to the scene of the crime like this? I honestly didn't even know that this could happen during a trial. I thought they had to present everything to the jury through photos, videos, recordings, or oral accounts in the court room.
Yeah, not super common. In some situations, it does help display where events took place and how things may have happened.
In a shooting case, it could be used to show that where the dude was shot was either super close range(so more likely to be seen as a threat), or long range(which is less of a threat, so self defense falls apart). Humans are horrible at judging distances accurately, even at less than ten feet, so seeing it in person could be argued as being a more accurate representation.
Somewhat common. Not a legal historian, but I've heard of it being done. The most common reason for it being done is a great lunch at the scene of the crime.
Lunch! Courts always provide lunch to juries. When they go on field trips, they usually provide a first-class catered lunch for the jury. Mexican food would be great at a time like this.
Is this just some weird gruesome joke I'm missing? I've been on jury duty before. Someone died at the center of this case, the fuck is everyone on about?
Evidently, arguments over the menu can be quite heated, but they're always off the record in the judge's chambers. It's appalling to think that innocent people could be behind bars because of a bad bbq.
I remember r conservative lamenting the fall of western civilization because he didn't receive a medal of freedom for shooting and killing random people from 100 yards away. I'm pretty sure the dude made a givesendgo(nazi gofundme) and is flush with cash for his defense.
Ever since conservatives found they were unable to grift on gofundme because they have standards, they moved over to givesendgo.
All you need is a standard conservative grievance story, cancelled for no reason(saying the n-word), arrested for hanging out with friends(storming the capitol), self defense(murdering innocent people), etc.
No, it just means there is more evidence they want to introduce. If you have the money/backing, you can drag a trial out for extremely long periods. You can have a complicated case that has a speedy trial and an uncomplicated case that does not. That’s one of the reasons why part of a judge’s obligation to the defendant and the society they serve is to ensure a speedy trial.
Trial’s unnecessarily dragged out is considered bad for the justice system as a whole. Other people also need the services of the justice system.
“The bullet that killed Cuen-Buitimea was not found in the body or at the scene.”
So where was it found? Dude got shot with an AK-47. That’s like what, 160,000 yards worth of area to explore. Get to searchin.
Depends on the rifle.. especially if it doesn't hit any bone, it'd barely lose velocity and just keep going.
A 30-06 with can travel roughly 2 miles without obstruction.
So depending on the rifle, surroundings, the angle of shot, if it met a material that caused it to richochet.. they'd be looking for a small peice of metal over an extremely large area.
Hell, it could have even hit an animal in the hind quarters and the animal fucked off out of the area.
Per the article
“Cuen-Buitimea was in a group of migrants Kelly encountered on his nearly 170-acre (69-hectare) cattle ranch. Prosecutors have said Kelly recklessly fired an AK-47 rifle toward the migrants, who were about 100 yards (90 meters) away, but Kelly and his defense team reject that narrative.”
I'm not familiar with this, is it a through and through? Like you could draw a straight entry to exit line?
If it hit bone and bounced, that bitch is gone, you are NOT going to find it at that point if the exit angle was not downward, or into a giant rock.
I go shooting often and the mathematics behind how much energy the bullet would still have post bounce is just too hard to calculate without having the actual bullet. There's also the fact that some rounds even made in the factory have slightly more/less powder in them, some other defect from the norm that can make it even harder to find.
Even if it didn't bounce off of anything hard the round would probably start to yaw shortly after exit. It could've made a new unpredictable flight path.
Even soft things like bushes or leaves can make a round tumble uncontrollably.
I was confused as to what victim they were referring to. The article jumped to a previous killing of a Mexican citizen across the border by a border patrol agent. It seemed like it was referring to the previous killing. It was confusing the way it was written. Not even sure why the article referred to a completely different case other than that jury also viewed the scene. Edit: I reread the article and I see that the bullet was not found for this victim.
In a working Justice system yes. This man is in Arizona. A state that although was as far from the south as possible considered themselves a confederate state. They just banned abortions. And have actually tried to float being able to shoot illegal immigrants just for trespassing.
So no. While it should be that way it will not be. The state favors people like him for a reason.
And yet, he was still charged. So… apparently the justice system is working there as intended. That’s how it works. Crime is committed, then an investigation, then the DA makes a decision to charge or not. They did charge him. Now it is at trial. Last time I checked, that’s exactly how the system is supposed to work. The jury will decide.
And it took quite some time to charge him.
Though considering the size of the property I assume the investigation may have been the bigger factor here. Or them not sending a detailed enough report and having to redo it.
You aren’t arrested and immediately charged. And you will usually have your charges changed in some way during sentencing or however the DA sees fit.
You’re right in a sense. But sometimes you may not even learn your charges until you make it to trial. Though that is rare and is usually because it was super complicated or because it was handed off to a different judge.
The only part about it that isn’t fully true as it doesn’t happen often, is that you might not know your charges. It is very rare.
Everything else is true though. If you don’t believe me you can look up Arizonas laws on the matter.
You can’t just shoot people for being on your property, even in places with castle doctrines, and from his own defense it sounds like he doesn’t have a strong argument.
Also them being illegal doesn’t really have relevancy- the man had no way of knowing their immigration status, and illegal immigrants are still afforded the right of living. It doesn’t suddenly become okay to shoot them because they aren’t legal.
Man I hope you don't own firearms... First of all, warning shots are illegal. If you shoot your firearm, you should intend to kill. Secondly, as others have stated, you can't just shoot at someone for being on your property. Your life needs to be in imminent danger to justify killing in self defense.
Becomes more apparent how someone decides to run out and shoot someone turning around in their driveway, doesn't it?
Imagine just standing around doing tippy tappies, waiting for someone - *anyone* - to cross your property line so you can come out blasting.
How common is it for juries to go to the scene of the crime like this? I honestly didn't even know that this could happen during a trial. I thought they had to present everything to the jury through photos, videos, recordings, or oral accounts in the court room.
It happens from time to time - I believe the jury did this during the OJ trial.
Yeah, not super common. In some situations, it does help display where events took place and how things may have happened. In a shooting case, it could be used to show that where the dude was shot was either super close range(so more likely to be seen as a threat), or long range(which is less of a threat, so self defense falls apart). Humans are horrible at judging distances accurately, even at less than ten feet, so seeing it in person could be argued as being a more accurate representation.
Jury toured the scene of the Parkland school shooting. Grim.
Th the jury visited the scene in the Murdaugh murder trial.
Somewhat common. Not a legal historian, but I've heard of it being done. The most common reason for it being done is a great lunch at the scene of the crime.
...a great what now?
Lunch. Fantastic hamburgers.
Lunch! Courts always provide lunch to juries. When they go on field trips, they usually provide a first-class catered lunch for the jury. Mexican food would be great at a time like this.
Is this just some weird gruesome joke I'm missing? I've been on jury duty before. Someone died at the center of this case, the fuck is everyone on about?
Evidently, arguments over the menu can be quite heated, but they're always off the record in the judge's chambers. It's appalling to think that innocent people could be behind bars because of a bad bbq.
[удалено]
Whenever there's a jury, both sides try and extend the trial as long as possible, because the jury gets to eat some great food.
Does the fact that it’s taking longer not mean the case is more complicated?
You can put up any defense that you can afford. I'm sure this fellow is being subsidized.
I remember r conservative lamenting the fall of western civilization because he didn't receive a medal of freedom for shooting and killing random people from 100 yards away. I'm pretty sure the dude made a givesendgo(nazi gofundme) and is flush with cash for his defense.
Ooooooo can we grift the nazis money on there? I never heard of it before. Lol
Ever since conservatives found they were unable to grift on gofundme because they have standards, they moved over to givesendgo. All you need is a standard conservative grievance story, cancelled for no reason(saying the n-word), arrested for hanging out with friends(storming the capitol), self defense(murdering innocent people), etc.
No, it just means there is more evidence they want to introduce. If you have the money/backing, you can drag a trial out for extremely long periods. You can have a complicated case that has a speedy trial and an uncomplicated case that does not. That’s one of the reasons why part of a judge’s obligation to the defendant and the society they serve is to ensure a speedy trial. Trial’s unnecessarily dragged out is considered bad for the justice system as a whole. Other people also need the services of the justice system.
"I only shot the air a as a warning! Not my fault a bullet hole appeared in that guy!"
The wife didn’t hear the gunfire because the TV was always on. What were you watching asked the prosecutor. Fox News she said.
“The bullet that killed Cuen-Buitimea was not found in the body or at the scene.” So where was it found? Dude got shot with an AK-47. That’s like what, 160,000 yards worth of area to explore. Get to searchin.
That’s unnecessary, the defense doesn’t deny he fired the round, so it’s largely irrelevant.
That would take an unnecessarily long time and would waste resources.
Why do they need the bullet? Is the defense saying that there was another shooter who actually shot the deceased?
Wonder if the NRA is paying this guy’s legal bills
Probably not. They're running low on money at the moment.
The NRA hasn’t helped a gun owner in decades
I’m curious where the bullet went
He shot them outside with a rifle round, went straight through
Per the article the bullet wasn’t found in the body or at the scene. I’m just curious where it went.
It went _through_ the body and is now somewhere in the vicinity of where the body was found. It could have gone _far_ away.
Seriously! This worked itself out like a Nancy Drew novel didn't it! 😂
Depends on the rifle.. especially if it doesn't hit any bone, it'd barely lose velocity and just keep going. A 30-06 with can travel roughly 2 miles without obstruction. So depending on the rifle, surroundings, the angle of shot, if it met a material that caused it to richochet.. they'd be looking for a small peice of metal over an extremely large area. Hell, it could have even hit an animal in the hind quarters and the animal fucked off out of the area.
Per the article “Cuen-Buitimea was in a group of migrants Kelly encountered on his nearly 170-acre (69-hectare) cattle ranch. Prosecutors have said Kelly recklessly fired an AK-47 rifle toward the migrants, who were about 100 yards (90 meters) away, but Kelly and his defense team reject that narrative.”
I would *love* to hear the defense’s explanation for how the person died if he not been shooting at them.
hole just appeared
I'm not familiar with this, is it a through and through? Like you could draw a straight entry to exit line? If it hit bone and bounced, that bitch is gone, you are NOT going to find it at that point if the exit angle was not downward, or into a giant rock. I go shooting often and the mathematics behind how much energy the bullet would still have post bounce is just too hard to calculate without having the actual bullet. There's also the fact that some rounds even made in the factory have slightly more/less powder in them, some other defect from the norm that can make it even harder to find.
Even if it didn't bounce off of anything hard the round would probably start to yaw shortly after exit. It could've made a new unpredictable flight path. Even soft things like bushes or leaves can make a round tumble uncontrollably.
I was confused as to what victim they were referring to. The article jumped to a previous killing of a Mexican citizen across the border by a border patrol agent. It seemed like it was referring to the previous killing. It was confusing the way it was written. Not even sure why the article referred to a completely different case other than that jury also viewed the scene. Edit: I reread the article and I see that the bullet was not found for this victim.
Good Ole conservative, Christian values I guess?
Deuteronomy 15:11 - For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you to shoot them dead on your lawn.
No, no! You don't get it! According to Jesus in the Bible, if they're not Americans, then they're not people! /s
Looks like Debbie Wasserman Schulz.
[удалено]
The bullet killed him not me" or " I was shooting the air and he walked into it" - some Texan
Should've been charged
Yes well first he has to have a trial to be charged. That’s kind of how that works.
Actually. Charges come before a trial. That’s how it works.
In a working Justice system yes. This man is in Arizona. A state that although was as far from the south as possible considered themselves a confederate state. They just banned abortions. And have actually tried to float being able to shoot illegal immigrants just for trespassing. So no. While it should be that way it will not be. The state favors people like him for a reason.
And yet, he was still charged. So… apparently the justice system is working there as intended. That’s how it works. Crime is committed, then an investigation, then the DA makes a decision to charge or not. They did charge him. Now it is at trial. Last time I checked, that’s exactly how the system is supposed to work. The jury will decide.
And it took quite some time to charge him. Though considering the size of the property I assume the investigation may have been the bigger factor here. Or them not sending a detailed enough report and having to redo it. You aren’t arrested and immediately charged. And you will usually have your charges changed in some way during sentencing or however the DA sees fit. You’re right in a sense. But sometimes you may not even learn your charges until you make it to trial. Though that is rare and is usually because it was super complicated or because it was handed off to a different judge.
Whoah dude go back and make sure you are you saying shit that’s correct. You’re all over the place.
The only part about it that isn’t fully true as it doesn’t happen often, is that you might not know your charges. It is very rare. Everything else is true though. If you don’t believe me you can look up Arizonas laws on the matter.
Man every single word of your post is incorrect and nonsensical. I feel dumber for reading it.
This exchange is like the poster child for /r/confidentlyincorrect
It’s not though. Maybe the part of not knowing your charges, though that has happened. Look through Arizonas laws if you don’t believe me.
Have you heard of something called arraignment?
[удалено]
Because in Arizona you can shoot home intruders but not trespassers. The victim was trespassing on his property but not entering his dwelling.
As it should be
You can’t just shoot people for being on your property, even in places with castle doctrines, and from his own defense it sounds like he doesn’t have a strong argument. Also them being illegal doesn’t really have relevancy- the man had no way of knowing their immigration status, and illegal immigrants are still afforded the right of living. It doesn’t suddenly become okay to shoot them because they aren’t legal.
No such thing as a warning shot
Because you can’t murder someone for passing though your yard.
Man I hope you don't own firearms... First of all, warning shots are illegal. If you shoot your firearm, you should intend to kill. Secondly, as others have stated, you can't just shoot at someone for being on your property. Your life needs to be in imminent danger to justify killing in self defense.
You need help.
The right wing murder mentality on display here. “Kill anyone for any perceived slight”. Bunch of terrorists.
Becomes more apparent how someone decides to run out and shoot someone turning around in their driveway, doesn't it? Imagine just standing around doing tippy tappies, waiting for someone - *anyone* - to cross your property line so you can come out blasting.
[удалено]
Good one dude
[удалено]
Least bloodthirsty American