Law Two Texas men charged with First Degree Murder after shooting man in dispute over roadside garbage -

(Watch the video first)

  • Guilty!

    Votes: 80 23.6%
  • I doubt it!

    Votes: 259 76.4%

  • Total voters
    339

Bennett Beeny

Sickest tranny in MegaCity One
kiwifarms.net
My aunt lives there, and when we visited, it was kind of just assholes everywhere. It's a pretty okay sized town, they even have a zoo, museums, but yeah it's just kind of selfish and entitled people are a large percentage of the randos we saw. My mom bought a "Keep Abilene Boring" shirt and says she gets comments on it every time she wears it.

It kind of looks like "small town America" got frozen in time in the 80s or something. It's kind of a weird place.
Yup. It should help paint the perfect image of Abilene that it's just the place all the nearby towns with even lower populations and even dumber rednecks go to get things done. Get your groceries, visit a real hospital, see the zoo, go to college, etc. No real character of its own. The most interesting stuff I got into while I was there were my personal lolcows in the town's Smash 4 community.

When your Smash community and your back alley redneck shootouts are your defining characteristics, you're fucked.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: awoo and DuckSucker

Autopsy

kiwifarms.net
When your Smash community and your back alley redneck shootouts are your defining characteristics, you're fucked.
To be fair, you can probably monetize the back alley redneck shootouts if they start cropping up on the regular. Make a show out of it, put the town on the map. Bonus points if the a couple of the shootouts happen over particularly controversial matches of Smash.

Keep in mind that the South started the war by firing on Fort Sumter and even before that the supply ship Star of the West.
  • Sumter was to be left unmanned and untouched during the negotiation process. Most pertinently: provided that no reinforcements shall be sent into those forts, and their relative military status shall remain at present. Sumter was left untouched at the time of agreement and until the situation changed.
  • The reason that such a contract was necessary in the first place was that the army was posturing aggressively and every fort they were trying to man is present on obligate southern land. Negotiation was a right for the state and it was being pursued vigorously before Anderson decided to say "fuck it" and hop to what was slated to be the most secure place on the planet, albeit an unfinished version.
  • As your source notes quite astutely, the Star of the West was intended to add fresh troops to a location on southern turf that wasn't even supposed to be occupied in the first place. They didn't have their muskets ready because they were on a pleasure cruise.
This is a point in favor of the 'states rights' argument, not against, and at all points along this process the protofeds failed in their duties and responsibilities to South Carolina.
That isn't to say that the 'states rights' argument is correct, plenty of people who have done more than cursory research with a few random undergrad discussion pages have already well and established otherwise, but rather that you probably should have stopped writing when you ran out of words.
 

Iwasamwillbe

Rational Big-Brained Deep-Thinking Philosopher
kiwifarms.net
That isn't to say that the 'states rights' argument is correct, plenty of people who have done more than cursory research with a few random undergrad discussion pages have already well and established otherwise, but rather that you probably should have stopped writing when you ran out of words.
My bad. I should have read the sources on the firings more clearly. I apologize.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: frozenrunner

Spooky

kiwifarms.net
You can't just carry a gun in everywhere. In NYC if you even have a gun on your person they will slap cuffs on your ass. Showing up armed very much changes the situation if the other party wasn't already armed. There are levels of escalating force, and proportionality is still a thing. If a guy threatens to punch you in the face, you will get shit hitting you if you suddenly pull out a gun and start waving it around. Now, if you have five guys trying to jump you at once, then you are allowed to meet force with force and pulling a gun in that situation is justified. If you are on your own property, the situation is different, slightly, Castle doctrine and all that, but its still uncertain whether this was or was not private or public property. The bat factors in, but this is highly dependent on when it was introduced into the confrontation. If the brother brought the bat out after the guns were produced, then orange guy would be reacting force with force. If the father-son duo brought the guns out to intimidate him without any visible threat to their life or any weapon produced by the other party, that's a crime. You can't just wave guns a people, even if you get into an argument.
Walking around with a gun is needless to say different in NYC than it is in Texas, but I am no expert on Texas gun laws. Keep in mind Texas has no duty to retreat, even on public property that you have a right to be on. You absolutely can draw a gun on someone who legitimately threatens to hit you so long as you have not illegally provoked them. You absolutely should fire on someone who lunges at you who you believe has the intent to hurt you even with no weapons. Humans are a lot more deadly without weapons than people like to think and a lot more delicate than in hollywood movies.
 

The Demon Pimp of Razgriz

Still Pimpin
kiwifarms.net
Walking around with a gun is needless to say different in NYC than it is in Texas, but I am no expert on Texas gun laws. Keep in mind Texas has no duty to retreat, even on public property that you have a right to be on. You absolutely can draw a gun on someone who legitimately threatens to hit you so long as you have not illegally provoked them. You absolutely should fire on someone who lunges at you who you believe has the intent to hurt you even with no weapons. Humans are a lot more deadly without weapons than people like to think and a lot more delicate than in hollywood movies.
Even stand your ground laws aren't a license to just walk around brandishing a gun, even in Texas. Stand your Ground only means you have no duty to retreat, but it doesn't give you carte blanche to act. If the gun is drawn prior to a threat presenting itself, then stand your ground doesn't apply. In the video, orange guy said several times "I'm going to kill you", but by this time, guns had already been drawn, and there is no indication that he said this prior to said guns being drawn; in fact his outburst appear to be in response to the guns being drawn (notably, the gun wielding fat father also said "Back off, or I'm going to kill you").

Conversely, in the case of the father who was shot in Florida by an older man over a parking spot (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/florida-s-stand-your-ground-law-under-scrutiny-after-father-n893646), the older man who fired his gun was attacked by the younger father first (pushed down to the ground to be more specific) in response to an argument he was having with said father's girlfriend, and only brought out (and fired) his gun afterward; he wasn't brandishing the gun beforehand or threatening harm. But even in this situation, the sheriff who decided not to press charges was bothered by applying the law in this situation, and had to pause over whether or not the older man truly felt he was in danger and responded appropriately as their was "pause" between when he was pushed down and when he shot the father.

The issue here is we don't know what actions preceded the others; the threats or the brandishing of the guns. In the Florida case, the old man only brought out his gun after he was attacked; but here, if the rednecks brought out their guns initially and initiated the altercation themselves, then orange guy is the one who does not have a duty to retreat from the situation. That's the issue here; we only have part of the facts, not all of them.
 

The Demon Pimp of Razgriz

Still Pimpin
kiwifarms.net
He might not have had the duty, but if he had half a brain (and that's all he has now), he should have known better than to act how he did with two guns drawn.
Oh I don't disagree. I see someone walking towards me, I withdraw in the opposite direction. I don't care about "Stand your ground"; I maybe right, but I don't want to be "dead right".
 

Bennett Beeny

Sickest tranny in MegaCity One
kiwifarms.net
To be fair, you can probably monetize the back alley redneck shootouts if they start cropping up on the regular. Make a show out of it, put the town on the map. Bonus points if the a couple of the shootouts happen over particularly controversial matches of Smash.
I'd sit through EVO if Redneck Rampage was the main event.
 

Zaragoza

Love Saw It
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
/pol/ made a thread making a alternate what if scenario if the bat man did the killing.

>Like a bat out of Hell.


Police have arrested the alleged killer, 37-year-old Aaron Howard who has been charged with murder in the death of 67-year-old John Miller.

It began, police say, as a dispute among neighbors in Abilene, Tex. Two families argued about where to dump trash in an adjacent alleyway. Insults escalated to threats, culminating in a father who was allegedly beaten to death with a baseball bat in front of his son by a man who lived next door in an encounter captured on camera.

The Sept. 1 standoff between the neighbors, which ended in the fatal bashing, was the final argument in a days-long feud over trash disposal, said Abilene Police Chief Stan Standridge, speaking at a news conference about an hour after the incident.

“It’s been going on for a couple days, and it culminated in today’s violence,” Standridge said.
Howard was killed in front of his son, 31-year-old Michael Miller, who could do little more then watch as his father was bludgeoned to death. The encounter was captured on the cellphone of Howard's wife. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram published the footage on Thursday, which gives a rare glimpse into a deadly dispute and sheds new light on a weeks-old killing.

Reached by phone, the Howard's declined to discuss the incident.

The video, at a little over two and a half minutes unedited, begins with the Millers, both unarmed, staring Howard down, a flipped twin mattress between them. That mattress, Michael told the Star-Telegram, was the conflict’s catalyst.

Howard had thrown the mattress in the dumpster a couple days earlier, he said. But on Sept. 1, they saw the mattress back on their property. So Howard moved it back to the dumpster. Michael said Howard’s nieces, nephews and brothers were with them, too. He told the paper that he saw his father, John Miller, walk to the dumpster, pull the mattress out and toss it back on Howard’s property.

That’s when, Michael said, Howard and Miller started shouting at each other and Aaron Howard pulled a baseball bat out of his pickup, he said, at which point, he arrived to support his father. At this point, Howard's wife started recording the altercation on her phone.
“Oh yeah, you’re going to jail,” Miller Senior can be heard saying in the video.

“Nah I’m not,” Howard replies. He’s holding his baseball bat at his side.
“Back off ... If you come closer to me, I’m gonna call the police,” John Miller says calmly.

“Hey, you hear him say he’s gonna call the cops on me?” Howards asks wife, before turning back to John Miller.
The men begin trading insults, their voices get louder. Howard tells the Millers, “You’re dead. I promise you, you’re both dead . . . I’m gonna kill you.”

Michael Miller then interrupts and advises, “If you’re gonna show this video to the cops, you might as well stop yelling that you’re gonna kill us.”

Howard responds that he doesn’t care and repeats his threat.

“If you come within three foot of me, I’m gonna call the police,” John Miller says.

“You’re not going to call the police on my husband,” Howard's wife responds.

A couple seconds later, a thud can be heard and we briefly see Aaron Howard launch the baseball bat at John Miller, striking him on the right side of his head, and the camera moves wildly. Then John Miller is seen falling to the ground with blood gushing from his head. It's unclear if he is still conscious or not. At this point, with his son Michael pleading with the man to stop, but unable to do little more then watch as Aaron Howard retrieves the baseball bat and then proceeds to viciously strike the motionless John Miller laying in the dirt approximately five times, directly on the back of Mr Miller's head.

“John? John? No! No!” Michael screams.

John Miller had been struck several times, said Standridge, the police chief. At the news conference, Standridge didn’t disclose where on his body Miller has been struck, but said he died after being transported to the hospital.

The investigation is ongoing, the chief said then.

On Thursday, Aaron Howard said he didn't want to talk about that day or the charges against him.

“I really don’t have a comment one way or the other,” Aaron Howard told The Washington Post. “This is something that I consider a private matter between me and the state of Texas.”

Mr Howard was booked into Taylor County Jail on murder charges, but was released ahead of his court date after he posted a $25,000 bail, the Star-Telegram reported.

Michael still lives in Abilene, he told the newspaper.

But not in the house next to the Howard's.

The spokesperson for the National Bat Association declined to comment on the specific nature of the issue but also reinforced people's right to bear bats, while the debate at a national levels rages on over the legalities of bats in general and whether common sense bat reform needs to be further examined.
 

stupidpieceofshit

Halloween in January is better.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
You can't just carry a gun in everywhere. In NYC if you even have a gun on your person they will slap cuffs on your ass. Showing up armed very much changes the situation if the other party wasn't already armed. There are levels of escalating force, and proportionality is still a thing. If a guy threatens to punch you in the face, you will get shit hitting you if you suddenly pull out a gun and start waving it around. Now, if you have five guys trying to jump you at once, then you are allowed to meet force with force and pulling a gun in that situation is justified. If you are on your own property, the situation is different, slightly, Castle doctrine and all that, but its still uncertain whether this was or was not private or public property. The bat factors in, but this is highly dependent on when it was introduced into the confrontation. If the brother brought the bat out after the guns were produced, then orange guy would be reacting force with force. If the father-son duo brought the guns out to intimidate him without any visible threat to their life or any weapon produced by the other party, that's a crime. You can't just wave guns a people, even if you get into an argument.
Texas is not NYC.
The DA is a moron to charge them with murder it most likely wont stick with a jury with what has been presented, manslaughter maybe but still kind of iffy.

There is no time line of events, did Orange shirt have the bat first then the two get their guns? Or did the guns come first? Every one is assuming the guns came first but I can't find any evidence or testimony to that.

Orange Shirt has a history of violent outbursts, his brother (Who according to some provided the bat) and his (possible) wife did nothing to attempt to deescalate it, and escalated it by egging Orange Shirt (and the gun men) on in the case of the wife, and providing the bat in the case of the brother (if he did). Both should have worked on getting Orange Shirt the fuck out of there.

The wife only ever uses her camera to show the gun men, which conveniently leaves the actions of Orange Shirt (who once again has a history of violent outbursts) out of frame.

The wife according to the OP article never gave the video to the police, the DA never saw the video until the media asked him about it. If the wife didn't hand off something she KNEW was evidence (just going off of what was said in the video, and well the whole point of the video) that seems to be she thought it would only harm the case against the gunmen meaning Orange Shirt most likely acted first such as he charged with the bat at them, unprovoked (i.e. they didn't aim their guns at him until after he started the charge)

If this was a civil suit and I was the judge with the evidence provided I'd find the gunmen at MOST 50% at fault (and that is being extremely generous to Orange Shirt's family), as the actions of the brother and wife escalated the events further and they knew has a history of violence.

In the criminal court if I was on the jury with the evidence provided, I'd still would stick with non-guilty as there is way too much doubt in my mind about what happened off camera (both pre recording and during) and the lack of a time line to have it be "beyond a reasonable doubt" for a criminal conviction.
 

TiggerNits

Yankee vampire living off the blood of the poor
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Texas is not NYC.
The DA is a moron to charge them with murder it most likely wont stick with a jury with what has been presented, manslaughter maybe but still kind of iffy.


In the criminal court if I was on the jury with the evidence provided, I'd still would stick with non-guilty as there is way too much doubt in my mind about what happened off camera (both pre recording and during) and the lack of a time line to have it be "beyond a reasonable doubt" for a criminal conviction.

The biggest thing to remember too is that Orange Shirt's widow's attorney released this to the press/youtube first n what s most likely an attempt to get the shirtless duo tried int he court of public opinion BEFORE the trial could have a chance to set. This is a MASSIVE fuck up on his part because he just ensured they won't be able to get a local jury as it's now big news and the people they'll have to now go for will be in the outer reaches of their own county, which attracts a certain type of person who will probably be pretty cool with shooting an asshole dumping trash on their scrub land. It won't be any shock if there's already a few inquiries coming from the Texas bar on this subject, because attorneys are heavily discouraged from doing this kind of shit. I'm pretty sure the county attorney's office is already trying to get the state's superior courts to take it off their hands and let them stall the trial until one side gets sick and either drops charges or pleas to a nothing-burger like $1000 in fines and 8 weeks house arrest
 

stupidpieceofshit

Halloween in January is better.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
The biggest thing to remember too is that Orange Shirt's widow's attorney released this to the press/youtube first n what s most likely an attempt to get the shirtless duo tried int he court of public opinion BEFORE the trial could have a chance to set. This is a MASSIVE fuck up on his part because he just ensured they won't be able to get a local jury as it's now big news and the people they'll have to now go for will be in the outer reaches of their own county, which attracts a certain type of person who will probably be pretty cool with shooting an asshole dumping trash on their scrub land. It won't be any shock if there's already a few inquiries coming from the Texas bar on this subject, because attorneys are heavily discouraged from doing this kind of shit. I'm pretty sure the county attorney's office is already trying to get the state's superior courts to take it off their hands and let them stall the trial until one side gets sick and either drops charges or pleas to a nothing-burger like $1000 in fines and 8 weeks house arrest
Is there a source that her attorney released it to the press?
I saw nothing on that and assumed she released it on her own (which as you said is a bad thing to do).
If her attorney did it....ooh boy he done fucked it up.
 

The Demon Pimp of Razgriz

Still Pimpin
kiwifarms.net
Texas is not NYC.
The DA is a moron to charge them with murder it most likely wont stick with a jury with what has been presented, manslaughter maybe but still kind of iffy.
Not too many places are as extreme as NYC. But Texas still has gun laws that will factor in to this situation.

There is no time line of events, did Orange shirt have the bat first then the two get their guns? Or did the guns come first? Every one is assuming the guns came first but I can't find any evidence or testimony to that.
That's something for the police and the DA to investigate and prove. The police only arrested the two men for murder. Its the DA that actually decides what is charged in court or even whether or not to proceed with the case at all.

Orange Shirt has a history of violent outbursts
That only matters as if the two gunmen had a previous history with orange gentleman, or if they were aware of his previous history. If the answer is neither of those things are true, then that really doesn't factor in because they didn't know any of that at the time and weren't responding to that.

The wife only ever uses her camera to show the gun men, which conveniently leaves the actions of Orange Shirt (who once again has a history of violent outbursts) out of frame.
Orange guy was pretty in frame for a good chunk of the video, at least enough to see, most importantly, that he wasn't armed through most of the engagement. The only time her bad camera work becomes a serious issue is when she turns it away from everyone immediately before the shooting starts, missing a very important linchpin in all this.

The wife according to the OP article never gave the video to the police, the DA never saw the video until the media asked him about it. If the wife didn't hand off something she KNEW was evidence (just going off of what was said in the video, and well the whole point of the video) that seems to be she thought it would only harm the case against the gunmen meaning Orange Shirt most likely acted first such as he charged with the bat at them, unprovoked (i.e. they didn't aim their guns at him until after he started the charge)
The thing is, the video doesn't show him charging the gunmen. As has been stated before, the first, and only, time we saw the bat was when it was thrown at Pops with the pistol after he fired his shots. We don't know if orange guy charged them, picked up the bat after being shot, or simply had it in his hands. He didn't have it in his hands prior to that point, that's for sure. If she thought any part of this actually damaged her boyfriend's innocence, it would be the death threats. However, this was apparently released to the public, so obviously she didn't think it damaged his case that much, or else the tape would have disappeared. Now everyone knows it exists.

If this was a civil suit and I was the judge with the evidence provided I'd find the gunmen at MOST 50% at fault (and that is being extremely generous to Orange Shirt's family), as the actions of the brother and wife escalated the events further and they knew has a history of violence.

In the criminal court if I was on the jury with the evidence provided, I'd still would stick with non-guilty as there is way too much doubt in my mind about what happened off camera (both pre recording and during) and the lack of a time line to have it be "beyond a reasonable doubt" for a criminal conviction.
Keep in mind, we are doing this with a limited set of facts. We aren't looking at the crime scene, doing autopsies, or talking to witnesses, like the girlfriend, the brother, the gunmen, or the kids who apparently had the guns waved in front of them. Going by the video, I would say you couldn't prove murder, but lesser charges maybe more likely. But DA didn't even know about the vid initially, so they are looking at other things.
 

TiggerNits

Yankee vampire living off the blood of the poor
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Is there a source that her attorney released it to the press?
I saw nothing on that and assumed she released it on her own (which as you said is a bad thing to do).
If her attorney did it....ooh boy he done fucked it up.
The original youtube channel that hosted it belongs to her attorney
 

stupidpieceofshit

Halloween in January is better.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
That's something for the police and the DA to investigate and prove. The police only arrested the two men for murder. Its the DA that actually decides what is charged in court or even whether or not to proceed with the case at all.
The DA has charged them with murder as per OPs article and others. As such that is why I called the DA a moron for charging them with murder for so little evidence to support it [assuming all evidence is revealed]. As stated above the wife's lawyer released the video to the press before the DA/police knew about it. That reflects extremely poorly on both the wife and her lawyer ("If we can't win in the court of law... lets taint the jury pool, and put it in the court of public opinion!")

That only matters as if the two gunmen had a previous history with orange gentleman, or if they were aware of his previous history. If the answer is neither of those things are true, then that really doesn't factor in because they didn't know any of that at the time and weren't responding to that.
Going off of the fact they were neighbors and the facebook post about the whole thing with the mailman I suspect the two were aware of his outbursts.

Orange guy was pretty in frame for a good chunk of the video, at least enough to see, most importantly, that he wasn't armed through most of the engagement. The only time her bad camera work becomes a serious issue is when she turns it away from everyone immediately before the shooting starts, missing a very important linchpin in all this.
He wasn't even in unedited (in terms of camera cutting/memeing) copies he is rarely if ever fully in frame and each time is only for a few seconds, almost every time he is in frame the wife moves the camera, or he moves back out of frame.

The thing is, the video doesn't show him charging the gunmen. As has been stated before, the first, and only, time we saw the bat was when it was thrown at Pops with the pistol after he fired his shots. We don't know if orange guy charged them, picked up the bat after being shot, or simply had it in his hands. He didn't have it in his hands prior to that point, that's for sure. If she thought any part of this actually damaged her boyfriend's innocence, it would be the death threats. However, this was apparently released to the public, so obviously she didn't think it damaged his case that much, or else the tape would have disappeared. Now everyone knows it exists.
She never gave it to the police when they were first investigating this, despite the fact both sides even make mention about the recordings and how she was going to use it as "evidence" for the police before the shooting. As per the OP article, the DA had to ask the press for a copy of the video. That is damning. If the video clearly didn't muddy the waters for the wife, I bet her lawyer and herself would have handed the video over to the police and if anything the police or DA would have released the video to the press after analyzing it, or just have it show up in court as evidence.

Keep in mind, we are doing this with a limited set of facts. We aren't looking at the crime scene, doing autopsies, or talking to witnesses, like the girlfriend, the brother, the gunmen, or the kids who apparently had the guns waved in front of them. Going by the video, I would say you couldn't prove murder, but lesser charges maybe more likely. But DA didn't even know about the vid initially, so they are looking at other things.
Which is why I said going off the evidence presented, there could be more that hasn't been released to the public, but I am going off what has been released, and making my judgement off of that if it was presented as evidence durning trail.
 

The Demon Pimp of Razgriz

Still Pimpin
kiwifarms.net
The DA has charged them with murder as per OPs article and others. As such that is why I called the DA a moron for charging them with murder for so little evidence to support it [assuming all evidence is revealed]. As stated above the wife's lawyer released the video to the press before the DA/police knew about it. That reflects extremely poorly on both the wife and her lawyer ("If we can't win in the court of law... lets taint the jury pool, and put it in the court of public opinion!")
If the DA has charged them, he is probably looking at other evidence we aren't seeing (maybe autopsy results show he was shot in the back). And yes, the lawyer is an idiot releasing this video to the public as it makes it harder to get a jury. He sounds incompetent.

Going off of the fact they were neighbors and the facebook post about the whole thing with the mailman I suspect the two were aware of his outbursts.
We can't assume anything, and neither can the law. Now if it can be demonstrated that there has been a prior altercations between the individuals in question, like police report that had been filed, that would be different, and stuff like that would come out in the investigation. But we can't assume knowledge of prior bad acts.

He wasn't even in unedited (in terms of camera cutting/memeing) copies he is rarely if ever fully in frame and each time is only for a few seconds, almost every time he is in frame the wife moves the camera, or he moves back out of frame.
He's in the footage enough to know a)his general position in relation to the gunmen b) the fact that he is unarmed through most of the incident. That is what is most important.

She never gave it to the police when they were first investigating this, despite the fact both sides even make mention about the recordings and how she was going to use it as "evidence" for the police before the shooting. As per the OP article, the DA had to ask the press for a copy of the video. That is damning. If the video clearly didn't muddy the waters for the wife, I bet her lawyer and herself would have handed the video over to the police and if anything the police or DA would have released the video to the press after analyzing it, or just have it show up in court as evidence.
She probably didn't even know she had to give it to the police. She doesn't sound too intelligent, so she may have been ignorant of that fact. However, apparently her lawyer was the person she gave the tape to. He should have known that the police should have gotten the tape. We know whats on the tape; everyone can see it for themselves. We know what the tape shows and what it doesn't show. If they actually thought that tape would hinder their case, they wouldn't have released it at all.

Which is why I said going off the evidence presented, there could be more that hasn't been released to the public, but I am going off what has been released, and making my judgement off of that if it was presented as evidence durning trail.
Keep in mind, trial hasn't started yet. And if you are going to base your opinions on the tape, just be mindful of the tape doesn't show, as much as what it does.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Club Sandwich

stupidpieceofshit

Halloween in January is better.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
He's in the footage enough to know a)his general position in relation to the gunmen b) the fact that he is unarmed through most of the incident. That is what is most important.
That doesn't mean he (Or his brother) didn't have the bat before hand, he could just had it leaning against something for the video, but was armed before the video started the defense could very well make a claim the bat came first and can only be disputed via two witnesses who were encouraging orange shirt to continue to act out.


She probably didn't even know she had to give it to the police. She doesn't sound too intelligent, so she may have been ignorant of that fact. However, apparently her lawyer was the person she gave the tape to. He should have known that the police should have gotten the tape. We know whats on the tape; everyone can see it for themselves. We know what the tape shows and what it doesn't show. If they actually thought that tape would hinder their case, they wouldn't have released it at all.
I doubt she "didn't know" as when it was just a verbal altercation both sides made mention of giving the tape to police.
As far as professional actions from the lawyer, its scummy and she is a third party to the criminal case and doesn't paint the client in a good light, which makes it even more questionable.
Again the defense maybe able to use the "the DA had to find this out form the media" to cast doubt on the jury's mind. This isn't like a third party (from all who were involved) who found the clip via reviewing security footage of the day.

Keep in mind, trial hasn't started yet. And if you are going to base your opinions on the tape, just be mindful of the tape doesn't show, as much as what it does.
The bolded part is why I also have doubt, because it doesn't show orange shirt's actions other then throwing the bat (via just seeing the bat fly at one of the gunmen). The defense can easily say "he charged at them with a bat, after that he still ran"

Speculation and other examples:
Say if toxicology shows Orange Shirt was on drugs it could negate the effects (pain) of say two 9mm bullets in him
If he was having a mental breakdown via IED or what ever, that could also play an effect on his ability to take multiple shots with out going down.

Some times it takes multiple shots to bring down a person.

I have used things beyond just the tape, but more importantly (in terms of the discussion as a whole) have talked about possible defenses the two will use in previous posts (such as "he charged at us with the bat") the tape doesn't show it, also it should be pointed out at the end, when you see Orange Shirt on the ground, from what I can gather it looks like he is laying on his stomach facing the gunmen which means even if he was shot in the back, it wasn't the last shot that he got hit with as he would need to turn around to face them again.

We have three or four adult witnesses, the gunmen and then the wife and brother (if he was actually there) of orange shirt both of who gave support to orange shirt's action. The defense should have an easy time casting doubt on their statements for the jury.

Other reports put Orange Shirt's "kids" (nieces/nephews?) on scene but as with the brother you dont see them or hear them, and even if so children and courts are an iffy combination that normally are used as a measure of "we have no other witnesses" due to how vulnerable children are, are seen as unreliable (in terms of phrasing vs what they actually meant, can be manipulated easily by others, etc).

I am approaching this on a "how will this play out in court" mind set, not "the gunmen are innocent". There is to me enough doubt with the given evidence to acquit under the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: awoo
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino