A man who attempted to vote twice in Virginia's 2023 election was acquitted of attempted illegal voting on Monday, following his claims in court that he had been testing the the system for voter fraud.

A man who attempted to vote twice in Virginia’s 2023 election was acquitted of attempted illegal voting on Monday, following his claims in court that he had been testing the system for voter fraud.

A Nelson County jury found 67-year-old Richardson Carter Bell Jr. not guilty of attempting to vote more than once in the same election. According to the Washington Post, Bell, a staunch supporter of former President Donald Trump, admitted voting early at his local registrar’s office only to also show up at a nearby polling place on Election Day.

  • pearsaltchocolatebar
    92·
    21 days ago

    The second one too. If you’re committing a crime and someone dies as a direct result of that crime, it’s on you.

    • Pennomi@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      21 days ago

      The hard part is that “direct” is subjective and up to interpretation of the court.

      • pearsaltchocolatebar
        3·
        21 days ago

        Depends on the state. In mine it doesn’t matter. If someone dies while you’re committing a crime, you’re responsible regardless.

    • Grimy@lemmy.world
      2·
      21 days ago

      I would say the person doing the crime himself is to blame for his own death. I think there’s a difference between an accomplice and an innocent dying.

      But its a fine line, I agree, and also depends on other variables. If I start applying it to other examples:

      If you are trespassing in a train tunnel doing graffiti, the train comes and you get out but your buddy gets hit, is it murder? I’d say not really.

      If you’re racing and your buddy hits a tree, it’s not really murder either yet he wouldn’t of been racing alone. It’s a two player sport so I’d tend to say guilty.

      Would your buddy have stayed home instead of robbing the store if you weren’t there to help him, it’s hard to say but I’d tend to go not guilty.

      It also seems a bit vindictive but like I said, I understand the sentiment.

    • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
      21·
      21 days ago

      No, because it isn’t proportional.

      A homeless man stealing a bottle of water with a security guard shooting up half the store due to bad aim as a result should not be charged for murder.

      Besides, murder should always require intent to kill. Robbery - including armed robbery - does not usually imply this.

      • pearsaltchocolatebar
        21·
        21 days ago

        Those are two separate crime scenarios. The homeless person couldn’t be charged with murder.

        • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
          2·
          21 days ago

          What if we alter the scenario slightly?

          The homeless man ran “aggressively” through the checkouts (without paying for the water bottle of course) and the police “believed” he had a knife to force his way through. Water bottles sure look like knifes sometimes after all.

          I’m fairly certain the homeless man would be charged with felony murder if the police shot bystanders (and the homeless man survived).