• Wilshire@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    75
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    I don’t understand why he wasn’t charged with attempted murder. This is a bullshit defense.

    Babcock said he went outside and “began shooting at the truck” to “disable” it…

    Yes, killing the driver would do that.

    • FilterItOut@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      I’m not sure about the exact laws where the incident occurred, but in several other states that I know the law of, aggravated assault carries the exact same penalties as attempted murder. Because of the wording of the two laws, aggravated assault is much easier to prove. If you’re a prosecutor, why would you not go with the easier to prove, exact same penalty crime?

    • MxM111@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      6 months ago

      I am not a lawyer, but I suspect you would need to prove the intent to kill to call it murder, and given plausible explanation it is nearly impossible, due to presumption of innocence.

      • Stovetop@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        ·
        6 months ago

        It’s not premeditated, but I wouldn’t say it lacks intent. Aiming a gun in someone’s direction and pulling the trigger is a very deliberate, intentional act.

        As they are a gun owner and should understand the consequences, there’s no way this person could make the claim that they didn’t think shooting at someone might kill them.

        • MxM111@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Yes, shooting was intentional, but intent plausibly was not to kill. Thus, not a murder. Anyway, that’s the only theory I have of why they did not charge him with attempted murder.

          • Stovetop@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            6 months ago

            I just don’t think that argument would fly in court, though. Even if the stated “intent” is not to kill, it’s a reckless disregard of a reasonable risk of murder that the shooter is conscious of.

            If I swing a punch at someone and hit them hard enough that they suffer a traumatic brain injury and die (like that could ever happen with these spaghetti arms), I would still culpable for that death as manslaughter because it was an intentional act that carries an inherent risk of harm.

            If a cop ends up shooting a defenseless person in the torso, they shouldn’t be allowed to say “I didn’t mean to hit them, I was trying to shoot their belt off so their pants would fall and they couldn’t run away.” Likewise, if some kids are playing in the park and someone starts opening fire in their direction, you also can’t just explain it away as “I thought there were snakes in the grass, I was trying to protect them.” You bear the burden of responsibility for every bullet you shoot. Even if you miss every shot, that is still criminal negligence at best, attempted manslaughter or murder at worse.

            • MxM111@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              You are absolutely right, it would be manslaughter, not murder. Murder requires intent.