Just thought I would post this and get some opinions on this.
So the short. Lady bondsman tries to place a man under arrest who is out on bond. My understanding is he should have been free to go. Anyways he resists there is a scuffle she shoots him in the back as he is fleeing. His charges 2nd degree burglary and marijuana possession.
Pretty clear to me this lady should be in jail but she was acquitted.
Worse then this happens everyday. I know. Just want to see if I am the only one that thinks this lady should be doing time at least for manslaughter.
Fucked up story for sure. It’s hard to pass judgement because we weren’t in the jury, didn’t hear the Jury instructions, didn’t see or hear all of the evidence. The photos are odd, there is definitely a time lapse happening. The headline with it’s line about her “horrified son” reeks of bullshit, but it is a British tabloid.
She was apparently tried on first-degree murder. It appears to be pretty clearly voluntary manslaughter. A “not guilty” verdict is what a DA gets for trying to get a conviction for something that wasn’t.
That argument could certainly be made. When I said, “It…pretty clearly,” I guess I really meant, “what would probably be an easy conviction to get for…”
That wasn’t 1st degree murder. It was murder 2. I agree, when the DA gets greedy, the defendants usually get off. I would have gone for manslaughter. 10 years is better than nothing.
Isn’t it possible to have included lesser charges? Ie. charge with first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, etc. Then the jury just delivers a verdict on each charge as appropriate.
The prosecution asked for 1st degree manslaughter also be considered, but the judge denied the request, so 1st degree murder, which this was not, was the only available charge.
Yeah, but this was a criminal issue and bail bondsmen do not have the right to shoot a suspect in any event other than self defense.
Double-jeopardy being involved she can never be charged with this crime again…
She got away with murder.