Elderly woman died after carjacking near WHC in NW this afternoon, SUV crashed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you are confusing "having reasonable doubts about when the victim died" with "thinking that the criminal should go free."

I don't think Kenisha Brown should go free. I think she should be in jail. She carjacked someone. Unfortunately, judges in DC are soft on crime and have made clear that they don't jail people for carjacking.

Now, do I think murder is a horrible crime? Yes. Do I think someone convicted of a murder should face the strongest consequence possible? Also yes.

Do I think it's fair to say that there's some reasonable doubt that Kenisha Brown killed this woman? Again, yes.

She is not a victim and we don't need to be "compassionate" to her mental health as some would suggest. (hell, her mental health is fine, she didn't have a psychiatric episode SHE WAS ON DRUGS) But it is not an automatic that she is the reason someone died, when that someone was being driven to the hospital for a medical emergency.

Make sense?

So, people in hospital parking lots are fair game if you want to murder someone because they might be experiencing a medical issue? Noted.

Yes! That's literally exactly what I said!

/s

Jokes aside, that is not at all what I said and you know it. I said it will be hard to prove that the woman died because of the crash. Now, if a perfectly healthy person not experiencing a medical emergency was carjacked, and the autopsy later concluded they had died as the result of the crash, yes, that would be fairly easy to prove.

You do get that this woman has likely had an autopsy done and if the murder charge was dropped, they couldn't conclude it was homicide?

That being said I do hope this little animal gets the book thrown at her. She may not have murdered this particular woman, but mark my words, if we let her out she will never learn her lesson and go on to murder someone else.

So, if I push someone off a building and they have a heart attack on the way down, I have no responsibility for the death? The woman was denied access to medical treatment. You seem to be saying that this is OK. Even if that someone dies from that denied access. I am guessing you work for the health insurance industry.

No. If you push someone off a building and they have a heart attack on the way down, you could make the argument that the stress of being pushed off a building caused the heart attack and you should be held criminally responsible for that!

Agree that if the woman was not dead, she was denied access to medical treatment when she was carjacked. It will be difficult to prove when she died though.

You seem really dense.

You are claiming the daughter was driving around a corpse?

The decedent died before Kayla ever took the car. For that reason she cannot be guilty of murder or kidnapping. You can’t murder a dead person. Even the US Attorney acknowledged this. That’s why they dropped the murder and kidnapping charge.

They have done a full autopsy yet. The cause of death remains unknown, only that there weren't visible signs of physical trauma. But things like a brain bleed, spinal injury, etc may not be discovered till a full autopsy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm probably the only person on this thread who has actually worked inpatient psych at a **DC hospital**

Everyone listen up: because there aren't enough beds in DC, ever, the threshold for actually holding someone in practice is impossible to meet. Very easy to 1. confirm there are no beds in your hospital, then 2. check the system and confirm there are no beds at this moment in neighboring DC hospital then 3. have the on call psych do a consult and conclude that a hold is not warranted then 4. have the person hang around the ED with a 1:1 sitter for a while, in the event a bed opens up somewhere and another psych on-call consult is done.

Eventually, after making everyone's life hell while lounging on a gurney for hours ... the drugs wear off and/or the person is clear enough to state they aren't a danger to themselves or others and off they go into the world.

The multiple ppl on this thread who think that intoxicated people get a FD 12 hold just because their parents tell the ED staff they desire one are clueless.

Apparently she ran away before any of that could happen. Even the 1:1 in the ER for a while might have been beneficial.

A 1:1 in the ER isn't going to happen immediately. Hospital don't have staff just sitting around waiting to get assigned as a sitter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm probably the only person on this thread who has actually worked inpatient psych at a **DC hospital**

Everyone listen up: because there aren't enough beds in DC, ever, the threshold for actually holding someone in practice is impossible to meet. Very easy to 1. confirm there are no beds in your hospital, then 2. check the system and confirm there are no beds at this moment in neighboring DC hospital then 3. have the on call psych do a consult and conclude that a hold is not warranted then 4. have the person hang around the ED with a 1:1 sitter for a while, in the event a bed opens up somewhere and another psych on-call consult is done.

Eventually, after making everyone's life hell while lounging on a gurney for hours ... the drugs wear off and/or the person is clear enough to state they aren't a danger to themselves or others and off they go into the world.

The multiple ppl on this thread who think that intoxicated people get a FD 12 hold just because their parents tell the ED staff they desire one are clueless.

Apparently she ran away before any of that could happen. Even the 1:1 in the ER for a while might have been beneficial.

A 1:1 in the ER isn't going to happen immediately. Hospital don't have staff just sitting around waiting to get assigned as a sitter.

DP and it's unclear this person even made it past triage, let alone a provider assessment and subsequent order for 1:1 (which would/could only be based on clearly established suicidal or homicidal risk, or not just acting odd). While her subsequent actions clearly indicated she was a risk, it doesn't seem there was much evidence beforehand other than a vague description of acting erratic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you are confusing "having reasonable doubts about when the victim died" with "thinking that the criminal should go free."

I don't think Kenisha Brown should go free. I think she should be in jail. She carjacked someone. Unfortunately, judges in DC are soft on crime and have made clear that they don't jail people for carjacking.

Now, do I think murder is a horrible crime? Yes. Do I think someone convicted of a murder should face the strongest consequence possible? Also yes.

Do I think it's fair to say that there's some reasonable doubt that Kenisha Brown killed this woman? Again, yes.

She is not a victim and we don't need to be "compassionate" to her mental health as some would suggest. (hell, her mental health is fine, she didn't have a psychiatric episode SHE WAS ON DRUGS) But it is not an automatic that she is the reason someone died, when that someone was being driven to the hospital for a medical emergency.

Make sense?

So, people in hospital parking lots are fair game if you want to murder someone because they might be experiencing a medical issue? Noted.

Yes! That's literally exactly what I said!

/s

Jokes aside, that is not at all what I said and you know it. I said it will be hard to prove that the woman died because of the crash. Now, if a perfectly healthy person not experiencing a medical emergency was carjacked, and the autopsy later concluded they had died as the result of the crash, yes, that would be fairly easy to prove.

You do get that this woman has likely had an autopsy done and if the murder charge was dropped, they couldn't conclude it was homicide?

That being said I do hope this little animal gets the book thrown at her. She may not have murdered this particular woman, but mark my words, if we let her out she will never learn her lesson and go on to murder someone else.

So, if I push someone off a building and they have a heart attack on the way down, I have no responsibility for the death? The woman was denied access to medical treatment. You seem to be saying that this is OK. Even if that someone dies from that denied access. I am guessing you work for the health insurance industry.

No. If you push someone off a building and they have a heart attack on the way down, you could make the argument that the stress of being pushed off a building caused the heart attack and you should be held criminally responsible for that!

Agree that if the woman was not dead, she was denied access to medical treatment when she was carjacked. It will be difficult to prove when she died though.

You seem really dense.

You are claiming the daughter was driving around a corpse?

The decedent died before Kayla ever took the car. For that reason she cannot be guilty of murder or kidnapping. You can’t murder a dead person. Even the US Attorney acknowledged this. That’s why they dropped the murder and kidnapping charge.

there’s zero proof of that

You clearly don't understand how criminal law works. Kayla doesn't have to prove that. The US Attorney has to prove that's NOT true. They clearly realized that they can't do that and that's why they lowered the charges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you are confusing "having reasonable doubts about when the victim died" with "thinking that the criminal should go free."

I don't think Kenisha Brown should go free. I think she should be in jail. She carjacked someone. Unfortunately, judges in DC are soft on crime and have made clear that they don't jail people for carjacking.

Now, do I think murder is a horrible crime? Yes. Do I think someone convicted of a murder should face the strongest consequence possible? Also yes.

Do I think it's fair to say that there's some reasonable doubt that Kenisha Brown killed this woman? Again, yes.

She is not a victim and we don't need to be "compassionate" to her mental health as some would suggest. (hell, her mental health is fine, she didn't have a psychiatric episode SHE WAS ON DRUGS) But it is not an automatic that she is the reason someone died, when that someone was being driven to the hospital for a medical emergency.

Make sense?

So, people in hospital parking lots are fair game if you want to murder someone because they might be experiencing a medical issue? Noted.

Yes! That's literally exactly what I said!

/s

Jokes aside, that is not at all what I said and you know it. I said it will be hard to prove that the woman died because of the crash. Now, if a perfectly healthy person not experiencing a medical emergency was carjacked, and the autopsy later concluded they had died as the result of the crash, yes, that would be fairly easy to prove.

You do get that this woman has likely had an autopsy done and if the murder charge was dropped, they couldn't conclude it was homicide?

That being said I do hope this little animal gets the book thrown at her. She may not have murdered this particular woman, but mark my words, if we let her out she will never learn her lesson and go on to murder someone else.

So, if I push someone off a building and they have a heart attack on the way down, I have no responsibility for the death? The woman was denied access to medical treatment. You seem to be saying that this is OK. Even if that someone dies from that denied access. I am guessing you work for the health insurance industry.

No. If you push someone off a building and they have a heart attack on the way down, you could make the argument that the stress of being pushed off a building caused the heart attack and you should be held criminally responsible for that!

Agree that if the woman was not dead, she was denied access to medical treatment when she was carjacked. It will be difficult to prove when she died though.

You seem really dense.

You are claiming the daughter was driving around a corpse?

The decedent died before Kayla ever took the car. For that reason she cannot be guilty of murder or kidnapping. You can’t murder a dead person. Even the US Attorney acknowledged this. That’s why they dropped the murder and kidnapping charge.

there’s zero proof of that

You clearly don't understand how criminal law works. Kayla doesn't have to prove that. The US Attorney has to prove that's NOT true. They clearly realized that they can't do that and that's why they lowered the charges.

the proof is that the woman was dead in the car that Kayla carjacked and subsequently crashed. I would love to see her public defenders put on the case: “actually ladies and gentlemen of the jury, she just stole a car with a dead woman inside of it.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you are confusing "having reasonable doubts about when the victim died" with "thinking that the criminal should go free."

I don't think Kenisha Brown should go free. I think she should be in jail. She carjacked someone. Unfortunately, judges in DC are soft on crime and have made clear that they don't jail people for carjacking.

Now, do I think murder is a horrible crime? Yes. Do I think someone convicted of a murder should face the strongest consequence possible? Also yes.

Do I think it's fair to say that there's some reasonable doubt that Kenisha Brown killed this woman? Again, yes.

She is not a victim and we don't need to be "compassionate" to her mental health as some would suggest. (hell, her mental health is fine, she didn't have a psychiatric episode SHE WAS ON DRUGS) But it is not an automatic that she is the reason someone died, when that someone was being driven to the hospital for a medical emergency.

Make sense?

So, people in hospital parking lots are fair game if you want to murder someone because they might be experiencing a medical issue? Noted.

Yes! That's literally exactly what I said!

/s

Jokes aside, that is not at all what I said and you know it. I said it will be hard to prove that the woman died because of the crash. Now, if a perfectly healthy person not experiencing a medical emergency was carjacked, and the autopsy later concluded they had died as the result of the crash, yes, that would be fairly easy to prove.

You do get that this woman has likely had an autopsy done and if the murder charge was dropped, they couldn't conclude it was homicide?

That being said I do hope this little animal gets the book thrown at her. She may not have murdered this particular woman, but mark my words, if we let her out she will never learn her lesson and go on to murder someone else.

So, if I push someone off a building and they have a heart attack on the way down, I have no responsibility for the death? The woman was denied access to medical treatment. You seem to be saying that this is OK. Even if that someone dies from that denied access. I am guessing you work for the health insurance industry.

No. If you push someone off a building and they have a heart attack on the way down, you could make the argument that the stress of being pushed off a building caused the heart attack and you should be held criminally responsible for that!

Agree that if the woman was not dead, she was denied access to medical treatment when she was carjacked. It will be difficult to prove when she died though.

You seem really dense.

You are claiming the daughter was driving around a corpse?

The decedent died before Kayla ever took the car. For that reason she cannot be guilty of murder or kidnapping. You can’t murder a dead person. Even the US Attorney acknowledged this. That’s why they dropped the murder and kidnapping charge.

They have done a full autopsy yet. The cause of death remains unknown, only that there weren't visible signs of physical trauma. But things like a brain bleed, spinal injury, etc may not be discovered till a full autopsy.

Don't worry; posters on this board will suspect elder abuse from the daughter as the most likely cause of any injuries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you are confusing "having reasonable doubts about when the victim died" with "thinking that the criminal should go free."

I don't think Kenisha Brown should go free. I think she should be in jail. She carjacked someone. Unfortunately, judges in DC are soft on crime and have made clear that they don't jail people for carjacking.

Now, do I think murder is a horrible crime? Yes. Do I think someone convicted of a murder should face the strongest consequence possible? Also yes.

Do I think it's fair to say that there's some reasonable doubt that Kenisha Brown killed this woman? Again, yes.

She is not a victim and we don't need to be "compassionate" to her mental health as some would suggest. (hell, her mental health is fine, she didn't have a psychiatric episode SHE WAS ON DRUGS) But it is not an automatic that she is the reason someone died, when that someone was being driven to the hospital for a medical emergency.

Make sense?

So, people in hospital parking lots are fair game if you want to murder someone because they might be experiencing a medical issue? Noted.

Yes! That's literally exactly what I said!

/s

Jokes aside, that is not at all what I said and you know it. I said it will be hard to prove that the woman died because of the crash. Now, if a perfectly healthy person not experiencing a medical emergency was carjacked, and the autopsy later concluded they had died as the result of the crash, yes, that would be fairly easy to prove.

You do get that this woman has likely had an autopsy done and if the murder charge was dropped, they couldn't conclude it was homicide?

That being said I do hope this little animal gets the book thrown at her. She may not have murdered this particular woman, but mark my words, if we let her out she will never learn her lesson and go on to murder someone else.

So, if I push someone off a building and they have a heart attack on the way down, I have no responsibility for the death? The woman was denied access to medical treatment. You seem to be saying that this is OK. Even if that someone dies from that denied access. I am guessing you work for the health insurance industry.

No. If you push someone off a building and they have a heart attack on the way down, you could make the argument that the stress of being pushed off a building caused the heart attack and you should be held criminally responsible for that!

Agree that if the woman was not dead, she was denied access to medical treatment when she was carjacked. It will be difficult to prove when she died though.

You seem really dense.

You are claiming the daughter was driving around a corpse?

The decedent died before Kayla ever took the car. For that reason she cannot be guilty of murder or kidnapping. You can’t murder a dead person. Even the US Attorney acknowledged this. That’s why they dropped the murder and kidnapping charge.

there’s zero proof of that

You clearly don't understand how criminal law works. Kayla doesn't have to prove that. The US Attorney has to prove that's NOT true. They clearly realized that they can't do that and that's why they lowered the charges.

the proof is that the woman was dead in the car that Kayla carjacked and subsequently crashed. I would love to see her public defenders put on the case: “actually ladies and gentlemen of the jury, she just stole a car with a dead woman inside of it.”

She had no visible injuries and Kayla was able to walk away from the crash uninjured. She didn’t die in the crash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you are confusing "having reasonable doubts about when the victim died" with "thinking that the criminal should go free."

I don't think Kenisha Brown should go free. I think she should be in jail. She carjacked someone. Unfortunately, judges in DC are soft on crime and have made clear that they don't jail people for carjacking.

Now, do I think murder is a horrible crime? Yes. Do I think someone convicted of a murder should face the strongest consequence possible? Also yes.

Do I think it's fair to say that there's some reasonable doubt that Kenisha Brown killed this woman? Again, yes.

She is not a victim and we don't need to be "compassionate" to her mental health as some would suggest. (hell, her mental health is fine, she didn't have a psychiatric episode SHE WAS ON DRUGS) But it is not an automatic that she is the reason someone died, when that someone was being driven to the hospital for a medical emergency.

Make sense?

So, people in hospital parking lots are fair game if you want to murder someone because they might be experiencing a medical issue? Noted.

Yes! That's literally exactly what I said!

/s

Jokes aside, that is not at all what I said and you know it. I said it will be hard to prove that the woman died because of the crash. Now, if a perfectly healthy person not experiencing a medical emergency was carjacked, and the autopsy later concluded they had died as the result of the crash, yes, that would be fairly easy to prove.

You do get that this woman has likely had an autopsy done and if the murder charge was dropped, they couldn't conclude it was homicide?

That being said I do hope this little animal gets the book thrown at her. She may not have murdered this particular woman, but mark my words, if we let her out she will never learn her lesson and go on to murder someone else.

So, if I push someone off a building and they have a heart attack on the way down, I have no responsibility for the death? The woman was denied access to medical treatment. You seem to be saying that this is OK. Even if that someone dies from that denied access. I am guessing you work for the health insurance industry.

No. If you push someone off a building and they have a heart attack on the way down, you could make the argument that the stress of being pushed off a building caused the heart attack and you should be held criminally responsible for that!

Agree that if the woman was not dead, she was denied access to medical treatment when she was carjacked. It will be difficult to prove when she died though.

You seem really dense.

You are claiming the daughter was driving around a corpse?

The decedent died before Kayla ever took the car. For that reason she cannot be guilty of murder or kidnapping. You can’t murder a dead person. Even the US Attorney acknowledged this. That’s why they dropped the murder and kidnapping charge.

there’s zero proof of that

You clearly don't understand how criminal law works. Kayla doesn't have to prove that. The US Attorney has to prove that's NOT true. They clearly realized that they can't do that and that's why they lowered the charges.

the proof is that the woman was dead in the car that Kayla carjacked and subsequently crashed. I would love to see her public defenders put on the case: “actually ladies and gentlemen of the jury, she just stole a car with a dead woman inside of it.”

She had no visible injuries and Kayla was able to walk away from the crash uninjured. She didn’t die in the crash.

Yeah make that argument to the jury! It will be amusing to argue “your honor she was already dead!” super sympathetic to carjack a dead body, crash the car, then run away. Especially since Kayla would have had no way to know she was actually dead. Even if there’s evidence that the crash didn’t kill her, where’s the evidence that she was dead before Kayla took the car? If she was having a stroke or heart attack, Kayla removed her from life-saving care.

[Anonymous]

“Gentlement of the jury, Ms Brown opened the door and took Ms Gaines’ vital signs. Seeing that Ms Gaines was dead, Ms Brown proceeded to take the car on a simple joy ride.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you are confusing "having reasonable doubts about when the victim died" with "thinking that the criminal should go free."

I don't think Kenisha Brown should go free. I think she should be in jail. She carjacked someone. Unfortunately, judges in DC are soft on crime and have made clear that they don't jail people for carjacking.

Now, do I think murder is a horrible crime? Yes. Do I think someone convicted of a murder should face the strongest consequence possible? Also yes.

Do I think it's fair to say that there's some reasonable doubt that Kenisha Brown killed this woman? Again, yes.

She is not a victim and we don't need to be "compassionate" to her mental health as some would suggest. (hell, her mental health is fine, she didn't have a psychiatric episode SHE WAS ON DRUGS) But it is not an automatic that she is the reason someone died, when that someone was being driven to the hospital for a medical emergency.

Make sense?

So, people in hospital parking lots are fair game if you want to murder someone because they might be experiencing a medical issue? Noted.

Yes! That's literally exactly what I said!

/s

Jokes aside, that is not at all what I said and you know it. I said it will be hard to prove that the woman died because of the crash. Now, if a perfectly healthy person not experiencing a medical emergency was carjacked, and the autopsy later concluded they had died as the result of the crash, yes, that would be fairly easy to prove.

You do get that this woman has likely had an autopsy done and if the murder charge was dropped, they couldn't conclude it was homicide?

That being said I do hope this little animal gets the book thrown at her. She may not have murdered this particular woman, but mark my words, if we let her out she will never learn her lesson and go on to murder someone else.

So, if I push someone off a building and they have a heart attack on the way down, I have no responsibility for the death? The woman was denied access to medical treatment. You seem to be saying that this is OK. Even if that someone dies from that denied access. I am guessing you work for the health insurance industry.

No. If you push someone off a building and they have a heart attack on the way down, you could make the argument that the stress of being pushed off a building caused the heart attack and you should be held criminally responsible for that!

Agree that if the woman was not dead, she was denied access to medical treatment when she was carjacked. It will be difficult to prove when she died though.

You seem really dense.

You are claiming the daughter was driving around a corpse?

The decedent died before Kayla ever took the car. For that reason she cannot be guilty of murder or kidnapping. You can’t murder a dead person. Even the US Attorney acknowledged this. That’s why they dropped the murder and kidnapping charge.

there’s zero proof of that

You clearly don't understand how criminal law works. Kayla doesn't have to prove that. The US Attorney has to prove that's NOT true. They clearly realized that they can't do that and that's why they lowered the charges.

the proof is that the woman was dead in the car that Kayla carjacked and subsequently crashed. I would love to see her public defenders put on the case: “actually ladies and gentlemen of the jury, she just stole a car with a dead woman inside of it.”

She had no visible injuries and Kayla was able to walk away from the crash uninjured. She didn’t die in the crash.

Yeah make that argument to the jury! It will be amusing to argue “your honor she was already dead!” super sympathetic to carjack a dead body, crash the car, then run away. Especially since Kayla would have had no way to know she was actually dead. Even if there’s evidence that the crash didn’t kill her, where’s the evidence that she was dead before Kayla took the car? If she was having a stroke or heart attack, Kayla removed her from life-saving care.

I keep explaining it, but you don't get it. Kayla was driving her to a cardiac care unit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you are confusing "having reasonable doubts about when the victim died" with "thinking that the criminal should go free."

I don't think Kenisha Brown should go free. I think she should be in jail. She carjacked someone. Unfortunately, judges in DC are soft on crime and have made clear that they don't jail people for carjacking.

Now, do I think murder is a horrible crime? Yes. Do I think someone convicted of a murder should face the strongest consequence possible? Also yes.

Do I think it's fair to say that there's some reasonable doubt that Kenisha Brown killed this woman? Again, yes.

She is not a victim and we don't need to be "compassionate" to her mental health as some would suggest. (hell, her mental health is fine, she didn't have a psychiatric episode SHE WAS ON DRUGS) But it is not an automatic that she is the reason someone died, when that someone was being driven to the hospital for a medical emergency.

Make sense?

So, people in hospital parking lots are fair game if you want to murder someone because they might be experiencing a medical issue? Noted.

Yes! That's literally exactly what I said!

/s

Jokes aside, that is not at all what I said and you know it. I said it will be hard to prove that the woman died because of the crash. Now, if a perfectly healthy person not experiencing a medical emergency was carjacked, and the autopsy later concluded they had died as the result of the crash, yes, that would be fairly easy to prove.

You do get that this woman has likely had an autopsy done and if the murder charge was dropped, they couldn't conclude it was homicide?

That being said I do hope this little animal gets the book thrown at her. She may not have murdered this particular woman, but mark my words, if we let her out she will never learn her lesson and go on to murder someone else.

So, if I push someone off a building and they have a heart attack on the way down, I have no responsibility for the death? The woman was denied access to medical treatment. You seem to be saying that this is OK. Even if that someone dies from that denied access. I am guessing you work for the health insurance industry.

No. If you push someone off a building and they have a heart attack on the way down, you could make the argument that the stress of being pushed off a building caused the heart attack and you should be held criminally responsible for that!

Agree that if the woman was not dead, she was denied access to medical treatment when she was carjacked. It will be difficult to prove when she died though.

You seem really dense.

You are claiming the daughter was driving around a corpse?

The decedent died before Kayla ever took the car. For that reason she cannot be guilty of murder or kidnapping. You can’t murder a dead person. Even the US Attorney acknowledged this. That’s why they dropped the murder and kidnapping charge.

there’s zero proof of that

You clearly don't understand how criminal law works. Kayla doesn't have to prove that. The US Attorney has to prove that's NOT true. They clearly realized that they can't do that and that's why they lowered the charges.

the proof is that the woman was dead in the car that Kayla carjacked and subsequently crashed. I would love to see her public defenders put on the case: “actually ladies and gentlemen of the jury, she just stole a car with a dead woman inside of it.”

She had no visible injuries and Kayla was able to walk away from the crash uninjured. She didn’t die in the crash.

Yeah make that argument to the jury! It will be amusing to argue “your honor she was already dead!” super sympathetic to carjack a dead body, crash the car, then run away. Especially since Kayla would have had no way to know she was actually dead. Even if there’s evidence that the crash didn’t kill her, where’s the evidence that she was dead before Kayla took the car? If she was having a stroke or heart attack, Kayla removed her from life-saving care.

I keep explaining it, but you don't get it. Kayla was driving her to a cardiac care unit.

makes sense

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“Gentlement of the jury, Ms Brown opened the door and took Ms Gaines’ vital signs. Seeing that Ms Gaines was dead, Ms Brown proceeded to take the car on a simple joy ride.”

You can't murder a dead person, whether you take their vitals or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Gentlement of the jury, Ms Brown opened the door and took Ms Gaines’ vital signs. Seeing that Ms Gaines was dead, Ms Brown proceeded to take the car on a simple joy ride.”

You can't murder a dead person, whether you take their vitals or not.

Right, which Kayla’s lawyers will demonstrate by explaining how she took Ms Gaines’ vital signs prior to the carjacking, assessed that she was dead, then drove away with the body.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you are confusing "having reasonable doubts about when the victim died" with "thinking that the criminal should go free."

I don't think Kenisha Brown should go free. I think she should be in jail. She carjacked someone. Unfortunately, judges in DC are soft on crime and have made clear that they don't jail people for carjacking.

Now, do I think murder is a horrible crime? Yes. Do I think someone convicted of a murder should face the strongest consequence possible? Also yes.

Do I think it's fair to say that there's some reasonable doubt that Kenisha Brown killed this woman? Again, yes.

She is not a victim and we don't need to be "compassionate" to her mental health as some would suggest. (hell, her mental health is fine, she didn't have a psychiatric episode SHE WAS ON DRUGS) But it is not an automatic that she is the reason someone died, when that someone was being driven to the hospital for a medical emergency.

Make sense?

So, people in hospital parking lots are fair game if you want to murder someone because they might be experiencing a medical issue? Noted.

Yes! That's literally exactly what I said!

/s

Jokes aside, that is not at all what I said and you know it. I said it will be hard to prove that the woman died because of the crash. Now, if a perfectly healthy person not experiencing a medical emergency was carjacked, and the autopsy later concluded they had died as the result of the crash, yes, that would be fairly easy to prove.

You do get that this woman has likely had an autopsy done and if the murder charge was dropped, they couldn't conclude it was homicide?

That being said I do hope this little animal gets the book thrown at her. She may not have murdered this particular woman, but mark my words, if we let her out she will never learn her lesson and go on to murder someone else.

So, if I push someone off a building and they have a heart attack on the way down, I have no responsibility for the death? The woman was denied access to medical treatment. You seem to be saying that this is OK. Even if that someone dies from that denied access. I am guessing you work for the health insurance industry.

No. If you push someone off a building and they have a heart attack on the way down, you could make the argument that the stress of being pushed off a building caused the heart attack and you should be held criminally responsible for that!

Agree that if the woman was not dead, she was denied access to medical treatment when she was carjacked. It will be difficult to prove when she died though.

You seem really dense.

You are claiming the daughter was driving around a corpse?

The decedent died before Kayla ever took the car. For that reason she cannot be guilty of murder or kidnapping. You can’t murder a dead person. Even the US Attorney acknowledged this. That’s why they dropped the murder and kidnapping charge.

there’s zero proof of that

You clearly don't understand how criminal law works. Kayla doesn't have to prove that. The US Attorney has to prove that's NOT true. They clearly realized that they can't do that and that's why they lowered the charges.

the proof is that the woman was dead in the car that Kayla carjacked and subsequently crashed. I would love to see her public defenders put on the case: “actually ladies and gentlemen of the jury, she just stole a car with a dead woman inside of it.”

She had no visible injuries and Kayla was able to walk away from the crash uninjured. She didn’t die in the crash.

Kayla Kenisha’s actions were the proximate cause of death - ie, her felony of carjacking the Mazda caused the passenger inside to have a myocardial infarction. High quality compressions must start immediately to achieve ROSC in a person experiencing a lethal arrhythmia and with each passing minute that ALS isn’t performed, the likelihood resuscitation plummets.

Lifesaving treatment- compression and airway - were not initiated for 19+ minutes due to the intentional actions of Kayla Kenisha, who observed the passenger in the front seat and drove around with her rather than returning to the hospital.

Kayla Kenisha’s intentional actions were the direct and proximate cause of Ms Gaines death — REGARDLESS of whether Ms Gaines died of blunt force trauma from a collision OR hypoxia or lack of perfusion to vital organs during the 19 minutes Kayla Kenisha drove her around and did not seek medical help.

Now fuk off, clueless apologist.

[Anonymous]

Let's defund violent crime already. Too much taxpayer money is being spent on subsidizing and coddling criminal behavior and disorder. Bring back consequences.