Reply to Fairfax County Double Murder

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "Fairfax County Double Murder"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The common theme seems to be that she hasn't made a sensical decision throughout the entire process.

Also, having an affair isn't a crime. So regardless of any "conspiracy" if they had hooked up before, it's not unreasonable to believe that they would hook up after. It doesn't require a conspiracy to see that. [/quote]

She’s not on trial because she hooked up with BB. She’s on trial because she killed a man and it is hard to see how it’s justified.

She wakes up in the middle of the night and JR is in her room?  Sure.

She saves CB’s life and CB confirms that without the Au pair’s action, she would’ve died, because JR had BB in a chokehold or something?  Sure.

But here, the Au pair sought out the situation and then - even though BB was armed and had already shot JR - she runs to a safe, grabs another gun and fatally shoots JR?  And ends up not “saving” anyone’s life anyway?  She made a dumb decision to use lethal force and she should go to prison for it. [/quote]

Or, the guy who had apparently just stabbed a woman in the neck was moving towards her and her husband who was focused on rendering aide.[/quote]

Sure, anything is possible. So walk us through this. JR has been shot and - per an expert - blinded. Blood is pouring down his face. The Au pair comes to the room to save the day. In your scenario, he “moves toward her.”  Does he follow her as she runs from the doorway to the gun safe?  He can’t see, so is he following her scent?  I guess there’d be a trail of blood backing this up?[/quote]

I think it was established JR was on the ground when shot by the au pair.[/quote]
He’s shot, but not stopped in that he is clearly still alive. The husband can’t both cover him and tend to his bleeding wife. He tells the au pair to get his gun from the safe, cover the guy, and [b]if he so much as moves, to shoot him[/b]. She gets the gun, husband focuses on wife, guy moves (who knows for what purpose) and she shoots.[/quote]

The law does not allow you to shoot and kill someone just because they "move."  That may be what your imaginary set up is... but that's not how the law works.  Even if we assume that JR was a threat to CB prior to JR being shot IN THE HEAD... you don't get to shoot him again just to make sure he's dead.

Once JR is no longer a threat (not that he ever was... but just giving the shooters the benefit of the doubt for arguments sake), any additional bullets shot into his body = 2nd degree murder (or 1st degree murder).   BB's instructions do NOT change that.   AP was responsible for making her own decisions about when it was necessary to stop a threat.  The jury will consider what a "reasonable person" in AP's position would think about JR being a threat to anyone's safety.  If, after being SHOT IN THE HEAD, the injured JR moves about in pain, perhaps trying to get away from the person holding a knife or the person who shot him already -- those acts of moving do NOT justify AP's decision to shoot him again.  She's going to have to establish that she REASONABLY believed JR was still a thread to her after he was shot in the head and on the ground.  That is going to be a very high burden.

If AP simply says that BB told her to shoot JR if he moves, and JR then moved in some small way-- AP is guilty of 2nd degree murder.   JR is not a spider that you can keep stepping on until you are sure it is dead.  JR is a person -- who is entitled to keep living, so long as he is not creating an IMMINENT threat to the life of someone else.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics