They did, but the prosecutor didn't argue that to the jury.
As a lawyer, I can tell you that it's very tough to argue two inconsistent things to a jury: "The defendant's dog didn't bite the plaintiff, but if he did, the plaintiff provoked him." You basically have to pick one story and push it, and the prosecutor here picked the wrong one-- a homeless guy owned a $1,000 handgun and intentionally shot someone he didn't know.
There's a lot more to the article, I could only post 300 words.
“a homeless guy owned a $1,000 handgun”
NO ONE claimed the homeless guy owned the gun. He either stole it or found it. Either way, doesn’t matter if it is a $150 El Cheapo gun or a $3500 target pistol. Ordinary people know it is dangerous to pull the trigger.
One question I have. Is it true that if a person commits a felony that results in death, isn’t that first degree murder?
A follow up to a yes then would be, if he was commiting a felony just having a gun in his possession, why was first degree murder an over reach?
“They did, but the prosecutor didn’t argue that to the jury.”
must have been in their info somewhere. if they truly deliberated on all the info of the case (not just what the prosecutor pushed for) then they had that option which clearly fit the situation yet they chose not to pick it as the verdict.
jury’s are to do their job, not just vote whether others in the court room did their best job.
The illegal homeless urban commando possessed a $1,000 handgun. That does not mean he bought it.
Many illicit drug offenders have been known to use weapons to retain control of their business. His drug convictions are not proof of nonviolence.
The libertarian tenant, "let peaceful people cross borders freely" intentionally attempts to obscure the fact that non peaceful people will come into the country unchallenged.