Posted on 03/04/2017 6:53:07 AM PST by mac_truck
A mannequin, covered with blankets and positioned to resemble a homeless person sleeping on the sidewalk, was attacked with a hammer near downtown Las Vegas.
The suspect told Las Vegas police he knew it wasn’t a human.
But homicide detectives who staged the mannequin scene say they believe 30-year-old Shane Schindler was out to kill.
Two homeless men were bludgeoned to death within a month’s time earlier this year, and Schindler’s arrest report indicates that he attacked the police decoy in a similar fashion.
Schindler appeared in court this week, facing one count of carrying a concealed weapon.
(Excerpt) Read more at reviewjournal.com ...
Very disturbing. Nice work, police!
A dummy with a well placed anti personel mine could have shortened the legal process.
Does the hammer guy know that the ACLU favors concealed carry for the crazy?
Agree, although I’d hate to think that this guy escapes a murder charge because he attacked a mannequin.
Equally disturbing is that carrying a hammer in a bag apparently equates to carrying a concealed weapon.
I would imagine that charge has to be tied to intent shown by use of the hammer.
Yes. Very well done. Had to be some powerful adrenalin flowing as the cops watched this evil perp approach. I mean, pulling a hammer to crush a homeless man’s skull? Real. real sick. I am curious how they posed the mannequin after reading this:
“The decoy mannequin was staged in a manner which would have made it impossible for Schindler to have determined the mannequin was not a human being before he struck. Schindler swung the hammer using both arms to generate
I would hate to think one could be convicted for murdering a mannequin.
No, but attempted murder, maybe. If a “reasonable man would reasonably believe” that the mannequin was actually a human, but, nevertheless, the accused smashed it with a hammer using both hands ...
Not even ...
According to FBI statistics, there are more homicides committed each year using hammers, than by either shotguns or rifles.
I suspect any semi-competent defense lawyer could establish reasonable doubt with respect to intent: “My client approached the mannequin. He saw that it was clearly a mannequin, and not a person. Assuming that it was there as some kind of prank, he decided to prank the pranksters, and took a hammer he happened to have on him, and pretended to ‘kill’ the obviously fake ‘person’. He had the hammer for perfectly normal reasons, and knew perfectly well that the mannequin was fake. Prosecutors — prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he thought this was a man, not a mannequin. Good luck, prosecutors. You will need it.”
Yea, not sure how they can get the conviction they are looking for.
A reasonable man...
...not reasonable & must prove beyond reasonable doubt
They now have a suspect linked to two murders by his proximity & actions...no one cares if he’s guilty of murdering mannequins if they indict him for double homicide
Makes sense.
Bingo.
It isn’t about the mannequin. It’s about the other homicides.
Wow, I didn’t know that.
Prosecutors — prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he thought this was a man, not a mannequin. Good luck, prosecutors. You will need it.”
....................................................
I believe the term you are looking for is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.