Replies

Now that we have danced around 359 degrees, you maintain the courtroom is the only arena where this can be determined. Again, refer to the original article. There are no "if, then" scenarios or hypotheticals. It started with two guys, on their property, an armed burglar and a not guilty verdict to first degree murder charges. We can always parse this and disect this ad infinitum, particularly when looking through a lens fabricated with statutory law. This lens, in our adversarial system, bends and distorts the facts as those using this lens attempt to reconcile facts with statute.

While I do understand the courtroom may be the proper arena to make a determination of guilt or innocence, the system; arrest, booking, jail time, bonding, legal fees, time off work, is brutally burdensome to the innocent and does not work to seek the facts first. If the facts indicate there just might be a reason to think reasonable fear for one's well being was present, one would hope that the prosecutor would seek first the truth and second the inditement.

Anyone who has ever been caught up in the system knows only too well "innocent until proven guilty" is a myth. I will spare you classic examples of the court system's failings.

This brings me back to my original rhetorical question, why first degree? Not a prayer of conviction. Did the prosecutor want them to go free after giving them their spanking?

If the facts indicate there just might be a reason to think reasonable fear for one's well being was present, one would hope that the prosecutor would seek first the truth and second the inditement.

We wholeheartedly agree. So why do you presume that this wasn't the case re the prosecutor -- I do unless someone can provide me a reason to suspect otherwise.

This brings me back to my original rhetorical question, why first degree?

Depends on the facts. If the investigation preceeding the indictment surfaced evidence (and I'm just surmising here)that these guys were (a) pissed off at getting robbed, so they (b) waited, armed and ready, for the burglar to return, and then (c) finished him off --- well, that would constitute premeditated murder, albeit with sympathetic defendants.