Yeah, but that doesn't apply if there is a slightly different federal charge. I'm pretty sure there aren't any federal murder or reckless endangerment laws that would apply to this case -- but if there were, he could be charged federally.
That only means the state can't charge him again. He could be charged federally if they wanted to. But I think only the gun charge would be a federal case. Him shooting the men isn't a federal crime as they weren't federal judges (as an example) and it didnt occur on federal land.
If its the case I'm thinking of, the federal charges are a civil rights violation, because they were law enforcement officers. Those wouldn't apply to private citizens
This is my feeling as well. I have always thought that KR was as much of a victim as the people he shot. He head was filled with grandiose ideas of patriotism and he was recruited by a local "militia" to go to Kenosha. And his mom and the other adults around him encouraged it. It was no place for a teenager, and especially no place for a teenager with a rifle. Everything about this case makes me sad because it could have all been prevented if the adults in his life stepped up for him.
Agree, but not all of that is the media's fault. The news media are under intense pressure in controversial cases to get SOMETHING out there. And anyone who has ever been involved in a case -- as a victim, defendant, or police officer -- knows that most of the info that comes out early in cases is just plain incorrect.
That's not correct. For an arrest, with or without a warrant, the arresting officer must have sufficient "probable cause." What does that mean? It means they must have sufficient evidence that a) a crime actually occurred, and b) that the arrestee probably committed the crime. The standard is that the evidence they have (and present to a judge to get a warrant) would cause a "reasonable person" to believe the person should be arrested.
I'm aware of what it means. What I am saying is that the judge reads the statement and signs it. It doesn't mean whats in it is true. I can show you many probable cause staements that were not true or were so intentionally vague that it could have applied to 10 people. I have a criminal justice degree, I've worked in law enforcement and corrections. I know how it works, and how it's supposed to work. What is supposed to happen is not what happens a lot. A lot more than we'd like to think. And that evidence that this person "probably committed the crime" can be as simple as they were seen in the area 10 min before the crime occured. In fact I have one on my desk as I type this that is literally 2 sentences. And neither of these sentences says anyone saw this person commit the crime or any physical evidence. And yet a judge signed it.
I don't know where you have worked, but every arrest or search warrant I've ever gotten from a judge (and that's a big number, including murder cases) required not only a sworn affidavit, but also testimony under oath before the judge confirming that everything in the affidavit was true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Two comments:
Victim blaming. Dis folks typically don’t like victim blaming. He had a right to be there. Just like the woman in revealing clothes at a bar at 2am. They have the right to be safe. If not, the blame goes to the perpetrator. Not the victim. He was the victim in this case.
I'm sad that he was completely let off the hook, but not surprised.
You obviously work in a better state than I do lol. I've seen quite a few and none of them are very good. And I've seen several cases play out where the info contained in the probable cause statement was an outright lie, which was later brought out in trial. And eventually the defendant was found not guitly. But it took 3 years and a lot of money, and during that time he was trashed in the community and his family, including his children were treated like crap. Another one, different county, murder charge. The statement from a "witness" that was used in the probable cause statement was a lie. All in all I agree with you, that the public jumps on things and assumes they know what happened based on little evidence. But goodness, the number of comments I've seen when someone is arrested saying "well they arrested him, they obviously had evidence" and then they run with that, is ridiculous. Bc it really takes just enough to say "they could have done it" to get an arrest warrant, and then you are guilty in the public eye forever. And if by chance you are found not guitly, they don't believe that you weren't guilty, they say you found a loophole, or the prosecution messed up. (see all the comments above lol)
