Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: six
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Originally posted by: Ackmed
Read the entire article, before crying about anything.
The final kick, the one believed to have caused the death, was not done by the ones found not guilty.
Maybe you should read the article.
However, a Schuylkill County jury found Brandon Piekarsky and Derrick Donchak guilty of simple assault stemming from the death of Luis Ramirez, who died of blunt force injuries to the head after a fight with the defendants and their friends.
Both witnesses said Piekarsky delivered the final blow to Ramirez's head while he was on the ground, but others testified that they couldn't be certain who had actually kicked him.
Also it doesn't matter in the slightest who gave the final kick as I'm sure felony murder applies in this case.
Yes it does. I was on a jury for capital murder.
Well in terms of who is most likely to get the death penalty or whatever I guess that's true, but as to who is guilty of murder it doesn't matter. In this case I'm sure what they were doing counted as felony assault and battery or whatever, and if you are committing a felony and someone dies while you are doing it, instant felony murder. It doesn't matter if you are robbing a bank and someone has a heart attack.
Some logic flaws here I believe.
(They were prosecuted in a PA court so first you're really gonna have to look at PA law specifically)
They were convicted of simple assult, that's not a felony. I.e., that eliminates the whole "death duirng the commssion of a felony become a felony death" I.e., even if someone's death was entirely unintentional if it was commited during a felony the death is elevated to a felony death. The 'accidental/unintentional' nature no longer matters. But here's there is no felony, so that's out-of-play.
It's entirely possible that they could be found guilty only of simple assualt even if the guy dies. The jury would simply have to believe that the only thing proven was that defendants' assault didn't result in any serious injury, e.g., the jury found the only thing proven was a regular punch. I.e., somebody else's assult (presumably the kick to the head) is what caused it.
A get-away driver in a bank robber is guilty of a felony (bank robbery), hence they have felony death claim under the rules even though they had nothing to do with the death. A person who happens to be in a crowd of people and somebody gets a deadly kick to the head? OK, the kick resulting in death (or even serious injury) is a felony, but only the person comitting that act has comitted has felony. That person, because they comitted a felony, now can be charged with a felony death even though it was unintetional or accidental. But that person's 'felony' death cannot be attributed to others not also guilty of a felony yet bring them under the felony death rule. Thereis no such attribution from one person to another. I believe that's what's happened here.
Even if you're that get-away driver, the prosecution has the discretion to charge you with felony death or not. But it looks like the prosecution DID charge one of the two with felony death (3rd degree murder) but couldn't prove it to the jury.
So, charges of racism by some are as-yet unfounded. I think what you'd need to see is proof of 'jury nullification'. I.e., there was plenty of proof that the one guy did in fact kick the other in the head, but didn't like the outcome (murder 3) so declared him innocent in spite of over-whelming proof to the contrary.
Clearly somebody there did kill that boy and justice has not been served. But not all cases can be solved. In the absense of some type of forensic evidence, likley difficult to come by in this case, it seems you're left with eye-witness accounts or a confession. Looks like no confession, and eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable and I would think quite easy to cast reasonable doubt upon in these circumstance (an incident with a lot of people, that makes things hard to see as they block one's view of an event, it was at night and these type of fights tend to happen very quickly and involve a good deal of confusion.).
In my county we're currently having a murder case of this sort right now. Two guys get into a fight at a bonfire party and one dies. No one believes the other intended to kill him, but they're now pursuing it as a felony death because the assualt resulted in serious injury. (Initially it was just going to be assault, but they later upped the charge to felony murder based on felony assualt). Happened at night, happened quickly and a lot of eye-witnesses sound confused about what happend. But the defended has admiting to striking the victim with a broken beer bottle (first strike the beer bottle broke, second managed to result in a cut to the victim's neck from the broken glass) and it's been confirmed that's what killed the victim.
If not for the defendant admitting to striking the victim with what has been identified as the murder weapon, I''m afraid we'd be looking at the same thing here - no one gets convicted in an unintentional but violent death.
Fern
Facebook
Twitter