Only charged with assault & robbery... REALLY?

[Orlong]

"Things got out of hand and I threw her around, I didn't intend on killing her!"
Yup, case closed and he walks away from it.

Spin it all you want. The DA doesn't think an attempted-murder charge would hold in court!
But I forgot I am on the internet, where the average forumposter knows more about science than scientists, where they are better in law than a DA, etc etc.

Don't like what they did? Apply for his job, since obviously you know more about law than actual lawyers.

Any person with a modicum of common sense would be able to tell that he tried to kill her. What other purpose is there to throwing someone down onto train tracks they wouldnt be easy to climb out of. I personally think the police shouldve shot him when they found him to remove scum like this from the face of the earth.

---------- Post added 2013-01-19 at 09:10 AM ----------

He could be. But why waste your time with a charge you will have a hard to proving? There are plenty of defenses against attempted murder. Some of them I mentioned in earlier posts in this thread. Despite people thinking it is an easy charge to prove, it is actually difficult to prove as such. So they go with the easy charges, and the ones that have a possible higher sentence

The article I linked to earlier, while about Georgia law, explains why a DA might not go with Attempted Murder but another crime.

http://www.houstonda.org/houston-cou...ed-murder.html

In Georgia (Pennsylvania might be different) attempt crimes carry half of the sentence of a full crime. And in the legal system half of Life is considered to be 10 years. With assault the DA doesn't have to prove intent at all and assault has a higher sentence. Meaning that the criminal will spend more potential time behind bars then he would if just charge with Attempted Murder.

The key factor here is intent. Intent is hard to prove even if you think it is obvious. Other charges might be added as the case is investigated and more facts are revealed. But again why go for something that might not stick and might offer a lesser sentence. DA's like to take the path of least resistance when it is available. Because it almost ensures the outcome instead of putting it up to a gamble at trial.

Intent is a bullshit thing that needs to be removed from the law. Either you did the crime or you didnt. It shouldnt matter whether you intended to do it or not. In this case, his actions couldve caused murder, therefor its attempted murder.

If you go shopping and forget that you had a 50 pound bag of dog food on the bottom of your cart and pay for the rest of your stuff and not the dog food, you didnt intend to steal it but you still stole it and can and should be prosecuted for theft.

[rhorle]

Any person with a modicum of common sense would be able to tell that he tried to kill her. What other purpose is there to throwing someone down onto train tracks they wouldnt be easy to climb out of. I personally think the police shouldve shot him when they found him to remove scum like this from the face of the earth.

If I throw you onto an empty road, did I just try to kill you? Or did I just throw you into the road? He could have been delaying her so she couldn't chase after him. He could have wanted to delay her from getting help so he could get away. He could have wanted to scare her so she wouldn't go for help. He could have just wanted to throw her and the trench that is the tracks was the easiest place.

No of those carry an intent to murder, so it can't be attempted murder. Can you prove he threw her down there to murder her? Can you prove that it wasn't for anything that did not intend murder? Because if you can't prove it was murder then he would be able to get off of the attempted murder charge. It is also amusing that you want the police to murder him thus committing their own crime in the process. Should we charge you with attempted murder because you want him murdered? Accessory to the fact? If we go by your standards of justice you'd be just as guilty for promoting a guilty act.

Intent is a bullshit thing that needs to be removed from the law. Either you did the crime or you didnt. It shouldnt matter whether you intended to do it or not. In this case, his actions couldve caused murder, therefor its attempted murder.

If you want to get rid of intent then you have to get rid of attempted murder, because attempted charges are based 100% on intent. So if we get rid of intent you wouldn't be able to charge him with murder because he did not kill her. However actions that could have caused murder is not the same as attempted murder. If I walk across the street any motorist could kill me does that mean I can charge every motorist with attempted murder? No because they don't have the intent to kill me.

If you go shopping and forget that you had a 50 pound bag of dog food on the bottom of your cart and pay for the rest of your stuff and not the dog food, you didnt in tend to steal it but you still stole it and can and should be prosecuted for theft.

Theft, or in this case shop lifiting isn't a crime that require intent. However enforcement of the crime is left up to store, and not all shop lifting crimes are prosecuted. In your example you could be prosecuted for shop lifting if the store wants to press charges. Most don't because in the end the bad publicity would hurt them more and they are only concerned with reducing shrink to increase their profits.

[Ashnazg]

I feel like I will probably repeat what many people already said in this thread but:

He wasn't charged with attempted murder because the DA probably thought it would be too onerous / time-consuming to try to prove attempted murder. Justice system has to keep efficiency in consideration as well as actual fairness/justice.

For what its worth, throwing people down on empty tracks is not a slamdunk proof of intent to murder.

What other purpose is there to throwing someone down onto train tracks they wouldnt be easy to climb out of.

Rage.

It shouldnt matter whether you intended to do it or not. In this case, his actions couldve caused murder, therefor its attempted murder.

That would lead to obscene consequences. For starters any accident with potential lethal outcome would be attempted murder. You push someone down the stairs accidentally - attempted murder? You push someone on the street, they fall down - attempted murder? Think before you write.

Plus, what the poster above said, if you get rid of intent, you get rid of "attempted" crimes. The whole reason intent was put in there was to enable justice system to go after guys who tried and failed, or tried but didn't quite get to the point of committing a crime.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Fear is the best deterrent for people like him.

Not really. You think that guy thought he would be caught? Hell no.

Intent is a bullshit thing that needs to be removed from the law. Either you did the crime or you didnt. It shouldnt matter whether you intended to do it or not. In this case, his actions couldve caused murder, therefor its attempted murder.

If you go shopping and forget that you had a 50 pound bag of dog food on the bottom of your cart and pay for the rest of your stuff and not the dog food, you didnt intend to steal it but you still stole it and can and should be prosecuted for theft.

Holy fuck, really? I mean, really? Do you know how much more open to abuse the law would be without a requirement of intent for these kinds of crime?

[Gheld]

I think attempted murder should carry an identical sentence to murder. I mean seriously, the intent was there. This guy clearly stood there, thought about it, and decided the best way to steal from this woman was to throw her onto the tracks and leave her for dead. He should spend the rest of his life behind bars.

[Ashnazg]

I think attempted murder should carry an identical sentence to murder. I mean seriously, the intent was there. This guy clearly stood there, thought about it, and decided the best way to steal from this woman was to throw her onto the tracks and leave her for dead. He should spend the rest of his life behind bars.

I think some states have sentencing guidelines that specify that attempted murders that result in serious bodily injury (like a guy who has half his brains blown off, but still survives as a vegetable) would carry a sentence identical to murder.

Otherwise, if you keep in mind that US justice system is not built around rehabilitation, but around retribution, you see why it makes sense to punish less for an incomplete murder - if there is no body, the damage to society is perceived to be less.

In a rehabilitation-based justice system, it shouldn't make a difference whether something is an attempted murder or an actual murder - clearly the state of mind is there, but in a retribution-based justice system, the presence of a dead body carries a greater weight in the eyes of justice.

Plus there is also the fact that rewarding incompetence has its perks - its conceivable that a murderer might be less inclined to finish a half-assed attempt because he knows the penalty for attempt is lower.

[xxf2dxx]

If you go shopping and forget that you had a 50 pound bag of dog food on the bottom of your cart and pay for the rest of your stuff and not the dog food, you didnt intend to steal it but you still stole it and can and should be prosecuted for theft.

"Excuse me, Sir, you forgot to pay for that bag of dog food."
"Oh, I'm sorry, let me turn around and walk back into the store to pay for that."
"No problem, Sir."

That's what would happen in reality because you wouldn't try to take off running with a basket full of groceries you just paid for. If anything you'd come back for it later and just walk out of the store with it if you were trying to steal.