Expand Quote
Expand Quote
"intent to kill" doesn't matter, he killed a man and should be held accountable for it, whether it was accidental or not
play stupid games, win stupid prizes
Intent to kill does matter when it comes to the court of law. Whoever went for “first degree” should have known better and went for “second degree.”
Second degree is easier to convict as lawyers just have to prove the culprit intended to harm the person in the heat of the moment which ultimately led to a death. That charge would’ve stuck and TK would’ve been facing 25-to-life WITH possibility of parole plus the time added for aggravated battery.
TK does need to be held accountable and I have a feeling with no friends in a IL prison system, accountability might be handled within those walls.
Isn't it possible to charge them with first and second degree murder in the same case to see which one sticks? Leading to a verdict of not guilty of one and guilty of the other? I'm genuinely asking because, for some odd reason, I thought it was common practice.
I’m no lawyer, but I believe they can be charged with both in hopes that the lesser be accepted (e.g. Chauvin in the George Floyd case was charged with 2nd degree and manslaughter—the lesser being what he was charged with).
In this case, the DA should’ve known that 1st degree wouldn’t had stuck. 2nd degree and/or manslaughter should’ve been what he was charged with.
What I wonder is, if a new DA will try to charge him with 2nd/Manslaughter as he wasn’t charged with it in the first trial, meaning he isn’t protected by double jeopardy laws.
Either way, the DA fucked up.