Law and Order - 1/23/08 - 'Driven'

[busyba]

I guess having Not Guilty verdicts on killing the boy and Guilty verdicts on the girl is the jury's way of saying that the dead boy bore some responsibility while the dead girl was a total innocent, and that's nice and warm and fuzzy, but I would think that it should hand on a silver platter a full acquittal on appeal for the male defendant.

The man admitted shooting the boy, his defense was that the shooting was justified. By finding the man not guilty of the killing of the boy, they are essentially issuing a finding that yes, the shooting was justified.

Now if a person is considered to be justified in shooting at someone, they can't be convicted simply for having bad aim (or in this case, bad luck as the bullet went clear through the intended target and struck the bystander), certainly not of 2nd degree murder anyway.

An NG on not killing the boy, as a matter of law, should be an NG on killing the girl too. They jury probably should have been instructed as such from the get go.

IANAL, but I think I'm right on this. Your thoughts?

[Rob Helmerichs]

I think it's separate issues. In the first case, it's "Was he justified in shooting the boy?" In the second, it's "Would a reasonable person have known that innocent bystanders could be hit as a result of shooting on a public street?" You CAN be convicted for having bad aim or bad luck if the result was a forseeable consequence of your action. The jury (well, OK, the writer) seems to have believed that in this case, regardless of how justified he was in defending his son, opening fire on a street was criminally reckless and that he should be held responsible for the consequences.

[newsposter]

so do you really think that boy was in deadly danger with bat?

[Rob Helmerichs]

so do you really think that boy was in deadly danger with bat?
That's not an easy question. It's not a matter of whether the boy was in danger (which in itself is debatable), but whether a reasonable person in the father's situation would believe he was in danger. And I think a pretty strong case could be made for that, but it's certainly not cut-and-dried.

[newsposter]

at least they 'ended' this one. I hated the one where they walked down the hall towards 2 couples and you didnt know which person died.

the one thing i like about the reality of this show are that the stereotypes of real life are kept in. they will threaten a spouse with X because they know they dont want to be on the stand trying to defend against abuse etc. And work out a deal. And there are many other examples, especially racial biases, that they use.