politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
On the one hand a retrial makes sense because not all the facts of the case were presented to the jury.
On the other hand the prior conviction was manslaughter which is crazy lower for six shots and then just going home. Maybe the jury will see this as not only a hate crime, but also escalate to some form of murder charge.
jury doesn't get to decide the charge
As I said in another comment. If there is more than one charge the jury could find someone not guilty on one and guilty of another.
Sounds like some other facts ought to be presented to the jury as well if he’s trying to trans panic his way out of murder.
Sounds a lot more premeditated with that info.
This was a defendant in an ongoing sexual relationship with a trans woman. No one is alleging trans panic when defendant kept coming back for more.
"waa manslaughter which is crazy low" INAL and have no knowledge of Tennessee law but the way lawyers have explained it this often comes down to whst you can prove. like maybe murder requires prooving premeditation. or some other technicalities. i suspect that was the case.
in those cases "i got mad and shot them" and "i wasn't paying attention and ran them over" might be manslaughter but different types.
All of that is chosen by the prosecution which then sets whats argued during trial. The jury not having the information shouldn't affect their determination of the facts related to the charge but could, unfortunately, bias them away from the facts. which is presumably why the judge excluded it.
All this to say, i don't think this changes the manslaughter part. Juries don't do that.
Am lawyer.
We have basically three murders:
An intentional killing with Malice aforethought or premeditation as you put it.
An intentional killing in the Heat of passion lacking the premeditation.
An unintentional killing, manslaughter.
In Tennessee the middle on is called intentional manslaughter and that’s the one at play.
There are certainly cases where the jury has concluded at some point between bullet one and bukket six you formed the premeditation required.
Person brought a gun outside of their property. Premeditated murder. Done. I've owned guns for 19 years. If I bring a gun off my property it was premeditated. If I shoot someone it was intentional.
Whether or not I was passionate about pulling the trigger or not, it was thought about ahead of time and deliberate.
Anyone who has shot guns should know it isn't a hiccup to pull out a gun, ensure it is cocked, safety off, aim and hit a target... Let alone 6 times. This person deliberately and intentionally used a deadly weapon to assault someone.
I get your point, and IANAL, but this is just not the case in the US, and it is unconstitutional for a government to make that argument. For better or worse you have the right to carry a gun on your person off your property, and millions of Americans do it every day without intending murder.
The rest of your comment I agree with. Just don’t be muddying the water with a constitutionally protected act being somehow suspicious or against the law.
That's you. Some people keep guns with them at all times for safety or because they just like guns. If you read the actual ruling, you'll see Defendant didn't even get a chance to testify honestly from their perspective when they were trying to put on a self-defense theory. That's actually unfair, even if you like trans women and support trans women.
They brought a gun to someone elses house, got in a argument pulled a gun shot them at their own house 6 times and lied in court about how it happened.
"According to testimony, Ward went to Lee’s home, where a verbal altercation occurred. The victim, Paris Lee, asked Ward to leave. During the confrontation, Ward claimed that Lee pointed a gun at him while they were at the top of a staircase, causing him to fall backward. He told police that he then drew his own weapon and fired upward from the bottom of the stairs, striking Lee.
However, physical evidence and expert testimony from Medical Examiner Dr. D. Van Pelt contradicted Ward’s version of events. Lee was shot six times, and the trajectories of the gunshot wounds did not align with the defendant’s statement. Additionally, Ward had no visible injuries, undermining his claim of self-defense.
The prosecution presented a key witness, Tarik Hunter, Lee’s best friend, who testified about a phone call with Lee during the incident. Hunter told the jury he could hear Ward yelling in the background and that Lee repeatedly asked him to leave."
So let the defendant present their defense and then if that's what happened, the jury will see it and convict.
Also, I am just realizing now defendant was never even charged with murder. That's surprising. I would have thought he would have at least been charged with that so the jury could weight it.
He got 6 years for shooting a person 6 times to death in their own home.... In a state with the death penalty. While having a witness that heard them ask the person to leave.
This person got given the best case scenario it sounds like, and is asking for better. If possible they should retry it as first degree murder and the death penalty, the perpetrator would likely settle for 15 years very quickly
This is Tennessee, and it sounds like the appeal came from the defense, so I expect something lighter, not heavier...
Yes, but it still goes to trial which will require a new jury. It's Memphis which is a city and by nature of random chance for jury selection shouldn't be biased, like what a more rural country would be.
So there still a chance this could be a harsher sentence.
The decision to exclude certain facts is generally made knowingly and carefully. The court, in this case, correctly judged that the average Tennessee jury would be unlikely to rule on the actual legal merits of this case if they knew the victim was trans (or, to the average redneck shit stain from Tennessee, "not actually human").
In court, both sides can submit something as evidence and the other side can object to it. It's then up to the judge to sustain or overrule the objections. The jury is instructed to deliberate only on the items received by the court and any witness testimony, which again can have some answers or questions objected or struck from the record.
If the defense wanted to submit it then, it was objected, then the judge did make the call. However, the defense could also just be incompetent and left it out and decided to appeal based on that fact being left out.
Not all facts are necessarily relevant, why do you consider this fact relevant over the evidence of the case?
I view it as relevant to be a hate crime.
I could be wrong, but I don't think the jury only gets an up or down vote on the charges presented. The prosecutor would have to decide himself to go for the murder charge.
Correct, but often prosecution will have multiple charges. So they may have a Murder in x degree and manslaughter in x degree. Jury has to deliberate on each. It's possible to be found not guilty for murder and guilty for manslaughter.