continuing proofs America is wacko [2]

I dont understand how in a situation like this you can have any hope of establishing a truth of what happened without open cross examining in a Court. And surely the family of the deceased have a right to know how their son died and why?

And I may have called him a murderer- thats my opinion of the situation, but I dont for a moment think someone like me's opinion should matter a hill of beans- that's why we have courts of law in the first place. So its not opinion, but as far as can be established all the available facts, from testimony to ballistics.

I just find it mind boggling you can shoot someone dead in dubious circumstances and there be no follow up to that, especially when it s only a minor who is still at school.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I dont understand how in a situation like this you can have any hope of establishing a truth of what happened without open cross examining in a Court.

I don't know enough about this case, but I doubt if you can have any hope of establishing a truth in any case.  The man has a right not to testify against himself, so his lawyer will probably advise him to remain silent. The victim is dead. That leaves the girl and her kid brother to testify, and because they're minors they'll probably give a deposition in private rather than being harangued publicly in TV courtroom style. I'm not sure what purpose this would serve, but as I said I don't know enough.

And surely the family of the deceased have a right to know how their son died and why?

Yes, of course, if there's anything more for them to know other than the obvious.  But it doesn't outweigh everybody else's rights, which may sometimes conflict, like the kids' right to privacy and a chance to heal.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:So the rule is its perfectly fine to shoot a child in the head in your own home in America- questions wont even be asked and you wont even face any charges.
I find that as distasteful a notion of justice as I do a shocking one.

I'm not sure where you're getting that from. The article you quote says that questions are being asked and he'll go before a grand jury, which is the only way charges can be brought (if the grand jury decides to indict).

But if the prosecutor in charge doesn't think there is much chance of any charges being brought then its just show. The effective end result will be he will never have to answer for his actions to end another life in a court of law. The boys family will never know for sure what happened in that room, and justice will not be seen to be done either way.

The long version is some noise will be made amounting to nothing, the short version is he walks away without any consequences for his actions.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:But if  the prosecutor in charge doesn't think there is much chance of any charges being brought then its just show.

How so? The prosecutor doesn't have any control over what the grand jury says.

Hah, difference in systems leading to misunderstanding- here the Crown Prosecution, led by the prosecutors would make that call- so here if a Prosecutor comes out saying there probably wont be charges, then there probably wont be. (In Scotland that would be the Procurator Fiscal and if they said no charges that would be that)

So do you think there will be a court hearing and charges then? In spite of the prosecutors view?

Pettytyrant101 wrote: the short version is he walks away without any consequences for his actions.

Again, you seem to be completely discounting any justice outside of court.

The article said he'd recently moved to the community.

Everybody at his workplace will know his story by now.

His kids will go to school, possibly with the brothers and sisters of the victim, certainly with kids who have opinions.

He may have a conscience. Many people do.

His life is going to be completely stood on it's head. How is that not "consequences"?

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Hah, difference in systems leading to misunderstanding- here the Crown Prosecution, led by the prosecutors would make that call- so here if a Prosecutor comes out saying there probably wont be charges, then there probably wont be. (In Scotland that would be the Procurator Fiscal and if they said no charges that would be that)

So do you think there will be a court hearing and charges then? In  spite of the prosecutors view?

That's the way it works in quite a few states here as well, but the grand jury system (which was originally part of English common law) is in use in Texas.  So the prosecutor doesn't get to make the final decision on charges; he's just saying that he doesn't think the grand jury will agree to them.  Personally, I think there's a good chance that it will play out that way, but it won't be for lack of trying on the prosecutor's part since he's already said they will be moving forward with this case.

I think part of the confusion here might be between the terms grand jury -- which is a body that determines whether or not charges will be brought against someone -- and a criminal jury which actually decides the case.

Sorry Dave but as far as I am concerned he deserves at the least to live with pain for what he has done. He was supposed to be the adult in this situation. As such when you find someone in your daughters room you dont go ape shit, you dont get into a heated argument with a 17 year old and you dont shoot them dead.
I have no more sympathy for him than I would had he been drunk and got a car and mowed some innocent person down. Less so because he knew what he was doing in this case. Whatever pain he feels is deserved and will be nothing to the pain of loss the lads family are enduring and will continue to endure the rest of their lives.


Thanks Eldo- that does clarify things somewhat. Although it still seems likely that it will never get to a court to be tried. And that effectively, as far as the law is concerned, he wont have questions to answer.

I agree that that is a likely outcome, and I think it will be a shame if it is, but there's nonetheless a big difference between a grand jury declining to indict and the police and prosecutors just ignoring the case completely.

Thats true.
I still find it troubling that such an incident would not go to a court to be examined.
I dont see how thats justifiable to his family.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Sorry Dave but as far as I am concerned he deserves at the least to live with pain for what he has done. He was supposed to be the adult in this situation. As such when you find someone in your daughters room you dont go ape shit, you dont get into a heated argument with a 17 year old and you dont shoot them dead.
I have no more sympathy for him than I would had he been drunk and got a car and mowed some innocent person down. Less so because he knew what he was doing in this case. Whatever pain he feels is deserved and will be nothing to the pain of loss the lads family are enduring and will continue to endure the rest of their lives.

That kind of prejudice is why you shouldn't be on the jury, if there's to be any hope of justice.   

Also please remember that were I live, justice works a lot like it does on the old Andy Griffith Show. When you call the police you hope you get Andy rather than Barney.

Sadly I dont know that reference David.
And I should be barred from this particular court because I have taken an interest in the story.
That can bar you here from jury duty- you have to declare how much you know before you get accepted for jury duty, especially in high profile cases with a lot of media attention.
Its so you dont accidentally prejudge, its the same thinking behind certain things not being reported from the Court until after the trial.

It's hard to do that here. Not enough people. My brother and I were once seated on the same jury, and we drove to and from the hearings in the same car. During the voi dire when they're suppose to sort out conflicts of interest the attorney just asked "Do you guys talk about stuff?" "Yup." "Do you usually agree." "Not always." "That's not a problem then."

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Thats true.
I still find it troubling that such an incident would not go to a court to be examined.
I dont see how thats justifiable to his family.

I think the problem is that though the police and prosecutors are probably doing their utmost to find any evidence about what happened, the legal points hinge on whether the father felt bodily threatened in his own house. That's hard to prove, especially if the only other witness was a family member, and the father has a right not to testify against himself.

It's almost like a murder investigation where the police haven't found the perpetrator yet. Can't go to trial. In this case they have the perpetrator, but no clear way to prove if he honestly felt he was acting in self defense and honestly didn't feel he'd have time to disable instead of kill. Without other witnesses I can understand the reluctance of a grand jury to let it go to trial. It's not a case of should there be a trial (I think if there's enough evidence they should) but can there be a trial.

There was another case before I was born when my Dad wanted to get out of jury duty for a case where one of our neighbors had shot and hit another. Dad figured he didn't want to get in the middle of it, so when the judge asked, "Do you know the accused?", Dad said, "I know both of them."

So the judge asked ,"Do you think he shot this man?" and my Dad said, "I KNOW F--- shot B--- and what's more I think B--- had it coming!"

The judge smiled and said, "You're not getting out of this that easily. It's hard to find anybody down here who doesn't have an opinion, and both these men think you'll do."

jury duty blows chunks. I have had to do it and its a pain. We had a GBH case, its quite a responsibility.

But if there is sufficient doubt Halfy should that not be reason enough to try to get to the truth of it- and the best way we have devised to get to the truth without resorting to torture is by cross examination within a court of law.
Is reasonable doubt not enough to get a case to trial?



"and both these men think you'll do."

What that tells me is despite your Dad's reluctance both men had faith him to give them a fair hearing to make a fair decision.
I dont have a problem with things being decided on all sides like that. No one felt wronged, no one felt their justice was being impinged or denied.

My problem with this case is the opposite of that sort of thing- it doesn't seem fair.
It doesn't seem like justice will run its course for anyone. It doesn't feel like everyone on all sides feels the terms are fair.

Those Italian juries look a lot less fun even than ours..  

they have cages for the mafia. They are excellent with the mafia and corruption and things like that, but murders are notoriously badly managed like the Knox case. The forensic teams are Mickey Mouse, i wouldnt like to be in the position of having to defend myself with that lot, its bungled and then they hide the bungles.

they have cages for the mafia.

Somehow, if I were testifying against them, I don't think I'd find that very reassuring.... 

Pettytyrant101 wrote:But if there is sufficient doubt Halfy should that not be reason enough to try to get to the truth of it- and the best way we have devised to get to the truth without resorting to torture is by cross examination within a court of law.
Is reasonable doubt not enough to get a case to trial?

Cross examination only works if there's something to work with. All they have is the daughter since by law they can't have the father. She may be old enough to withstand various lawyers trying to sway her words, but it's not a lot to hang your faith on. The 'cross examination' would mainly be a lawyer trying to browbeat a teenage girl in a case that tears her between her father and dead lover. Admittedly other cases have gone to trial under similar circumstances, and there have been convictions. But how much do you trust it?