Oh I understand how it's argued for. That doesn't mean it isn't unconstitutional as fuck. He can only be charged with one offense for one crime. If the crime is actually 2 different things, then charge him as such. But it's not. Murder 2 and Murder 3 are the same thing for the same crime. To argue otherwise is pure kikery, wrong, and fucking retarded. You are fully controlled if you believe it's okay he was charged this way, let alone at all.
Not sure if you remember the Casey Anthony case- but the prosecution fucked up by charging her for murder 1 and child abandonment, when they should have charged for 1, 2, and manslaughter.
She got off because the prosecution couldn't prove murder 1. As in, she planned it and executed it. They did convict her on being a shitty mother though, but she got off with time served.
had they charged her with 2 and manslaughter as well, she'd probably be in jail right now.
some murder charges don't require planning and malice
Murder requires malice aforethought. Which is malicious planning and intent. I fucking hate jew law. I hate how lawyers push jew law as meaningful, real, or as points of evidence against the fucking constitution because "hey goy that's how things are done!!!" You will never be right here. That may be how things happen, but I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm stating that it's unconstitutional to charge someone with 3 identical charges because they're ever so slightly different.
Oh yeah, I can agree with you on that. I mean we both know the appeal/mistrial paperwork has already been filed though.
I honestly think the verdict was simply so the jurors could cover their ass and for there to be no rioting.
There's already a clear case for witness intimidation, jury tampering, and more.
(post is archived)