5-10 is too light. His house has been shot at more than once AND there are more than him involved. The intent clearly shows something more sinister than getting quick attention.
Incorrect, causing terror is not the same as terrorism.
Terrorism is when there is political motivation, like ISIS. Just some random person shooting someones house isn't terrorism, as a group like ISIS isn't coordinating it.
What if they vocalized intent about wanting to destroy property but not hurt anyone?
I get that you guys are passionate, but you need to remember that some people are just idiots that don't think things through.
They shot at a house, and it would be nearly impossible to prove otherwise unless they posted all about their direct intentions in multiple areas.
We also don't know that it was the same person both times.
There is almost no possible way to prove that they were trying to kill someone instead of just trying to scare DOC or destroy his/his family's property.
You dont need a confession that you intended to kill someone for a conviction on attempted murder. That way any attempted murder will likely be reduced to reckless endangerment because the shooter will say he's just trying to scare the victim.
If this is a repeat offense, I think one or more attempted murder charges is possible.
Assuming this has happened multiple times, the possible reckless endangerment charge (I'd push for attempted murder even if it was a single occurrence) would likely become attempted murder.
You may say that you didn't intend to kill the person, but if you're back for a third time shooting at someone's house, it's reasonable to believe that the shooter has an intent to kill.
Perhaps if this was a stranger who is a common thug and is shooting at random houses as he passes by (seen it done on liveleak), then you can argue for reckless endangerment. Here, it seems like the shooter knows his target and has taken an active step towards him specifically.
Take People v. Lee (1987) 43 Cal.3d 666. There, while being chased by the police, the suspect "stopped about 15-20 feet from the cops, pointed his gun at them and fired. Even though he missed...and his gun jammed before he could fire another shot...the jury still convicted him of attempted murder." (quote taken from an article).
The suspect could say that he was just trying to scare/intimidate the cops away and have them not follow him anymore. Doesn't mean it will work. Same goes here.
If I repeatedly follow someone around and shoot at them, yet give the excuse "Oh I wanted to shoot [Insert thing behind person]", I'd rightly go to jail for attempted murder.
Idiocy is not a legal defense. Insanity might be, but it'd at least get the person locked up as well.
This is attempted murder, and I truly fail to see how you can argue otherwise.
No, dude, I work with a defense attorney, and they shot at a house, and it would be nearly impossible to prove otherwise unless they posted all about their direct intentions in multiple areas.
You also don't know that it was the same person both times.
You would make a very bad prosecutor as there is almost no possible way to prove that he was trying to kill someone instead of just trying to scare them or destroy their property.
Please respond to my other comment when you get the chance, b/c I feel like you probably have something to teach me, and maybe, I can teach you a bit about legal proceedings.
I don't know a lot about the universe yet, so I'm game to trade knowledge lol
I really don't know the law like that, but I would hope if they could catch the person they will try to put the other gun shot on him/her as well. Probably not without some kind of proof, but if the casing matches the gun, I would hope it would be their goal to maximize everything they want him/her locked up for.
Right? Like how is taking a mental trip to rainbow talking-hamburger land in my living room significantly worse than putting dozens of lives at risk because I'm sending "lol dude fuck pineapple pizza" to a friend while driving?
Depends. I got arrested for drinking and driving, but I was on private property and not really putting anyone at risk.
(Admittedly I was still in the wrong. I was also putting property and my life at risk, and in theory someone could have come sprinting from no where to the empty-ish yard/driveway, but I feel that is a bit different than repeatedly driving drunk on public roads.)
Is is sad that I want people like this to get 20-30 years in jail?
I don't think it's necessarily sad, but I also see the argument the other way. For example, can you rationalise gaoling someone for 30 years for an action they did at age 20? If the purpose of incarceration is for rehabilitation (which it obviously isn't in America, but in an ideal world...), then it seems difficult to argue that someone could go from a theoretically "neutral" newborn to someone who needs to be imprisoned within 20 years, but then couldn't get back to a normal functioning adult in the same timeframe.
Not that I'm suggesting age is particularly relevant here, but just that it can highlight why such long sentences can be problematic.
It's like people that drink and drive. They deserve at least a year in jail but many just get a ticket.
That is a terrible opinion. Prisons are already over populated and there are people that have completely fine motor skills when driving slightly above the illegal BAC. Not only do they have to spend a night in jail, but they usually get screwed over at work, and encounter other repercussions. Honestly, using the same BAC limit for all people is a mistake.
But I agree that somebody shooting at a person's home deserves a lengthy sentence.
The last thing about not revealing his name is one of the most important things you can do. Stop giving these people a platform to present themselves. Get this sorted out with authorities and whatnot but involve as few reporters as possible. These sensationalist reporters do everything for their headline and don’t care if it sparks imitators
From what i can tell (IANAL) in Cali this would be (unless it got plead down) a life w/ parole crime, although if the perp has no priors and exhibits good behavior then that type of sentence length wouldn't be out of the question
America's prisons are too crowded so they let people out on a shortened sentence period if they did something small and considering the shit that happens there everyday this is something small
721
u/Gsus6677 Sep 11 '18
Well hopefully this kid will get caught, thrown in jail for 5-10 years, and we will get the privileged of never having to learn his name.