• @UmeU
    link
    11 month ago

    His defense was irrelevant because by only charging 1st degree, and not including the lesser charges, the prosecution took on the burden of proving premeditation, which was not possible to prove in this case.

    Even if they were able to admit the evidence that KR had talked about his desire to kill protesters only weeks earlier, the prosecution would still have had trouble proving premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt given this heresy evidence alone.

    He was found not guilty because the premeditation was not established beyond a reasonable doubt.

    The self defense argument only would have been relevant if he had been charged with 2nd degree murder, reckless homicide, or manslaughter.

    In the case of reckless homicide, his self defense argument would have failed due to the fact that a reasonable person would have known that bringing a loaded rifle into the middle of an unpredictable and potentially volatile situation would have the potential of resulting in death.

    His unjustified and inappropriate presence that night instigated the conflict, and but for the fact that he was incorrectly charged, he would be in jail now.

    Keep in mind that the verdict only establishes that the prosecution did not meet their burden of proof, not that the jury believed the self defense story.