“I never meant to hurt him, only kidnap and potentially murder his wife!”
In his defense, the article does a much better job of explaining the apology than the headline
“I never meant to hurt him, only kidnap and potentially murder his wife!”
In his defense, the article does a much better job of explaining the apology than the headline
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that this guy’s attorneys are wrong.
Adversarial process at work. Each side works against each other as hard as they can within the bounds of law and the jury (or just judge, depending) decides.
It’s ridiculous, but the defense attorney working as hard as possible against the prosecution. If there’s even a tiny hope of it working it’s worth trying.
They’re still wrong because criminal law has the concept of transferred intent.
Just had to google that, but it’s astounding that needs to be spelled out into law. Before that was inked out could you just call a mulligan if you killed the wrong person?
This is why we need a scientific system and not an adversarial one. We need the truth regardless of who is harmed by it.