If he destroyed evidence then that would be a different story. A person accused of a crime is not legally obligated to volunteer himself over to cops. He could articulate that he fled the scene because he was in fear but that defense would only work if he turned himself in later however leaving the state wouldn't constitute obstruction. But a witness can be telling what they believe to be the truth and still be unreliable if it could be shown their memory was severely hampered. So a false statement that was not done to deceive and based on a misunderstanding or a poor perception would not be enough to prove. Quote from: Flapp_Jackson on September 24, 2021, 01:12:30 PM If the witnesses swore to the investigating Cops that the stabber instigated the road rage incident, then attacked unprovoked, that's a crime.įalse reporting as I understand it can be difficult to prove because you don't just have to prove that what the witness said was incorrect, you have to prove that the witness knew it was incorrect. Why did he leave the scene AND the state? Maybe he believed the big man survived and would come after him? Maybe his family would come after him? Retaliation for stabbing someone isn't a stretch. Not everyone is thinking clearly when they experience something like that. He could have handled the post-stabbing better, but if the stabbing itself was justified (drunk 300 lb 6'8" road-raging man), then the aftermath could be explained away as PTSD-related or shock. If he fled the state in order to avoid the Cops, that could be construed as obstruction - a 3rd crime.Īs for avoiding the charges, he may have had a really good story and no admissible evidence to refute his version of the events - or the evidence corroborated his story because it was true. So, there are at least 2 alleged crimes involved. Since the cars were involved in a collision, it's a crime to flee the scene. If the witnesses swore to the investigating Cops that the stabber instigated the road rage incident, then attacked unprovoked, that's a crime. Just because charges are dropped doesn't mean a murder didn't happen, it might just mean the case couldn't be proven. So for example if your key witness was proven to have lied during the investigation then in court the prosecutors might not be able to prove the charge. I can imagine that maybe there were problems with witnesses that would make the case impossible to win in court. I can't imagine the guy is so connected to just get away with it that easy. I don't know what the big guy did to him but potentially he could have done something which placed the stabber in danger of serious injury. If the suspect's car wouldn't start and he was on the freeway with load of cars flying by he may not have had a safe avenue to retreat. Another key one would be that he didn't start the altercation. Another would be that he didn't have a safe avenue of retreat. One would have to be that the guy who got stabbed was placing him in danger of serious injury or death. Just theorizing here but I could imagine a situation where potentially all the boxes were checked to make it a justified use of deadly force.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |