Guilty on all counts! South Carolina prosecutors proved, beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt, that Alex Murdaugh murdered his wife and son. It took the jurors less than three hours to convict him of firing two shotgun blasts into his 22-year-old son Paul and firing four to five rifle shots into his 52-year-old wife Maggie. He testified in own defense and attempted to persuade jurors that he had nothing to do with the abhorrent crimes. Jurors rejected his testimony. There are many lessons from this trial. Here are just three main ones.

LESSONS LEARNED

Last Tuesday night, May 3, 2022, Dave Chappelle was attacked by a man while Chappelle was performing at the “Netflix Is a Joke Festival” at the Hollywood Bowl. The 23 year old attacker, Isaiah Lee, who was wearing a black hoodie, rushed the stage and knocked the comic down to the ground. Chappelle was not injured during the attack. The attacker was in possession of “a replica handgun with a knife.” Security guards and members of Chappelle’s team stopped Lee, who was promptly arrested.

THE CHARGES

1) IT’S NOT ABOUT ‘#TeamDepp’ AND/OR ‘#TeamHeard’

Most in the “Court of Public Opinion” have treated this trial as if they are picking their favorite sports team. They decided what side they are on and root for their pick with passion and zeal, often regardless of the facts and circumstances. They erroneously think that the jury will decide this trial the same way, deciding who they like better and then rewarding them with a favorable verdict. That’s not how this case will be resolved. Who the jury likes is not the issue that will determine the outcome. Likeability is always important to jury in a trial. However, they can actually despise Depp and/or Heard and/or both of them, yet still rule in their favor. The “#TeamDepp” and “TeamHeard” mentality is fine for the Court of Public opinion yet holds little legal weight in an actual court of law.

If you’re on the Kyle Rittenhouse jury, there are many questions that are likely swirling around in your head. Every one of these are questions are ones that the prosecution would be thrilled to know you’re pondering. One may be, “Why does a 17-year-old own an AR-15, a military-style semi-automatic rifle?” That would be a fair question since it’s been called “A perfect killing machine.” It was engineered to have a “maximum wound effect.” The tiny bullets allegedly travel three times the speed of sound. After a bullet hits a body, the flesh is ripped open, destroying tissue, nerves, blood vessels and vital organs. It’s probably not the ideal Christmas gift for a teenager, whose brain’s frontal lobe, the portion governing reasoning and judgment, hasn’t even been fully formed. Another question may be, “Why the heck did this armed teenager have to go to the ‘protest’ and/or ‘riot’?” That’s another fair question since his hometown is Antioch, Illinois, 30 minutes away from Kenosha, the city in which the alleged crimes occurred. He chose to travel across state lines to put himself in the center of a violent scene. Although he alleged that evening on multiple occasions that he was an EMT, he was not. He lacked the appropriate training and experience to avoid potential conflict and to properly assist those in need.

Those questions, and others like them, are ones that the prosecution hopes the jury will focus on during deliberations. The prosecution deems them extremely relevant inquiries since they have attempted to persuade the jury that Rittenhouse provoked the attacks that led to the shootings. They alleged that Rittenhouse cannot avail himself of protection under the self-defense laws since his irresponsible actions caused the alleged victims to respond the way that they did.

‘Desperate times call for desperate measures.’

That’s the quotation that comes to mind after observing the prosecutor’s behavior in court during the cross examination of Kyle Rittenhouse, who is on trial for shooting and killing 2 men and wounding a third during a night of violent riots and protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin in the wake of George Floyd’s death.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgcLJFz2WKQ

SPECIAL TO THE SUN SENTINEL

OCT 19, 2021

Introduction

You’re driving home from a night on the town after catching a meal and some drinks at a local bar. You decide to drive home with your windows down and music loud which attracts the attention of a nearby highway patrol officer. Curious at your peculiar driving patterns and disruptive noise, the officer decides to follow your vehicle (unbeknownst to you). As your nearing home, the officer turns on his lights and indicates that you should pull over. You don’t notice the officer’s signal and instead keep driving up your driveway and into your garage. As you open your door to step out of the vehicle, the officer follows you inside your legal residence and begins to question you. Only a little while after, you’re arrested for a misdemeanor charge: driving under the influence.

Police say that no one was home at the search time, but over several days, 27 cats had been found alive, and five were dead. Police are being meticulous with their search to ensure the safety of the animals.

The suspect, Rafael Guevera, has been arrested on animal-involved charges in the past and has been connected to this case. The police are conducting an ongoing search in the home for more animals. They suspect there could still be cats in the walls.

Patterson was charged with animal cruelty, but said he only beat the iguana after it bit him in the arm. Patterson’s attorney attempted to use the “stand your ground” defense, but Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Jeffrey Dana Gillen rejected this defense and ruled today that Patterson must stand trial on a felony animal cruelty charge

Adopted 16 years ago, Florida’s “stand your ground law” states, “A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”