That's not the issue here. The issue is that in some states it is virtually impossible to bring charges against somebody who shoots somebody else in their home in the absence of witnesses against them. It's not a question of divining intent either. It's not a question of do you bring 2nd degree manslaughter or murder. It's a question of the laws in the state essentially defining your home as a place where you have the absolute right to defend yourself with lethal force if necessary and the discretion to look at circumstances essentially removed from the prosecutors in those cases. There was a case a couple of years ago where a guy took two friends out on his boat. They weren't regulars on the boat, he'd just invited them to go out that day. The boat came in with both of them dead by gunshot wound and him claiming that he'd shot them in self-defense. Other people knew that the guy had been the person inviting them to go out, that they hadn't gone to him looking for a trip. In that circumstance a prosecutor would usually take a very long look at the case because of the way the three of them had gotten on the boat. The judge in the case threw out the charges that the prosecutor eventually filed because the guy's boat was considered a domicile and he had the absolute right of self defense when he was on it. The prosecutor wasn't even allowed to bring the case before a jury because the state's laws (Florida I think) prevented a homeowner from being tried for a homicide of a non-related person in his home or domicile in the absence of clear-cut evidence that he was guilty. He couldn't even be tried.
Yup...A dead person's words against yours... As long as you don't have a rap sheet, you can get away with murder here in Florida... The people here get what they vote for...They also voted for higher electric rates, insurance rates, fees, etc...Suckers.
If the circumstances are suspicious, police will investigate. If there is proof of wrongdoing, charges will be brought against the killer. If there isn't proof, the killer won't face charges, or will be found innocent. This is the same way it works for every other crime in this country. What exactly is the problem? If there isn't sufficient proof to overcome "innocent until proven guilty" in court, then prosecutors don't even belong getting involved. Their discretion, or lack thereof, is irrelevant.
In Florida the case won't get past the judge to a jury unless the guy has a history of violence or the homicide was a member of his family. Effectively you get the first murder free in Florida if it's in your home and nobody saw you do it and the victim was not a relative or other person (like a renter) who had full access to the home.
So, the circumstances were suspicious, and what happened? Police looked at the evidence, prosecutors looked at the evidence, a judge looked at the evidence... and found that it wasn't sufficient for a conviction. It isn't like the case was immediately dismissed because the guy's boat was a safe haven beyond the reach of the law. I'm not saying that he didn't kill those men, but if it were provable that he did, then the outcome would have been different. I strongly believe that 10 guilty men walking free is better than one innocent man dying in prison. Putting a man on trial simply because of acquaintances saying he "had it out" for those people would be unjust. If he were convicted under those circumstances, it would be a travesty.
The case was immediately dismissed because the guy's boat was a safe haven beyond the reach of the law.
If there is absolute proof, you will be found guilty. If there isn't, you won't. You can describe it any other way you like, but it is really that simple. It is a perfect exemplification of the single fundamental idea that our legal system is based on. Does it leave a lot of crimes unpunished? Yes. But (in theory) it leaves the innocent comfortable with the idea that they can never be convicted of a crime they didn't commit. You keep on saying that prosecutors "can't even bring the case before a jury, unless there is clear-cut proof that he is guilty", as though this is a major shortcoming. Ummm..... yeah, that's the way it's supposed to work. By the definition of the law, people can't be convicted unless there is clear-cut evidence of guilt. Why do you want these people being brought to trial when there isn't enough evidence to convict them?
Well, I'm not going to take your word for that, especially since the way you originally described it made it sound like a judge looked at the evidence police and prosecutors were able to find, and found it insufficient to continue to trial. If you want me to reconsider, the least you can do is find a link to a reliable source.
The case was dismissed because the 2 men were not aboard with permission, they went to the boat to confront Monahan who had bought the boat from Mohlman, one of the men who was killed. Mohlman had been claiming Monahan had racked up some tickets that were going in Mohlmans name because Monahan had not registered the boat after buying it. Mohlman never produced the tickets to show Monahan and then showed up at the boat that day. Mohman had a BAL of .23 and the other guy that was killed had a BAL of .11 Being that impaired and showing up uninvited could have caused a 65 year old man to fear for his life. Here is from one newspaper account,
between tiger(adulterer), lance( performance drugs) and oscar(alleged murderer) , nike have picked some doozies
Supposedly she snuck in at like 2:00am to surprise him. The dude was apparently paranoid and kept a pistol, rifle, bat and cricket bat in his bedroom for protection.
This is why responsibility matters. How could someone possibly mistake his girlfriend for an intruder? It doesn't even make sense unless he was sleep walking or hopped up on some crazy drugs. If I hear somebody in my house, the first thing I would think is, "how many people have the key and could possibly stop by at this time?". What a dumb fuck I hope they throw the book at him.