That lady who works for NASA was arrested for driving 900 miles and having suspicious items in her possesion. How is that murder or even attempted murder? How can you charge someone with murder if they never even had a chance to do it? While the items in her possesion does give away some of what her intentions may have been, it does not prove murder or attempted murder. Are we becoming a communist nation? I guess I better not drive 900 miles or I may be accused of murder! This is a joke! You cannot charge someone with murder if they don't commit murder. This may be embarrasing to NASA, but I have a feeling it is gonna be just like Nifong and that deal with the Duke University students. Charging someone for an uncommitted crime is just wrong! I don't care what she had in her possesion! I could see where you could question her and charge her for weapon possesion, but its not Murder! Nor is it attempted murder. She didn't even try to kill anyone!
2007-02-07 07:06:14 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I don't have a problem with the arrest! Its the charge!! Like I said they should have arrested her for weapons possesion or something like that.
2007-02-07 07:21:50 · update #1
Well this D.A. will lose the murder argument! How many Nifongs do we have in this country? Are people trying to be copy cats?
2007-02-07 07:26:51 · update #2
Isn't what the D.A. did against the law? Like definition of character of slander? His mouth spoke words that where not the truth! I guess it would be similar to the Nifong case where it can only be solved in court. But this lady's reputation will be severly damaged more than it needs to be because of D.A. who decided to stretch the truth to the extreme! In my opinion D.A.s like Nifong and the ones who lie should be punished and removed from duty! If you can't tell the truth and accuse people falsely you have no buisiness representing the law.
2007-02-07 07:38:47 · update #3
Good point. The hammer and knife in her bag were items she did not get to have her hands on, to try to use on her victim. All she managed to do was to spray pepper spray through a partially opened car window. Sounds like aggravated battery rather than attempted murder. She might end up plea bargaining down to Agg. Batt. But if they take it to trial, a jury would have to acquit.
2007-02-07 07:18:22 · answer #1 · answered by DinDjinn 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What the DA does is NOT against the law, so long as the DA has a good faith basis for prosecution. Bringing charges is not defamation or libelm, and prosecutors are allowed an amount of immunity (once again, so long as they have a good faith basis for what they say). Compare that with say, the Duke LaCrosse case, where it appears that the DA intentionally withheld exculpatory evidence and did not communicate with the victim when prosecuting.
P.S. Attempted murder can be anything from taking a "substantial step" toward the underlying crime to trying and failing to murder. If she used pepper spray in someone's car, and also had other tools in her possession that could constitute deadly weapons, that could be enough for a prima facie accusation of attempted murder. The question is whether a jury would convict on those facts. Maybe she got there and realized that she couldn't kill with a knife so used pepper spray...
(She was never charged with murder, only attempted murder; that charge was added only after she was picked up and more investigation was done.)
All you know is that her actions probably wouldn't have resulted in death -- you don't know whether she took a "substantial step" in trying to kill someone.
2007-02-07 16:00:58 · answer #2 · answered by Perdendosi 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your issue stems from the fact that people confuse rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution .
The court of public opinion- news, t.v.,internet, etc. is NOT a court of law.
You are guaranteed your rights in a Court of Law, not the court of public opinion.
The D.A. handling the case can level any charge he/she sees fit.
It is up to the D.A. to prove guilt in a court of law.
The D.A. knows WAY more of the facts of the case than you will see on a t.v. news clip.
2007-02-07 15:15:07 · answer #3 · answered by Skyhawk 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Our justice system grants the accused the "presumption of innocence until he or she is proved guilty." That does not mean an offender is innocent, it only means that the court system, including judge and jury, are required to presume the accused is innocent until sufficient evidence has been presented to convince the jury to pass judgment and render a verdict.
2007-02-07 15:15:08 · answer #4 · answered by Suzianne 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's the same in the UK; anyone can be detained WITHOUT arrest, as the 'police' gather evidence against you! The officers don't even tell you why you were detained.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1397394,00.html
http://www.socialismtoday.org/90/terror.html
http://www.drugresearcher.com/news/ng.asp?n=63447-phytopharm-animal-activists-anti-terror-legislation
In the New Century, everyone is a suspect..
Reminds me of the film 'Minority Report'...
2007-02-07 15:22:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I doubt it will be embarrassing for NASA the acts of one worker does not reflect upon the entire organization when the event fell out of parameters of the persons employment.
As to your question it is wrong to arrest someone for murder if they haven't killed anyone but perhaps she was suspected of commiting murder earlier. However it is better to have someone off of the streets before they kill someone then wating for them to kill someone but yes they sould not have aressted her for murder.
2007-02-07 15:17:12 · answer #6 · answered by bah g 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I missed the part where she was found guilty w/o a trial.
Right now they are just CHARGES.
2007-02-07 15:15:09 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋