Acantha Posted August 11, 2010 Posted August 11, 2010 It was not thrown from another vehicle. He was outside of the car and threw the paver. How far away is not clear, but if he had been in another vehicle it would have helped the defense. He could have been aiming somewhere else, manslaughter, but he was aiming inside the cab when he threw the paver. There isn't even a way a witness could know that (unless the guy was a foot from the car) much less someone reading an article.
Jim in Anchorage Posted August 11, 2010 Posted August 11, 2010 Just the latest.It was a 12x12 paving stone. It entered through the passenger window and hit her midsection and severed her liver. The event happened around 4am and she was taken to a local hospital where the police were notified. At around 6am she was immediately taken to Wake Forest Baptist Hospital where she died around 12 during surgery to stop internal bleeding. She had been dating his cousin and showed up at the party with another guy. There was a lot of alcohol there, as well. The accused went to court yesterday morning against the charge of first degree murder. He could face the death penalty. He is having a public defender assigned. If this reaches trial it will most likely be moved to another county location to avoid a tainted jury. A friend of mine was her favorite teacher. She is deeply upset by this - Shelby was an amazing person. He will definately plead out and get a minimum 30 years. I would, too. But than again, you'd have found a sheet around my neck. I am am not a violent person and to think I did that to someone - I'd save everyone the pain and go night night. ***Edited Must have a hell of a arm to "throw" a 12x12 paving stone. I suspect "heaving" would be more accurate. Regardless, I think Manslaughter would be the proper charge here, unless someone can prove he meant to kill her, rather then just damage the car
boyst Posted August 11, 2010 Author Posted August 11, 2010 There isn't even a way a witness could know that (unless the guy was a foot from the car) much less someone reading an article. I live here, in this small community, where we all know each other... I do not know all the details, but I know more than the news sources are releasing. From what I am told, he was a few feet from the vehicle and heaved it through the window. She leaned away from the stone and exposed her midsection. It did not help that they did not go to the hospital immediately, friends had to urge her over an hour later.
Steely Dan Posted August 11, 2010 Posted August 11, 2010 This is insane. It has the community I live in very upset. This girl was well known and it is very sad.1st link 2nd link 3rd link best link I cannot imagine the kid wanted to do anything terribly hurtful to her, I do not know him, though. However, it does show how a simple stupid act can really do damage. It did not have to kill her but at the least would have broke the window (if up) or bruised her pretty bad. It is just insane! There are conflicting reports, though. Whether it hit her in the head or mid section - either way, I hope she did not suffer and hope he does. For a little change in tone, well...Guilford County has a "SHCOOL" painted on the road. Something truly disgusting Words fail me. I'm angry, sad and disgusted but they all seem inadequate to describe my feelings about this. I hope this guy never sees the light of day again. He had no intention of killing her why should he get life in prison. Its says he does volunteer work at church and other stuff. He probably got jealous and wanted to ruin her night thats all, but he is truely an idiot for throwing a brick. I still think he should get locked up, but not life. If he intentailly did it then yes, but if accident then no. He should get about 30 years with parol. You're kidding right?! Are you saying that because he goes to church it was probably an accident? BTK wrote his final letter to police from a church computer and nobody suspected him because he was so involved in the church. That train of thought makes me ill. I don't care about intent, that guy should get the book thrown at him for being stupid and careless. What he said. What did he expect to happen? The Brick would turn into a giant pillow and land behind her head causing her to drift to sleep? The guy is over the age of 20, he picked up a brick and threw it at a car, at that age you know better, or atleast everyone should know that throwing a concrete block can cause serious damage. No excuse He will never go to trial. Will take a plea to Murder 2nd, and take a significant sentence with the chance of getting out when he is 50. As soon as they say "plea to Murder 2, or we go for the death penalty" he will take the plea. My opinion though. If it was you, would you take your chances with a jury? If they offer him a plea I will literally vomit. I know 1st degree murder may be difficult to prove here but dear God I hope he never sees the light of day again. I know this is nobodies fault but the defendants, if he did it, but what was a 17 year old girl doing out at 3am?
justnzane Posted August 11, 2010 Posted August 11, 2010 i think it would be really hard to prove intent to kill. manslaughter is the more likely result on this one.
Acantha Posted August 11, 2010 Posted August 11, 2010 It was not thrown from another vehicle. He was outside of the car and threw the paver. How far away is not clear, but if he had been in another vehicle it would have helped the defense. He could have been aiming somewhere else, manslaughter, but he was aiming inside the cab when he threw the paver. I live here, in this small community, where we all know each other... I do not know all the details, but I know more than the news sources are releasing. From what I am told, he was a few feet from the vehicle and heaved it through the window. She leaned away from the stone and exposed her midsection. It did not help that they did not go to the hospital immediately, friends had to urge her over an hour later. Guess those details keep filtering in? While I'm not trying to defend the kid, even if those details are correct, it's STILL not clear that he has an intent to KILL. If he were standing over her and threw it on her head, you could make an argument. But throwing something at someone from outside of a car doesn't automatically prove anything. Someone earlier asked "what did he expect to happen?" How about breaking the window and scaring the hell out of the girl? How about hurting her? None of these things exuse his actions, but to say he only could have expected her death is a little outside of reality. Hopefully what is known and what was done is enough to get him put away for the rest of his life. Whether he meant it or not, you can't excuse what he did and IMO he needs to pay for the result, not the intent.
Steely Dan Posted August 11, 2010 Posted August 11, 2010 Guess those details keep filtering in? While I'm not trying to defend the kid, even if those details are correct, it's STILL not clear that he has an intent to KILL. If he were standing over her and threw it on her head, you could make an argument. But throwing something at someone from outside of a car doesn't automatically prove anything. Someone earlier asked "what did he expect to happen?" How about breaking the window and scaring the hell out of the girl? How about hurting her? None of these things exuse his actions, but to say he only could have expected her death is a little outside of reality. Hopefully what is known and what was done is enough to get him put away for the rest of his life. Whether he meant it or not, you can't excuse what he did and IMO he needs to pay for the result, not the intent. If you take a 12x12 paver and don't realize it has killing potential when thrown at someone through glass who's seated in the back of a car you're too stupid to be allowed in society. JMO Knowing it could possibly kill is good enough for me on a murder one.
justnzane Posted August 11, 2010 Posted August 11, 2010 If you take a 12x12 paver and don't realize it has killing potential when thrown at someone through glass who's seated in the back of a car you're too stupid to be allowed in society. JMO Knowing it could possibly kill is good enough for me on a murder one. steely, you are better than this. For murder one, you need to be able to prove intent to kill. Now the prosecution must be able to prove that he meant to have it go thru the window, and not another window or the body of the car.
Steely Dan Posted August 11, 2010 Posted August 11, 2010 It was not thrown from another vehicle. He was outside of the car and threw the paver. How far away is not clear, but if he had been in another vehicle it would have helped the defense. He could have been aiming somewhere else, manslaughter, but he was aiming inside the cab when he threw the paver. steely, you are better than this. For murder one, you need to be able to prove intent to kill. Now the prosecution must be able to prove that he meant to have it go thru the window, and not another window or the body of the car. As jboyst62 points out, he was outside the car when he threw the paver. I'd say it's a pretty good indication he meant for it to got through the window.
C.Biscuit97 Posted August 11, 2010 Posted August 11, 2010 Still have to prove intent for 2nd. More likely, I think, first degree manslaughter...which usually carries 25 years as well. Slightly off topic but someone made a great point about manslaughter. Say you try to kill someone and fail. you get charged with manslaughter, which is a lesser charge than murder. But you were trying to murder someone and jsut failed because you were too dumb to finish it. If anything you should get extra time for beign a moron. Btw, terrible tragedy and a brick is a weapon. Let him rot.
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted August 11, 2010 Posted August 11, 2010 Guess those details keep filtering in? While I'm not trying to defend the kid, even if those details are correct, it's STILL not clear that he has an intent to KILL. If he were standing over her and threw it on her head, you could make an argument. But throwing something at someone from outside of a car doesn't automatically prove anything. Someone earlier asked "what did he expect to happen?" How about breaking the window and scaring the hell out of the girl? How about hurting her? None of these things exuse his actions, but to say he only could have expected her death is a little outside of reality. Hopefully what is known and what was done is enough to get him put away for the rest of his life. Whether he meant it or not, you can't excuse what he did and IMO he needs to pay for the result, not the intent. It's a tricky one, for sure. My opinion is that it's murder. What if he had just started indiscriminately shooting bullets into the side of the car, and one happened to kill her? Where do you draw the line? A deadly weapon is a deadly weapon, and when you use one you have to live with whatever the consequences are.
Arkady Renko Posted August 11, 2010 Posted August 11, 2010 Slightly off topic but someone made a great point about manslaughter. Say you try to kill someone and fail. you get charged with manslaughter, which is a lesser charge than murder. But you were trying to murder someone and jsut failed because you were too dumb to finish it. If anything you should get extra time for beign a moron. Btw, terrible tragedy and a brick is a weapon. Let him rot. You don't get charged with manslaughter. You get charged with attempted murder.
BB27 Posted August 11, 2010 Posted August 11, 2010 The facts that we have only indicate that he intended to hit the car. I disagree. By all accounts, he was targeting her for being at the party with another guy (new boyfriend).
DC Tom Posted August 11, 2010 Posted August 11, 2010 As jboyst62 points out, he was outside the car when he threw the paver. I'd say it's a pretty good indication he meant for it to got through the window. I disagree. By all accounts, he was targeting her for being at the party with another guy (new boyfriend). You're presuming he gave this far more thought than he probably did. He was dumb enough to throw a rock at a moving car, for God's sake.
justnzane Posted August 11, 2010 Posted August 11, 2010 You're presuming he gave this far more thought than he probably did. He was dumb enough to throw a rock at a moving car, for God's sake. exactly my thoughts. Manslaughter is open and shut case. Murder much tougher in this situation.
Arkady Renko Posted August 12, 2010 Posted August 12, 2010 Often you can be convicted for murder due to a reckless disregard for human life. (Like shooting randomly at a crowd.) They need not necessarily prove intent to kill.
Arkady Renko Posted August 12, 2010 Posted August 12, 2010 It's a tricky one, for sure. My opinion is that it's murder. What if he had just started indiscriminately shooting bullets into the side of the car, and one happened to kill her? Where do you draw the line? A deadly weapon is a deadly weapon, and when you use one you have to live with whatever the consequences are. That's the textbook case of reckless disregard for human life, which is sufficient to convict someone for murder (usually second degree).
The Dean Posted August 12, 2010 Posted August 12, 2010 Often you can be convicted for murder due to a reckless disregard for human life. (Like shooting randomly at a crowd.) They need not necessarily prove intent to kill. 1st Degree Murder?
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 12, 2010 Posted August 12, 2010 I know he is the cousin of the one jilted... Where does "heat of passion" or "depraved heart" fit into this? Or can't it because he is the cousin?
Arkady Renko Posted August 12, 2010 Posted August 12, 2010 1st Degree Murder? Not normally, no. I hadn't realized that he was up for capital murder.
Recommended Posts