No, it’s not hypocritical because you’re missing (or ignoring) intent. Someone pressures your relative into doing a crime, reluctantly. Now the other criminal gets killed and your reluctant relative is on the hook for a murder they didn’t commit during a crime they didn’t really want to be a part of.
That is in no way comparable to a mastermind gathering a bunch of stooges for a suicide mission and getting them to commit death by cop.
No there wasn’t. That was a separate case that we don’t know the disposition of. That commenter brought them in but in any court that kind of argument is banned unless they were convicted or it’s part of the matter before the court.
That’s exactly why I’m torn. Be pretty hypocritical not to allow it to be applied the other way right?
And it was 25 years anyway for the crime plus it seems there was a lot more going on in this case including a couple other murders.
No, it’s not hypocritical because you’re missing (or ignoring) intent. Someone pressures your relative into doing a crime, reluctantly. Now the other criminal gets killed and your reluctant relative is on the hook for a murder they didn’t commit during a crime they didn’t really want to be a part of.
That is in no way comparable to a mastermind gathering a bunch of stooges for a suicide mission and getting them to commit death by cop.
Fair point.
But here he did shoot at the cops.
No there wasn’t. That was a separate case that we don’t know the disposition of. That commenter brought them in but in any court that kind of argument is banned unless they were convicted or it’s part of the matter before the court.