News @lemmy.world Salamendacious @lemmy.world 1 yr. ago

Jury acquits delivery driver of main charge in shooting of YouTube prankster

abcnews.go.com Jury acquits delivery driver of main charge in shooting of YouTube prankster

A jury has found a delivery driver not guilty in the shooting of a YouTube prankster who was following him around a mall food court earlier this year

231

You're viewing a single thread.

231 comments

A) it says he was acquitted of one charge, but convicted of another. I'm trying to figure out what the second charge was, except

B) all the news sites that popped up at the top of Google search are literally identical. Cool.
- Alan W. Colie, 31, is charged with aggravated malicious wounding, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, and discharging a firearm within a building following the April 2 altercation in the mall’s food court.
  
  Since the second charge depends on the first, which he was acquitted of, I'm guessing he was convicted of the third.
  
  If any person maliciously discharges a firearm within any building when occupied by one or more persons in such a manner as to endanger the life or lives of such person or persons, or maliciously shoots at, or maliciously throws any missile at or against any dwelling house or other building when occupied by one or more persons, whereby the life or lives of any such person or persons may be put in peril, the person so offending is guilty of a Class 4 felony.
  
  That would corroborate his lawyers saying that a conviction after a finding of a lack of malice is inconsistent.
  
  This tracks.
  
  Weird how every article about this from today is copy and pasted and omits such key details.
  
  Welcome to modern journalism. It's copy and paste and AI translators all the way.
  
  That would corroborate his lawyers saying that a conviction after a finding of a lack of malice is inconsistent.
  
  Except the next paragraph says:
  
  If any such act be done unlawfully, but not maliciously, the person so offending is guilty of a Class 6 felony;
  
  But, if the shooting was in self-defense, was it unlawful? Maybe the guy was legally allowed to defend himself, but not legally allowed to shoot a gun inside a crowded food court. Like, the self-defense covers him for injuring another person, but it doesn't cover the danger he posed to other people when he did it?
  
  Guess I gotta cool it with throwing missiles in public, keep it to the backyard for a bit.
  
  Wait, can I benignly throw missiles in public? Do I have to call something out, like yell hot potato then chuck it?
  
  Very confusing rules
  
  Malice is required.
- charges of aggravated malicious wounding and malicious discharge of a firearm
  
  Those are the two other charges. I'm not sure which one he was convicted of though.
  
  The wounding is the main charge.
- I noted this as well. No info about the second conviction.
  
  Another poster said there was an appeal, I can't find anything about it, by whom, or on what.
  
  Also see no info about post verdict motions.
  
  It sounded to me as though there may be inconsistent verdicts. I don't know this aspect of criminal procedure to say what happens in this case. I think it's a mistrial, and dude may be retried? Could be a directed verdict on the convicted charge.
- B) all the news sites that popped up at the top of Google search are literally identical. Cool.
  
  I was just skimming through them, so it took me about five articles to realize that they weren't just sharing quotes but were actually exact copies. I felt like I was crazy for a minute. I have never seen this kind of thing with news articles, but makes me wonder how common it is.
  
  Also, I was using DDG not Google so it is not just their problem.

You've viewed 231 comments.