Why Do Prosecutors Charge Aggravated Assault Instead of Attempted Murder? (John's Briefs)

[@cjzanders5430]

I typed in "aggravated assault vs murder," and this was the best video I could pull up. I find that puzzling because no one else has decided to post much about the difference in KZbin's 15 year history. Good video.

[@IplayMusic2]

Talking to the detectives and telling them what happened without having an attorney there was a $30,000 mistake for me. I thought, "I didn't do anything wrong, I will tell the truth". The detective committed perjury 8 times in the warrant he swore out. I had to hire a detective for $5,000 and attorney Brent Bryson for $25,000. I will NEVER freely talk to detectives again. Had I paid Bryson $2,000 to go to the interview with me, they wouldn't have filed a charge.

[@RuleofFive]

Wow sorry that happened to you. I watched a video on YT about why you should never talk to the police unless you're with your lawyer. I was convinced after that. I had thought the same thing you did. Well if I'm innocent I want the police to know I am. Sometimes it doesn't matter.

[@jfazo2672]

Currently going through this if i shut up i wouldnt have any charges against me ... honestly i thought they'd hear the situation & let me go

[@tarrantcountykid]

I want to know why when someone has successfully defended themselves from a perpetrator that the Police or Prosecutor starts looking for a way to charge the defender

[@papimaximus95]

Who hurt you? From my experience, if you defend yourself against an actual criminal doing criminal stuff you are fine. The problem is that people use their firearms and "defend" themselves in social violence situations (movie theater, parking lot, little league arguments, etc.) which are much more borderline shootings.

[@tarrantcountykid]

@@papimaximus95 You’re clueless, aren’t you? You probably don’t have any experience.

[@ASPextra]

They don't, generally. If a person has been shot or killed, though, the detectives will want to make sure that it is, indeed, a good defensive use of force. There are literally tens of thousands of these a year, and you never hear about them because the detective looks over the evidence, tells the DA that it's clearly defensive and justified, and the DA says "cool, next case."

[@jayyoung5627]

@@papimaximus95 Who hurt you? Have you already forgotten about Jose Alba? Why practice the morality of a slave if you are 'free'?

[@papimaximus95]

@@jayyoung5627 "Have you already forgotten about Jose Alba? That was classic social violence as I stated. He was not being criminally mugged or robbed. This was a social issue that went bad. See how that works.

[@1a1u0g9t4s2u]

Nice insight, thanks for sharing.

[@ASPextra]

Glad it was helpful!

[@ezraroberts9016]

This was amazing

[@AFreeThinkingDawg09]

Bc it’s harder to prove intent of murder. But it’s easy to prove you just did something that led to the assault/injury of others with the intent to or not

[@papimaximus95]

"But it’s easy to prove you just did something that led to the assault/injury of others with the intent to or not" Agg Assault still requires intent.

[@jreese46]

Easier to prove whether an assault occurred, and whether it included a weapon or chance of serious bodily harm, than it is to prove intent. It's all about the "batting average," actual justice be damned.

[@papimaximus95]

"Easier to prove whether an assault occurred, and whether it included a weapon or chance of serious bodily harm, than it is to prove intent" Agg Assault still requires intent.

[@ASPextra]

No, no intent required for agg assault. Did you actually put someone at risk or at perceived risk of death or great bodily harm? Recklessness can cause that, and get agg assault charges to stick without intent.

[@papimaximus95]

@@ASPextra "No, no intent required for agg assault." No. So take Arizona for instance. Aggravate Assault is defined as Assault (which clearly needs intention) with additional specifications. All of those specification require additional intent. Recklessness is still intent...it is implied intent (you should have known better and/or didn't care). We have Specific Intent and General Intent crimes. Recklessness is a General Intent crime but is still...intent. 13-1204. Aggravated assault; classification; definitions A. A person commits aggravated assault if the person commits assault as prescribed by section 13-1203 under any of the following circumstances: 1. If the person causes serious physical injury to another. 2. If the person uses a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument. 3. If the person commits the assault by any means of force that causes temporary but substantial disfigurement, temporary but substantial loss or impairment of any body organ or part or a fracture of any body part. 4. If the person commits the assault while the victim is bound or otherwise physically restrained or while the victim's capacity to resist is substantially impaired. 5. If the person commits the assault after entering the private home of another with the intent to commit the assault. 6. If the person is eighteen years of age or older and commits the assault on a minor under fifteen years of age. 7. If the person commits assault as prescribed by section 13-1203, subsection A, paragraph 1 or 3 and the person is in violation of an order of protection issued against the person pursuant to section 13-3602 or 13-3624. 8. If the person commits the assault knowing or having reason to know that the victim is any of the following: (a) A peace officer or a person summoned and directed by the officer....and so on... 9. If the person knowingly takes or attempts to exercise control over any of the following: 13-1203. Assault; classification A. A person commits assault by: 1. Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing any physical injury to another person; or 2. Intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury; or 3. Knowingly touching another person with the intent to injure, insult or provoke such person.

[@papimaximus95]

@@brentives4688 Wrong. The statute literally told you what intent was needed. Again, by all legal definitions, recklessness is a general intent crime - the word intent is right there. The intent is on the action not the victim. So you intended to do the crime but the victim or consequences may not be intended - hence recklessness like shooting gun in the air. Specific intent crimes mean you intended the action and the consequences. Either way, you intended (or should have known better) to assault with the deadly weapon - which in AZ equals Agg Assault. Many other states actually separate reckless assault from aggravated assault.

[@jonahtaivalkoski322]

It’s not justice to charge attempted Murder without any evidence of specific intent, nor is it likely to change the result.

[@shevetlevi2821]

Never fails to amaze how far American criminal law diverges from common sense and common decency, and how semantics are used to further obfuscate what should be a logical course legally. In Florida the Parkland shooter/ Nicholas Cruz case has entered its 5th year, now in its endless penalty phase. In a legal system that takes a generation to resolve a parking ticket it points to how barbaric our legal system is in that the families of the victims and the victims themselves have not been able to put this behind them and go on with their lives, all while Cruz is gloating.

[@ASPextra]

the victims families will never put it behind them, ever. Cruz will rot in prison.

[@shevetlevi2821]

@@ASPextra Of course to both. But if the legal system operated the way the private sector does this would all be concluded in weeks, not years. And I agree, the families will never put this behind them but it's the difference between an open wound that keeps getting ripped open verses one where the families might have some blessed moments of not always remembering and maybe some moments of peace in their lives. We all know what Cruz is, but the legal system hides behind a veneer of doing good, of protecting Americans. That's just not what it does.

[@grbdevnull5611]

Apparently, posting "Engagement comment." too many times will cause YT to reject that comment.

[@bruhitsme2601]

Because it's easier to prove and they have a "hidden" quota to fill. They get paid to prosecute. It's easier to prove the damage, not the intent. Also, success rate for prosecutor is high.

[@cheech41]

Easier to prove sometimes

[@Dan-yk6sy]

Zimmler chased the kid down and instigated it, the 911 operator even told him to stop following the kid. He should have been prosecuted, its unfortunate that dirtbag wasn't convicted.

[@ASPextra]

tell me you didn't watch the trial without telling me you didn't watch the trial.

[@leemyers1015]

if a person points a gun at someone, pulls the trigger that is intent. this attorney is all about defense

[@brademerick7455]

You should listen without bias to get the full message. I mostly agree with you about the intent, but the perp('s attorney) can claim that he was shooting to scare the victim. Then the prosecutor's case of 'intent to murder' would be lost and a waste of time & money. Aggravated assault sticks at a far higher frequency.

[@jreese46]

There is what happened, and then there is what you can prove to the satisfaction of 12 other people happened.

[@papimaximus95]

"if a person points a gun at someone, pulls the trigger that is intent." Aggravated Assault still requires intent. The point is that attempted Murder requires the prosecutor prove your intention to kill that person (outside of special circumstances). The law has not said that all shootings are an obvious case of attempted murder. Which is were the old wives tale comes from of shoot someone below the wait it is Agg Assault...above the waist is Attempted Murder.

[@Ilovesportmode]

i’m not sure this women was charged with aggravated assault even tho she shot the victim 3 times

[@rogerkreil3314]

How much longer is an attempted murder charge than an aggravated assault charge?

[@ASPextra]

A couple of years. Maybe presumptive 8 on agg assault and maybe 11 on attempted murder. Depends on the state.

[@ElverGalarga-tw4cc]

Because it’s what you can proof!

[@simonwhitlock2yearsago296]

Prove*

[@danielhagerty8460]

They control us we act out at all or do something we have to face a judge or a jury and they get to decide our fate but we apparently supposed to have free will per the Bible? But we let the people that are in charge control us? The world is fucked lol 😂

[@bubbalawrence1]

TLDR; Uncle Sam’s attorneys don’t want to work too hard and like fat pockets

[@ASPextra]

Wrong.

[@CollinMac96]

Correct

[@newgoliard6059]

Some states don't have attempted murder so it's ag assault.

[@papimaximus95]

" Some states don't have attempted murder so it's ag assault. " Do you have an example of one of these states that doesn't have it?

[@bvoyelr]

I'd be willing to bet that most prosecutors are successful because juries forget their charge: for criminal liability, it's beyond the shadow of a doubt. That means that it is basically impossible for the case to have happened in a way that's different than the prosecutor's depiction of the case. If you look into a lot of case files, you'll find that standard wasn't even close to met. Not all cases, obviously, and I'd bet that most of the people in prison are there properly despite that standard not being met, but still: beyond the shadow of a doubt should mean no criminal conviction is ever overturned. That's what the standard MEANS.

[@shredderk]

It's beyond a REASONABLE doubt. Not beyond all doubt. Nobody could ever be convicted beyond all doubts

[@ASPextra]

What Shredder said. There is no criminal statute in the nation that requires beyond a shadow of a doubt, anywhere. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard.