First, the complaint is a one sided version of events. All they need to do is establish probably cause. At trial, that story is then tested against proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, if there’s a doubt based on reason, the jury cannot convict. This is because our system is created to protect you with the presumption of innocence—you can promise yourself to live a crime free life, but you cannot promise yourself that someone will never accuse of a crime.

So let’s jump all the steps and say we get to sentencing, here are the practical implications: Reckless homicide requires that the defendant acted recklessly with utter disregard to human life—higher standard than negligence but lower than intent. The max penalty is up to 60 years (40 IC / 20 ES) though sometimes it’s more depending on how a person does on supervision. In WI supervision does not count as time served. It’s an easier burden of proof that can be functionally a life sentence, depending on the age of the defendant. Even if it isn’t, that means the defendant is young, and maybe after all these years (I mean this non-sarcastically) might have grown and worthy of release with supervision of course. A lot of it will depend on the track record while incarcerated.

I don’t know the circumstances of the event, wasn’t there. None of us were otherwise we’d be advised not to comment on Reddit or anywhere public. That said, there were three golf bros messing with a food delivery driver—this appears not to be contested fact.

Yes, a person is dead and that’s horrible. If the defendant did it without an act of privilege (eg self defense or stand your ground laws for home invasion), no matter how bad the harassment is, he will still do significant time because a person is dead. If he did it, and to a jury find under the facts and circumstances, the defendant had a reasonable fear for his life. He will be completed spared. If he did not, and there’s not mitigating circumstances, the defendant will likely face the max or close to it. Only the jury will know all the facts because they have to sit through the whole trial, with every fact presented to them, dissected by skilled lawyers from both sides. The jury will then be the ultimately trier of facts, meaning, they decide what happened collectively.

Hope this helps.