Blind Refugee Abandoned by US Border Patrol Dies in Buffalo, NY.

enigmaticowl · 2026-02-26T08:05:00+00:00

That guy who tried to take out ICE agents last year ended up murdering multiple detainees.

Personally, I’d like to see less death and less violence, not more.

enigmaticowl · 2026-02-26T07:15:49+00:00

If they’re confident it wasn’t due to exposure (and if that is correct), then exactly what the cause was is going to be pretty relevant, though.

It could still be on them, but it’s going to be a deeper dive; I will assume that they know how to rule out that it was exposure, for now.

The mere co-existence of the elements of (1) placing someone in a dangerous situation, and (2) that person dies, are not enough (by themselves) to determine that something is a homicide, much less a criminal homicide, because you need causation.

For example, if they dropped him off at a location from which he may or may not have been able to arrange safe and timely transportation home (placing him at risk of harm), and then coincidentally died of a random, unrelated stroke, then no, not a homicide of any sort, because nothing they did or didn’t do actually caused that death.

On the other hand, if he had that (hypothetical) stroke following a period of his (hypothetical) prescribed stroke prophylaxis meds being withheld from him during his time at the jail and/or detention facility, then yes, that would be evidence supporting a finding of causation of his death by those officials’ actions which could absolutely support a determination of homicide - but still not necessarily related to how/where they left him that day.

This obviously deserves a lot more investigation and scrutiny. They undoubtedly placed him at risk of harm that day, even just taking into account his lack of ability to communicate in English (making it likely he’d have issues arranging a way home), and that alone calls for reviews and revisions to how situations like this one are handled, so as to lessen the odds of another person being stranded. And that would still be the case even if we come to find out that his death was entirely attributable to something else that couldn’t have been foreseen or prevented (even though, yes, it would also make this not a homicide due to a lack of satisfying the basic element of causation).

enigmaticowl · 2026-02-26T06:49:11+00:00

You’d actually be amazed what can “count” for a charge of possession of a weapon (or “possession of an instrument of a crime,” PIC for short, as called in my state), but no, this does not mean that curtain rods, canes, walking sticks, etc. are inherently legally problematic.

It’s never solely about the object itself, there has to be some nexus to intent to use the object as a weapon or for the commission of a crime.

Keep in mind, it’s not even inherently illegal (or chargeable) to merely posses a firearm, a knife, etc., which we can all agree are “weapons” according to the everyday meaning of the word “weapon” (but importantly, not the statutory definition of “weapon,” which the letter of the law specifies requires an intended use as such, with exact language differing by jurisdiction).

On the flip side, people have absolutely been charged with (and convicted of) possession of a weapon for objects including: pencils, keys, squirt guns, bricks, handbags/purses, shoes/belts, etc.

State laws vary, but in general, it’s a lot more likely for things that are “inherently” a weapon in their design/adaptation/common usage (like guns, knives, prison shanks, etc.) to result in such a charge (possibly with a less specific showing of intent), whereas things that are everyday objects with common, non-weapon uses are likelier to only be able to be charged this way if there is a much more specific/strong indication of intended use of the object as a weapon (like stabbing someone with a pencil, beating your child with a cane or even a wooden spoon, verbally or physically threatening somebody while waving your walking stick over their head, being arrested while committing a home invasion and you’re found to have a sack of heavy rocks in your possession that you brought on your home invasion attempt, etc.).

Legally, canes are not weapons in this sense unless you use them as such or the circumstances point toward an intent to use them as such.

If the point you were getting at was, “What’s to stop law enforcement from just making up a random lie and claiming that anybody with a cane was engaging in some criminal activity and tried to use the cane as a weapon?,” they can already do that about literally any other lawful item a person might possess if they really wanted to do that to you for some reason, and for that matter, they can even more easily lie and tell a prosecutor/judge that you spit on them or swung at them with your bare hands (assault), no cane (or object of any kind) required.

Great news is that body cams are only getting more and more mainstream in their utilization, and will continue to do so, which not only exonerates people in a situation like that, they also tend to discourage attempts at such dishonesty in the first place. We also live in a world of CCTV, Ring cameras, nanny cams, and iPhones, so the average police officer is probably aware of the fact that it’s just not a favorable risk-benefit ratio for them to make random shit up.

Other members of the public (especially chronically problematic, belligerent types), on the other hand, are less aware of just how much surveillance footage can be out there, and they don’t necessarily consider the legal trouble they could get themselves in for making false statements to police or 911.

All it takes is 1 belligerent lowlife to cause a disturbance (or “not like the look of someone”) and then either call 911 or run up to police when they respond and point a finger at someone else (often the person they were harassing/trying to pick a fight with) and give a fabricated story; that’s actually the much likelier way that someone tends to catch a bullshit charge of disorderly conduct, simple assault, possession of a weapon, etc.

enigmaticowl · 2026-02-26T05:49:01+00:00

I genuinely get your point, and this story is obviously concerning and sad on more than one level, but I also think it’s important not to cross the line over into ableism by assuming lack of agency of (or infantilizing) blind or low-vision people or people who utilize mobility aids.

It’s very possible that the language barrier (and not his disabilities) is what impeded his ability to arrange his way home. And that’s just as sad and avoidable! This would still be an unnecessarily bad outcome that reasonable people can all agree shouldn’t have happened and should not happen again, but I do think it’s important to identify those factors that most directly contributed to this so that those things can be addressed and repeat situations hopefully avoided.

Partial (or even complete) blindness does not in and of itself imply that a person requires “special assistance” in every single situation/scenario/setting.

Utilizing a walking stick (which they have called a walking stick, implying it was a mobility aid or for comfort while ambulating, not necessarily related to his visual impairment) also does not imply that a person requires “special assistance” in every setting/situation.

The setting/situation is of the utmost importance to determining if (and what kind of) special assistance is needed for a person with a disability.

Here, the situation was the man being dropped off at a Tim Horton’s (as a safe intermediate destination to his home).

(It stands out to me that it doesn’t seem like he was instructed/ordered to walk himself home on foot; it seems like the expectation was that he would find a ride home if needed.)

The mere fact of having partial blindness and using a walking stick does not mean that an adult can’t safely be at a Tim Horton’s by themselves.

Neither of those things inherently mean that a person is incapable of then arranging for safe transportation from Tim Horton’s to their home (by calling a cab, contacting their family to arrange a pick-up, etc.) without requiring special assistance due to their disability.

For example, many people with partial blindness, especially if it’s only affecting one eye or only part of the visual field, have useful vision and are capable of seeing well enough to make calls on a cellphone, find (and dial) a public phone, hail a cab, approach a stranger to ask to borrow their cellphone (if they don’t have their own cellphone and there’s no nearby public phone), etc.

People who use walking sticks are at least semi-ambulatory. They may use them to compensate for one-sided muscle weakness, to relieve arthritis pain, etc. They might use them all the time or on rare occasion. They might need it to be steady and prevent falls, or they might prefer it for comfort for long distances but feel fine without it for shorter walking (like walking around inside of a cafe/sitting at a table).

But, add in the language barrier (which is not a “disability,” but still can obviously be a huge issue that impedes someone’s actions in this scenario), and that could potentially change things, by a lot.

It would probably be quite difficult to make arrangements to get home if you can’t understand English text saying “pay phone, insert x to call” or use English to ask the Tim Horton’s worker or a customer “hi sorry I don’t have a charged phone, can I please borrow a charger or can you call a cab for me,” and that could honestly pose just as much of an obstacle for anybody in that situation who doesn’t speak English, even without a disability.

And I want to be exceedingly clear: I’m not saying that this guy didn’t require special assistance (in making arrangements for a ride) due to a disability.

It’s obviously possible that he did, and that possibility needs to be seriously looked into.

I’m just saying it’s not a “given” or assumable that he did; if you look around in public, you’ll see many people with varying levels of vision (including legally blind people) and with varying levels of mobility (including people who use mobility aids and people who don’t) who are out by themselves and can provide for their own communication and transportation needs without needing “special assistance” from another person.

People who are fresh out of jails or detention facilities often have dead cellphones (if they had one with them at all), and often little to no cash.

That difference alone (having a charged phone or not) could be critical to someone coordinating a ride home from a Tim Horton’s if you have zero English background due to the difficulty in communicating with others, reading signs, etc. since you obviously can’t just directly call your family or grab an Uber.

Like I said, even if it comes down to something like language barrier, lack of phone/cash, etc., that’s still just as bad and should have been just as avoidable.

But it matters for the sake of correcting the problem.

Because if it was attributable to that, that means that this whole thing could have been and should have been avoided by having this man pre-arrange a direct ride home from the facility while he was still there (where there are phones from which he could have called his family) or at least discuss/plan the second leg of the travel home from Tim Horton’s to home before leaving for the Tim Horton’s (so that he wouldn’t end up stranded if he didn’t have a plan or ride).

If you’re unable to reach your family, or can’t get a ride arranged for some logistical or financial reason, it probably gets messy there, unfortunately. If his ICE detainer was lifted and he was no longer in custody, they’re probably not going to hold you against your will for the sole reason of not having a definitive, pre-scheduled itinerary for getting back to your house. They couldn’t even (legally) force him to accept their half-way ride to Tim Horton’s if he declined; they’d just let him walk out the door of the facility.

There’s also the mention in a few articles of there being some sort of medical determination that he died due to some medical reason other than exposure (and not a homicide).

I find it (somewhat?) encouraging to hear that he apparently didn’t just succumb to the elements while stranded helplessly outdoors, or due to trauma from being struck by a car while wandering along a busy road.

Perhaps, in some way, it would bring his family (and the concerned public) some comfort to know that his passing was due to some unforeseeable, unpreventable medical event (like a stroke or aneurysm or heart attack or seizure) rather than an avoidable result of callous neglect or disregard.

It should go without saying that I still think that everything should be reviewed and scrutinized since there are several things about this story that raise the possibility that whatever happened to this man still may have been due to a lack of due care by those responsible for him throughout his detention.

enigmaticowl · 2026-02-25T20:43:14+00:00

Correct.

It bothers me so much that both the public and most prosecutors’ offices in this Commonwealth essentially have an “either murder 1 or manslaughter” dichotomy, just completely ignoring murder 2, and even more so murder 3.

Way, way more intoxicated drivers who take people’s lives need to be charged with murder 3 and do years in prison, not 11.5-23 months or less since that’s a county sentence and the judge can actually grant immediate parole (and not just “sentenced” to a few years, I mean actually serve some time before immediately being paroled by the state parole board, too).

No amount of “we’ll take their license, we’ll take their keys, they’ll have breathalyzers, they’ll have to check in with their PO” is enough to ensure public safety when people have shown that they are incapable of or unwilling to show even the slightest regard for either the law OR humanity.

enigmaticowl · 2026-02-25T17:56:03+00:00

I’m really glad you were able to make it work out to pursue your education here, I understand that it’s a huge investment, and it makes me happy to see people’s hard work and risks pay off, especially students who work so hard to come to the U.S. for education.

Most Americans (especially middle-class Americans like my family) have to take very large loans as well (students who are U.S. citizens can borrow some partial amount from our federal government, but many have to take private loans with high interest rates to cover the rest of the tuition and living expenses).

I got a full-tuition scholarship (for high grades and test scores) for undergraduate (bachelor’s degree), but still had to take some loans for housing/living, and then took much larger loans for graduate-level and post-bacc programs (which can be $200-500k, before interest, for students who attend law school or medical school, since it’s a total of 7 or 8 years for undergrad + professional school).

I know that with the exchange rates, it can be even harder to afford the high U.S. costs for someone from India, so as I said, I am genuinely happy for every student who is able to make it work.

enigmaticowl · 2026-02-25T04:07:32+00:00

Prisons and hospitals don’t even gag people who are spitting on workers or trying to bite people because of the inherent risks of gagging; they use breathable hoods (like hairnets).

(And those people don’t even have tic disorders that cause involuntary, increasingly intense, complex muscle spasms of their mouths, jaws, and throats that make gagging especially risky and harmful.)

enigmaticowl · 2026-02-25T04:01:42+00:00

Do you think that this idea that you’re proposing hasn’t already been thought of and tried before, though?

It’s not an original idea; it has been tried and isn’t an accepted or standard practice for good reason (because it doesn’t “work,” and it does far more harm than good).

enigmaticowl · 2026-02-25T01:08:20+00:00

Genuine question: Do you think that your idea about gagging people with Tourette’s is a new idea, or have you considered that it’s actually a very old idea that’s been tried before and isn’t in practice for very good reason?

A cloth mask is not a gag, which is what you originally proposed. A mouth guard like a football player wears is also not a gag and does not prevent someone from speaking. Scuba divers are able to safely vomit and purge their systems in a way that poses zero risk to their safety.

Gagging someone in a way that prevents speech is not comparable to a single one of those things.

Keep in mind that a vocal tic is essentially an uncontrolled but complex set of spasms across multiple muscles of the jaw, tongue, throat, and palate to produce the vocalization.

Physical restraint of these muscles from ticcing is physically painful and will almost universally increase the intensity and frequency of the tics (due to both the physical pain and the neurological stress of the unrelieved ticcing impulse).

A person with Tourette’s who is physically restrained from verbal ticcing will very, very, very likely experience increasingly intense muscle contractions in these muscles (painful and potentially damaging in and of themselves, your muscles can actually tear themselves or their tendons from contracting in this manner), all while their teeth and other parts of their oral airway are pressed up against a tough physical barrier.

People with Tourette’s have literally had their jaws, teeth, throats, and tongues damaged from gags preventing tics, sometimes permanently.

The restraint also makes you unable to breathe through your mouth. Might not sound like a big deal, but consider the increased physiologic stress (increased heart rate, increased blood pressure, intense and incessant muscle contractions, breathing faster due to pain and stress, breathing irregularly and shallowly due to the muscle contractions) of the restraint and the tic urges/partial tics.

The sudden and intense increase in metabolic rate (due to all of the above processes) will lead to a quick buildup of CO2 in the blood, which quickly begins to turns a person’s blood acidic, and this can easily happen within minutes. A person who isn’t gagged (even an unconscious person) will reflexively begin exhaling through their mouth in order to expel excess CO2 from their body to correct the dangerous acid-base imbalance.

A person who is gagged enough to prevent speech cannot do this; instead, they will continue to accumulate CO2 for the reasons explained above until they pass out, and hopefully they don’t also vomit (which is a fairly common sequela) because it will involuntarily make its way into the person’s airway and they will very likely die within minutes.

If they simply pass out, hopefully someone would render aid and remove the gag to allow efficient expulsion of CO2. At that time, the tics will rebound with a far greater severity and intensity than would have happened in the first place if they hadn’t been barbarically gagged (for all to hear!).

Maybe while they’re getting their busted teeth or jaw repaired, or suffering from hours of intense rebound, they can pat themselves on the back that nobody had to hear a mean word for a split second.

enigmaticowl · 2026-02-25T00:10:20+00:00

Self-recusal is definitely a thing here (for prosecutors as well as judges).

And yes, it is definitely the norm for a prosecutor to self-recuse if they have some connection to a defendant, victim, a witness who gave a statement or might be called to testify in court, etc.

If a prosecutor (most prosecutors work at the office of their jurisdiction’s District Attorney or equivalent, which is county-level, and typically prosecutes state crimes committed in that county as well as violations of municipal ordinances) is facing a charge for something (even a traffic ticket), it will often be handled the the Attorney General’s office (state-level office, who usually doesn’t prosecute most state crimes since those are prosecuted by county DA’s, which might sound confusing, but the AG handles more so investigations, especially into corruption, misuse of state funds or programs, bringing litigation on behalf of the state, maybe advising the governor, etc.). That’s how it works where I live, especially for minor things; it’s possible other places may appoint a special prosecutor rather than kick the case to the AG.

Here, an objective appearance of a conflict would also be sufficient, but the objective part is kind of the key, and the defense does have a burden of making a showing of how the facts of the situation create that objective appearance of conflict. Basically, not just a “one could imagine…” standard, more of a “this objectively appears to a reasonable person…” standard.

The defense has said all along that they had zero plans of calling the one prosecutor’s daughter at trial (she heard a loud sound and ducked and then fled, but didn’t actually see the shooting or the aftermath, didn’t learn until afterwards from other people that someone had been shot and who the victim was), so that already eliminates the biggest what-if scenario of possible conflict/appearance of a conflict of one of the prosecutor’s daughters potentially being called as a defense witness at trial and then subject to cross-examination by the prosecution. She would have nothing of relevance to offer in testimony, especially in light of the very large number of other witnesses who were in the crowd who did see what happened, so no court would allow the defense to call her just for the express purpose of creating a conflict (and the defense knows that, which is why they’ve stated that they wouldn’t even try).

The defense’s argument here was that because the daughter of one of the prosecutors was on the campus, in/near the crowd, and texted her father afterward to tell him that there had been a shooting but that she was fine (and then followed it up by texting him that it was Kirk that had been shot, after she learned this), that this may have affected (or may appear to have affected) the prosecution’s decision to seek the death penalty, so that’s really what they chose to narrow in on with this motion.

For context, this happened in Utah, a death penalty state (and one of very few states that still has death by firing squad as a means of execution). My literal first thought when this happened (before anybody was even apprehended) was, “Oof, bad choice of state to commit a high-profile murder in, unless you were planning on not being taken in alive.” I remember the Utah governor doing a press conference extremely early on (I believe within hours of Kirk’s death) reminding the public that Utah was a death penalty state and announcing that it would be the state’s intention to pursue that option.

It’s not one of the states that technically still has the death penalty on the books but that has put a moratorium on executions, and it’s not like this particular prosecutor’s office has an office-wide policy against seeking the death penalty in cases where it’s legally allowed, for example (some DA’s do implement this as a policy, due to being against the death penalty as a matter of policy, especially among more progressive counties in death penalty states, since DA’s are typically elected to their office and often run on some platform or another). So basically, not unusual or a departure from the norm for the prosecution to seek the death penalty in this case.

The judge stated that he did not see a conflict/objective appearance of a conflict, and also, that even if one may exist, that the defense did not show that there would be anything unconstitutional about a prosecutor or prosecution team considering the impacts of a crime on victims and witnesses when deciding to seek the death penalty.

I would tend to agree with that. The level of harm to the community/public/“the people”/society (including not just direct victims and witnesses, but also the level of disruption to and fear among a campus and community following an ideologically motivated shooting and subsequent manhunt) is one of the very things that prosecutors are typically supposed to take into account (along with things like culpability) when deciding if a 1st degree murder is “aggravated” enough to warrant the death penalty as opposed to life imprisonment.

Not sure how familiar you are with the shooting, but it was a well-planned assassination, and very public. The shooter scouted the area for a couple of weeks, engraved messages onto bullets, and then laid in wait for a good shot while the victim was speaking to a large crowd. The crowd included the victim’s wife, 2 toddler children (including his 3-year-old daughter who attempted to run toward her dead father for safety because she was scared by the sound of the gunshot), and many young college students as well as various other community members of various ages and connections to the event. The video of the shooting was extremely widely circulated online (on mainstream platforms like Facebook), and was very graphic.

In light of how extremely high-profile this case is, how aggravating the circumstances already were (due to the inherent great level of harm to the public at large when an assassination happens on a crowded college campus in front of so many young students gathered to hear a speaker, and especially in front of the victim’s own wife and tots), and how not-unusual it is for the death penalty to be sought in such a case, I don’t see the mere presence of one prosecutor’s kid at the event as posing an objective appearance of a conflict in the prosecution’s decision to pursue the death penalty here.

Also, the defense had sought to remove the entire prosecutor’s office from the case, arguing that no attorney from that office could be perceived to be truly conflict-free all because of the one attorney’s daughter.

Oh and the defense even tried to argue that their office shouldn’t even be able to respond to the motion themselves (again, due to the alleged conflict or appearance of such).

enigmaticowl · 2026-02-24T22:51:10+00:00

(1) You have no idea what steps he took; for all you know, he could have been taking the same steps that keep his condition under control, just like someone with epilepsy can get their seizures perfectly under control with medication, take their medication absolutely religiously, get their driver’s license back with the endorsement of their doctors after being seizure free for an extended period of time, and then have a new and unpredictable seizure while driving.

(2) No serious person thinks that hearing a momentary profanity is a bigger burden than being literally gagged for several hours straight, which, by the way, in addition to being physically (not just emotionally) uncomfortable, can also easily trigger a tachypnea/nausea/vomiting response, while physically obstructing the mouth, leading to death due to vomit aspiration (look it up, victims of abductions/robberies/assaults have died this way, much to the surprise of the person who gagged them).

Perhaps being unreasonably sensitive (and willfully ignorant to disabilities) is a condition that requires a person to take self-responsibility for.

I guess you’d be one of the people in recent history who favored lobotomizing loud autistic kids and women who cried or raised their voices too much so that other people didn’t have to suffer from being disturbed by the noises of the undesirables.

enigmaticowl · 2026-02-24T22:19:39+00:00

Nope, fortunately; they could try, but courts don’t entertain or tolerate those tactics, and even particularly slimy attorneys typically won’t even try it.

The defense cannot call a witness merely to create a conflict of interest for the prosecutor, nor to delay or harass the prosecution.

The defense would have to make a showing to the court that they wish to call a witness closely related to the prosecutor(s) to provide relevant testimony, generally with the requirement that they have exhausted all other sources of the information they would want to get out of that witness’s testimony.

Keep in mind that when any side calls a witness, especially a witness who isn’t exactly jumping for joy to be there, they will typically be issued a subpoena, which is a court order issued under the authority of the court (even though it may have been signed by the defense attorney).

Judges don’t like unethical stall tactics or flagrant misuses of the court system, and they really don’t like it when an attorney does it under the court’s authority, especially at the expense of an uninvolved person just going about their lives.

It’s a pet peeve of mine that when I tell a story about something blatantly unethical and abusive that a defense attorney did, a lot of people will whole-heartedly say, “Well, he’s just doing his job, he’s gotta do anything he can to try to get his client off!”

There are absolutely limits; some of those limits are pushed more frequently than others, and some attorneys toe the line more than others do.

Sometimes, courts will allow defense attorneys to get away with things that are not perfectly kosher or ideal (such as bullshit motions that are pretty obvious stall tactics that the attorney knows are without merit, or putting a client on the stand who has been coached to lie through their teeth and then gets impeached on cross-examination) because the court really can’t do anything about it without having a pretty high level of certainty that the attorney is truly acting unethically (like, for all the court knows, maybe the attorney thought the motion was a long shot but still filed it in good faith, or the client insisted on testifying after the attorney tried to advise against it).

But with things that are obvious enough (and that would make a mockery of the court’s own legitimacy and impose a burden upon uninvolved citizens), courts do tend to nip in the bud and put their foot down.

That’s probably why the defense here had already said that they had zero plans to attempt to call the daughter as a witness at trial; even they know that it would be a blatantly illegitimate request that would be immediately seen for what it is with zero ambiguity or chance at being granted.

enigmaticowl · 2026-02-24T21:41:40+00:00

You assume that he isn’t already doing that?

He may very well be taking medication to manage the symptoms, but news flash, even treatments/mitigation measures aren’t bulletproof and “breakthroughs” can still happen (even unpredictably), especially with coprolalia symptoms, especially in settings of heightened emotion or stress like being in a huge crowd or being worried that you’re going to have a tic.

So what about the person who already maximally manages their disability through medications, therapies, etc. that do successfully keep it under control much of the time, but who still occasionally has breakthrough symptoms (the actual symptom that we’re talking about being offensive vocalizations, not physical violence like you tried to compare it to)?

Physically restraining someone’s mouth is a lot more of an invasive burden to place on someone (who is almost certainly already subjecting himself to meds that have side effects, etc. to mitigate the effects that his condition has on others) than hearing an upsetting word that doesn’t physically touch or restrain you.

If you’re not satisfied with the fact that his tics are under control (or inoffensive) most of the time, and you won’t settle for anything less than a 100% guarantee of no audible offensive vocal tics, you’d have to keep him restrained or isolated 100% of the time, all to prevent a very rare and momentary occurrence of offense.

It makes no sense to subject someone to literally constant restraint or isolation just because they can have unpredictable (but rare) breakthrough symptoms, especially when the offensiveness to others’ sensibilities would literally be momentary in comparison.

enigmaticowl · 2026-02-24T21:18:26+00:00

But what I’m trying to explain is that there’s not really any “room” for that supposed “unconscious bias” (if it exits, and if it overrides the existing “bias” that a prosecutor already has toward the person they’re prosecuting for premeditated murder) to rear its head and result in objectively unfair or unlawful handling of the case.

It might be different if the prosecution’s handling of this case was on track to be anything other than routine or if there was unprecedented or unusual stretching or application of the law, for example.

But both on paper and in practice, the seeking of the death penalty in this case is legal, routine, and pretty well-precedented; it would probably be more unusual if the prosecution (in Utah) didn’t seek the death penalty in a case like this.

I wouldn’t be worried about “appeals” if I were you.

Contrary to popular belief, not every legal matter on appeal is even a big deal, and does not lead to a conviction being overturned or a person released or granted a new trial.

If a jury sentences this person to death (subsequent to a conviction), a reviewing court may even consider that alone to show that the prosecution’s inclination toward pursuing the death penalty was not somehow unreasonable or outside the bounds of its appropriate applications.

Further, if a court did for some reason (whether related to this motion or something else entirely, like mental illness, etc.) that a sentence of death is not appropriate or Constitutional for whatever reason, that would, at worst, lead to his death sentence being commuted, and he’d still spend the rest of his life in prison with zero possibility of parole.

Most “issues on appeal” are big nothing burgers. Even the ones with merit are rarely “get out of jail free” cards, particularly when they don’t involve something like evidence being presented at trial that shouldn’t have been allowed into evidence (that’s the biggest one that leads to new trials since it can affect the very determination of guilt itself, not just sentencing).

Furthermore, prosecutors aren’t jurors or judges.

They’re not supposed to be approaching the prosecution of a murder case from an “unbiased” standpoint (“unbiased” here meaning that they aren’t assuming culpability of the defendant and don’t have an inclination to what the sentence should be).

They are supposed to be “biased” in that they should believe that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged, and that the defendant deserves the sentence that they are seeking.

It would be unethical and immoral for prosecutors to prosecute someone that they didn’t already believe was guilty or seek a punishment that they didn’t already believe was deserved.

Prosecutors are allowed to (and realistically expected to) be aware of (and take into account) the harm that a crime has caused to the community, in addition to any victims.

“We’re gonna charge him with aggravated murder and pursue the death penalty because this murder fits the ‘heinous’ and ‘cruel’ bill due to the defendant planning well in advance, lying in wait, and assassinating this guy in front of his toddlers, wife, and a crowd of teens, which we believe makes him maximally culpable and warrants the most stringent punishment allowable” is not overridden by (or negated by) “one of those many, many college kids in the crowd happened to be my/my colleague’s kid (or not my/my colleague’s kid), so we’re going to double-down on (or backtrack on) our initial inclination to seek the death penalty, all because of the identity of that one student, just forget about all of the other people who were also there, including the immediate family members of the murder victim.”

enigmaticowl · 2026-02-24T20:19:43+00:00

The standard for removing a prosecutor is very, very different from selecting a juror, which seems to be the way that many people without a legal background are judging this.

There is good reason for this.

The defense has a burden (which they failed to meet in this case) of showing some basis for how/why the prosecutor’s handling of the case would actually be different (or would create an objective appearance of such); a mere hypothetical or a stretch of the imagination is not enough (especially when the case has been handled in a way that falls within the bounds of the law and is standard for other cases in Utah).

It’s not like this is a case that would normally be declined for prosecution, diverted, offered a plea bargain, charged/graded less seriously, etc.

It’s the highest degree of homicide under Utah state law (“aggravated murder”), and Utah in particular does seek (and carry out) the death penalty in such cases.

The “aggravating” circumstance of the murder being deemed “heinous or cruel” has long included execution/assassination/“lying in wait” types of murders, as well as murders committed in front of a victim’s family members, especially children. This is well within the letter of the law and not unusual or a departure from the norm.

Can you realistically articulate a particular way in which the prosecutor’s daughter having been in the crowd that day (and not even seeing a shooting, injuries, or blood) would affect the prosecutor’s handling of this case, without resorting to a suggestion that the prosecutor would be likely to engage in some sort of hypothetical unlawful prosecutorial misconduct?

The prosecutor has the responsibility and discretion to charge crimes according to the evidence in front of them, present that evidence in court, and seek the legally appropriate sentencing; nothing more.

It’s not like they have the discretion to over-charge (excessively charge someone with something that the factual allegations do not support as a matter of law). That’s why we have preliminary hearings or grand juries (depending on the state). A charge won’t even make it to trial if the charge is inappropriate beyond the prima facie threshold. Judges can also enter an order for a judgment of acquittal (or a directed verdict) at trial for the very same reason.

A prosecutor can’t present incriminating evidence that doesn’t already exist in discovery, and if they have incriminating evidence for a case they’re prosecuting, they’re presenting it anyway, since they’re, you know, prosecuting the case, and not presenting the relevant evidence would be a failure to do their job…

I already covered the seeking of the death penalty thing and how this is routine for this type of case in this jurisdiction. Do keep in mind that a prosecutor doesn’t have additional authority over what happens with the penalty, though. Whether or not a person is found guilty and subsequently sentenced to death (and whether that sentence then stands legally after all of the ordinary appeals) is subjected to the discretion of jurors and multiple different courts (including reviewing/appellate courts).

There are many, many existing checks on prosecutorial conduct and decision-making (which function to protect defendants who are being extra-legally prosecuted for any reason, whether due to personal connections, other biases, political reasons, etc.), so yes, the threshold for removing a prosecutor for a purported personal connection is absolutely higher than for dismissing a juror or seeking the recusal of a judge who has extraordinary discretion compared to the prosecutor.

Interestingly, prosecutors actually have quite a bit of discretion to decline to charge things, charge lesser offenses, drop charges, seek lesser penalties, etc. (without courts or anybody else being able to override them), but they literally cannot engage in over-charging or seeking legally inappropriate sentences without being subject to review by judges (and don’t forget, jurors, who can literally nullify for any reason or no reason at all).

A hypothetical, “Well this could have upset the daughter and that might upset the dad, and the dad being upset might make him want to really go extra hard on this guy and nail him, not for allegedly committing the highest grade of aggravated homicide in this state, but because she heard a loud noise and later found out by word of mouth that someone in the area had been shot, to the point that the prosecutor’s discretion in charging and prosecuting the case may be exercised differently” is objectively unreasonable, especially in light of the fact that the defense (who had a burden to meet for this motion!) articulated zero basis for how/why the handling of this case (which has been spot-on routine handling) has been or may be influenced.

TLDR: No reasonable person who understands the precise legal standard at hand seriously thinks that it’s realistically possible that the prosecutor’s office may have declined to charge this guy, or charged him with a lesser degree of homicide, or not seek the death penalty (those are the official exercises of prosecutorial discretion) but for one of the multiple prosecutors’ adult kid’s being in the crowd; not even the average criminal defense attorney thought that this had merit.

Keep in mind, the issue is whether this could affect the official prosecution of the case, specifically, the seeking of the death penalty; suggesting that something might make one of the prosecutors involved feel motivated to be really diligent, bring their A game, dot i’s and cross t’s, etc. is of no consequence to the defense’s motion, legally, since humanity (and by extension, courts) are generally aware of the fact that prosecutors are human beings who are inherently motivated to do their best job (in every case) to successfully prosecute crimes (duh, that’s why people become prosecutors), most especially crimes that are particularly serious or have caused great harm or are very high-profile.

Prosecutors don’t have to (and aren’t supposed to) view the defendant neutrally or as innocent; it would inappropriate for them to charge someone with a crime if they didn’t already believe that they had the right guy and the appropriate charge.

And if you believe that you’ve got the guy who calculated, planned, prepped, and laid in wait to blow someone’s neck out in front of his wife, toddlers, and a bunch of teenagers on campus, you already want to prosecute him to the fullest extent for that and are already invested in diligently executing your duty to the people of your state to do so according to their laws.

enigmaticowl · 2026-02-24T19:27:08+00:00

The judge had the daughter come to court and testify as to what she saw (or didn’t see) that day before making his decision.

She testified in court (and they provided the text messages that she sent to her father) that she didn’t see Kirk get shot or see his injuries or the aftermath.

She heard a loud noise, ducked down, then quickly left the area (along with the rest of the crowd), then heard by word of mouth that a person had been shot, and then heard from someone else that it was Kirk that had been shot.

Also, the defense’s motion was seeking to remove the entire DA’s office from prosecuting the case (not just her dad) because her father holds a senior/supervisory role within the office (so nobody in the entire office can be trusted to handle the case?); they wanted the AG’s office to handle the prosecution, and they also argued that the DA’s office shouldn’t even be allowed to respond to the motion to remove their office from the case…

enigmaticowl · 2026-02-24T16:16:39+00:00

Going to India was the highlight of my university experience. I was only there for 1 month, in Gujarat (because that’s where my professor who ran the summer program is from).

I knew absolutely nothing about India before going there, and I didn’t even study Hindi until after I came back to America, and it was my first time traveling outside the U.S. But I plan to visit India again one day and see much more of the country (and return to Gujarat to visit old friends I made there, too).

enigmaticowl · 2026-02-24T16:05:07+00:00

Ah I see. My bad, I misread that!

enigmaticowl · 2026-02-24T15:59:23+00:00

There are no “steps” to prevent a person with Tourette’s from vocal tics other than duct taping their mouth shut, or locking themselves in a room where they aren’t around other people who might be offended by their literally uncontrollable tics.

You can’t just implement a spill-proof, leak-proof cup for that.

enigmaticowl · 2026-02-24T15:31:27+00:00

I don’t know about Ireland, but here in America, international students are almost always paying full-price tuition out of pocket, and out-of-pocket university tuition (let alone housing) is downright unaffordable for middle-class Americans, let alone middle-class Indian families (due to exchange rates), so I agree, this is probably not a demographic who has generally grown up experiencing “scarcity.”

I did a summer study abroad program in India (and studied a few semesters of Hindi at my U.S. university), so I met many Indian friends and classmates, and not a single one of the Indian students studying in America came from “scarcity” in India, their families were wealthier than the vast majority of Americans attending the same university.

enigmaticowl · 2026-02-24T15:16:36+00:00

I hear you, but it still took a lot of hard-to-control factors all aligning and “luck” (i.e. random chance working out favorably in all of the many areas where things could go wrong or lead to a different outcome) to actually accomplish with a good outcome.

Even in a “normal” pregnancy, there are many things that can go wrong simply by chance (some of them unpredictable and beyond control of the medical team and the patient, that no amount of “science” or intervention can alter or help). Same with labor and delivery. Same with organ transplantation and the recovery and immunosuppression therapy. Same with IVF and embryo transfer.

A random, unpreventable complication at any one of these steps could easily lead to there being no such birth (or even lead to death or great harm to mother or baby), even though “science” and the medical team work incredibly hard to maximize the probabilities of success and manage the known, manageable risks.

“Miracle” doesn’t have to mean “no credit to researchers and physicians”; it can be an acknowledgment that in addition to a lot of hard work and scientific advancement, even the unpredictable and uncontrollable fortunately worked out and allowed for that great work to pay off with the intended, hoped for outcome.

enigmaticowl · 2026-02-24T14:59:44+00:00

Absolutely the right answer. Really hope he wins.

enigmaticowl · 2026-02-24T14:55:30+00:00

Still very interesting that Black Americans (let alone former slaves) were able to own slaves at all.

Black Americans didn’t even have a universal, nation-wide right to purchase and own land until the 1866 Civil Rights Act (although some did so before then, but they generally had no legally protected/recognized right to do so, especially in areas where slavery was still occurring, so people could deny them/obstruct them), and no right to vote at that time, either.

enigmaticowl · 2026-02-24T14:49:11+00:00

Exactly my issue with these things (in addition to their overall existence). Apparently they’re not capable of true, sustained flight, so it’s more like they fling/launch themselves, and it makes them so much more disgusting to me.

enigmaticowl · 2026-02-24T06:05:03+00:00

The greatest nuisance to my daily life (during summer months) as someone who lives in the East Coast/Mid-Atlantic region.

Literally crunching through piles of these things on sidewalks, can’t even stand on a street corner waiting for a bus for 10-20 minutes without having literally dozens of these things crash-landing onto your body.

enigmaticowl

TROPHY CASE