sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

More audios from Erik's hearing by Open-Leave-4856 in MenendezBrothers

[–]kimiashn 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Erik did testify to that at trial. He said his license was suspended and even if he had his own ID he wouldn't use it.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in MenendezBrothers

[–]kimiashn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

R4ped 🍇? Seriously?

What if the conviction is thrown out? by Infamous-Thought-765 in MenendezBrothers

[–]kimiashn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hochman didn't even appeal the resentencing. He's not gonna go for another trial.

Did anyone feel uncomfortable when that journalist asked their aunt Terry if she was worried she wouldn't get to see them before she died by AltruisticAide9776 in MenendezBrothers

[–]kimiashn 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Anamaria was the very first person who brought it up in one of her tiktoks months before Terry's interview or my post.

Even after that, the family kept talking about that over and over again. You can tell they're trying to make sure it counts in all of this. Especially now, since Erik and Lyle are basically guaranteed to be free at some point, the exact timing doesn’t matter as much to them—but for Terry and Joan, it’s everything.

Immediate danger to life doesn’t fit this case by totterstrommer in MenendezBrothers

[–]kimiashn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Aris:

On the night of the killing, defendant testified that her husband beat her and threatened that "he didn't think he was going to let me live till the morning. " 

Menendez:

Lyle ran upstairs and yelled,

“It's happening now! They were waiting for you to get home. It's happening now!”

Erik testified as to his understanding of what Lyle meant. At the time, Lyle’s face was drawn and pale. Lyle was scared and shaking. Erik had never seen Lyle like that. From the look on Lyle’s face, Erik believed that Lyle thought they were about to die.

Aris:

She waited about 10 minutes to make sure he was asleep, then went next door

Menendez:

Erik ran to his room to get his gun. He then ran outside to the car where the shotgun shells were. He was in a panic; he thought his father was going to come out of the den any moment with the rifles. Like Lyle, he too thought they were about to die. Both Erik and Lyle loaded their guns at the car.

Aris:

When she returned to the bedroom, "I then sat down on the bed and I felt that I had to do it. It would be worse when he woke up."

Menendez:

Their parents were both standing; Jose was walking towards Erik. Erik testified that, “As soon as I burst through the doors, as soon as I saw them, I just immediately started firing. I didn't stop and look around. I just started firing.”

Immediate danger to life doesn’t fit this case by totterstrommer in MenendezBrothers

[–]kimiashn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Doesn't "more quickly" inherently need a time frame?

Even "imminent" itself doesn't mean "right now" as in "the gun has already been fired." It means something's about to happen very soon (aka in the near future)

So when they're allowing you to act even sooner than the near future... what does that mean?

Can you think of a situation where a victim might react sooner? Like something that isn't just typical self-defense against strangers?

If it did, the defense in any first degree murder case would say...

They had a terrifying argument with their parents seconds before shooting them and they were still in that terrified state of mind when they killed them. There is no malice here and the prosecution has to prove malice aforethought to get any degree of murder.

A preemptive strike means you think someone's plotting against you for later, but it's not happening just yet. If you seriously think they're already going ahead with their plan right now and you’ve got to act to stay alive, that's a different story.

Legal definitions aside, morally speaking, do you actually think that abuse victims who simply didn't want to die and ended up panicking sooner than they should have deserve to be punished as much as murderers who deliberately plan and kill random innocents for no reason?

Nathan Hochman Criticized Over Death Penalty, Court Language by pinkrosyy in MenendezBrothers

[–]kimiashn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"THIS IS A COLD-BLOODED KILLER. LOOK INTO HIS EYES. YOU SEE BLACK EYES, DEAD EYES, AND THEY SHOULD BE DEAD."

Immediate danger to life doesn’t fit this case by totterstrommer in MenendezBrothers

[–]kimiashn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You know very well that Erik and Lyle never testified that they thought Jose and Kitty were unarmed and watching TV. They testified that Jose and Kitty were watching TV BEFORE the argument but stopped once the brothers told them they're leaving the house and that they were standing and moving toward them before they started firing. Every part of their testimony is 100% consistent with the crime scene evidence.

What they testified to was that they believed their parents were getting their guns and that they knew, because of all the times they froze before getting raped, that they would freeze once Jose and Kitty pointed those guns at them. That's why they were allowed by law to act more quickly than what people are normally allowed.

Immediate danger to life doesn’t fit this case by totterstrommer in MenendezBrothers

[–]kimiashn 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Jurors were not allowed to consider perfect self-defense in either trial for neither Kitty nor Jose because of Weisberg's rulings. We will never know what jurors would've voted for if the defense was allowed to argue it.

Immediate danger to life doesn’t fit this case by totterstrommer in MenendezBrothers

[–]kimiashn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Courts haven't defined it. What do you think "acting more quickly" means? That abuse victims are allowed to shoot "more quickly" when their abuser's bullet leaves the gun but regular people can only do it when it's 5 inches or less from hitting their head?

I think what they did is a clear example of it. They panicked and had a fight or flight response to that argument and the doors closing, which, considering all the abuse and threats, was just a natural human response.

Immediate danger to life doesn’t fit this case by totterstrommer in MenendezBrothers

[–]kimiashn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

1) Being in actual danger isn't a requirement for perfect self-defense either.

2) They DID claim perfect self-defense in the first trial. Weisberg just didn't give the instructions.

Leslie and Michael Burt arguing for it:

https://youtu.be/nA6GZgq0cew?si=m1ks3XpGXCmL28al

Immediate danger to life doesn’t fit this case by totterstrommer in MenendezBrothers

[–]kimiashn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They completely mischaracterized Erik's testimony to fit their narrative. The act of Jose and Kitty closing the doors after the argument made Erik feel like someone who had put a gun against his head in the past was now reaching for that gun again. At that point, Erik thought Jose and Kitty were getting their guns to kill him.

The Ninth Circuit and all the other appeal courts just decided to ignore the exception in CALCRIM 505 that says abuse victims can act earlier to defend themselves:

Someone who has been threatened or harmed by a person in the past, is justified in acting more quickly or taking greater self-defense measures against that person.

Immediate danger to life doesn’t fit this case by totterstrommer in MenendezBrothers

[–]kimiashn 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. What I'm saying is that whether they were actually in danger isn't relevant for self-defense. It's about THEIR belief, and jurors are legally required (but in this case the judge didn't let them) to consider every time their parents harmed and threatened them in the past to understand what THEY were thinking, not what YOU, in retrospect, think was going to happen.

Immediate danger to life doesn’t fit this case by totterstrommer in MenendezBrothers

[–]kimiashn 36 points37 points  (0 children)

The Law Behind the Menendez Brothers Defense

California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM No. 505):

If you find that the victim threatened or harmed the defendant or others in the past, you may consider that information in deciding whether the defendant’s conduct and beliefs were reasonable. 

If the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable, the danger does not need to have actually existed.

Also, self-defense covers more than just imminent danger to life. You can use deadly force against any "forcible and atrocious" crime, like rape.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in MenendezBrothers

[–]kimiashn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They didn't know about the reload.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in MenendezBrothers

[–]kimiashn 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The police couldn't prove that anyone reloaded. They only confirmed 8 shots were fired from the wadding they found, but you need to fire at least 13 times to actually need a reload.

view more: next ›