Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've gotten used to thin details in reports like this when the perp happens to be the wrong (or right?) skin tone. I for one would like to know just exactly what ...circumstances...involved in this case would lead a jury to quit that actually make sense. Tweaks and technicalities aren't anything new but this one is just beyond the edge.
Did you read the articles? Lack of evidence is not a technicality.
Criminal defense cost a lot of money and in the US, unless you can prove you proof the case is frivolous, which is difficult, you bear your side of the cost.
On fairness, it looks like a first-year law student could have won this one.
The state presented a pathetic case. The defendant was found not guilty. That is how it should work.
The defendant in a murder case is probably in the exact spot where individual rights clash the hardest with government authority. This is a setting where the state has the power to take a citizen's freedom, perhaps his life. So if you actually believe in the founding principles of this country - in fact the principles that every Western country rests on - you'd better insist that the state does a solid job of bringing their case. The state didn't.
This guy may be factually guilty as all out, I have no idea. But the way things are supposed to work, legal guilt is determined by the state making their case so well that 12 citizens accept it proven beyond reasonable doubt.
I still say it is a travesty that someone can shoot up a place and not be held accountable. As others have mentioned this might be a case where the community doesn't trust the Police so there were very few witnesses that were willing to come forward. If the community doesn't care to bring the responsible party to justice than why should the Police go crazy in trying track down the culprit and gather evidence along the way?
It's really sad to think that this one will be filed under "Just another shooting in the Hood" but that is what is happening. What is even worse is that some will highlight this case as evidence that the Police and the Justice system does not care about Black people.
If the guy did it he got away with it. If he didn't then that means the shooter is still on the loose.
In the end right or wrong the Justice system worked because without solid evidence how could they find him guilty? That only happens in DC to certain Republicans.
You apparently didn’t look too deeply into this case before your outrage kicked in. The trial lasted less than a week and jury deliberations lasted 2 hours, which means either the evidence was overwhelming or that there wasn’t much evidence to present. After doing a modicum of research, it’s obvious that the evidence was lacking.
The only person who identified Lankford as the shooter was a drug addict who only made the identification 5 months later as a plea bargain - and had previously made false statements to police.
I found nothing about any evidence other than the witness testimony, despite reading what essentially amounted to the same article on different websites about 9 times. If you know of any other evidence which would have aided the prosecution, let us know.
In short, it appears that the case against Lankford was extremely weak. If he had been convicted on such a flimsy case, I’d question the intelligence of the jury.
i relied on a poorly written article from the Virginia pilot that omitted numerous key facts, that much is true.
Poor investigation, poor prosecution. They should never have gone to trial. Now if they find out he did it, he can't be charged again. On the nothing they had, I would have said not guilty.
You apparently didn’t look too deeply into this case before your outrage kicked in. The trial lasted less than a week and jury deliberations lasted 2 hours, which means either the evidence was overwhelming or that there wasn’t much evidence to present. After doing a modicum of research, it’s obvious that the evidence was lacking.
The only person who identified Lankford as the shooter was a drug addict who only made the identification 5 months later as a plea bargain - and had previously made false statements to police.
I found nothing about any evidence other than the witness testimony, despite reading what essentially amounted to the same article on different websites about 9 times. If you know of any other evidence which would have aided the prosecution, let us know.
In short, it appears that the case against Lankford was extremely weak. If he had been convicted on such a flimsy case, I’d question the intelligence of the jury.
That's correct. The only evidence the State had was an eye witness who wasn't credible. But, there were a crowd of people present, but no one could identify the shooter, except the baby victim's uncle who was present to buy drugs and only came forward five months later after his probation was in danger of being revoked.
That's what you get in an environment where snitches get stitches and cops avoid because they'll be accused of shooting blacks who have their hands up. And, thanks to the woke agenda, the 'enrichment' is migrating from places where snitches traditionally get stitches, to a neighborhood near you. Enjoy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
