Yeah; the justification often given in these situations is that the lesser charge has a greater likelihood to stick in controversial cases, but if that's what the DA's office did, it just suggests they think the typical American is a bloodthirsty monster. My money's on "tepid response to negative press," but no reason it isn't also the former.
it just suggests they think the typical American is a bloodthirsty monster
One side bloodthirsty, the other bloodless, probably the only reason the two can tolerate each other and find some coexistence, and why their opinions if not overlapping, then at least not at odds.
Its at least arguable that he intended to restrain rather than kill, and Neely's death was a result of recklessness intend of malicious intent.
Either way, manslaughter is a serious enough charge that he'll want to fight it. And given the state of NY politics right now, he'll very likely be acquitted.
Yeah, the manslaughter charge implies that the DA is saying that Neely died as a result of negligence rather than the intent to kill.
Pure bullshit.
Yeah; the justification often given in these situations is that the lesser charge has a greater likelihood to stick in controversial cases, but if that's what the DA's office did, it just suggests they think the typical American is a bloodthirsty monster. My money's on "tepid response to negative press," but no reason it isn't also the former.
One side bloodthirsty, the other bloodless, probably the only reason the two can tolerate each other and find some coexistence, and why their opinions if not overlapping, then at least not at odds.
Its at least arguable that he intended to restrain rather than kill, and Neely's death was a result of recklessness intend of malicious intent.
Either way, manslaughter is a serious enough charge that he'll want to fight it. And given the state of NY politics right now, he'll very likely be acquitted.