By N.S.
“Nicholas 'Mitch' Karol-Chik, Joseph Koenig and Zachary Kwak, all 18, were taken into custody at their homes in Arvada, according to the sheriff's statement.”
If they're black, it's murder two, or man.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/three-men-18-arrested-fatal-rock-throwing-incident-just-denver-rcna81542
The NBC story provides links to the inmate info for two of those arrested. Both are charged with first degree murder.
ReplyDeleteNormally, a charge of first degree murder requires proof of *intent to kill* to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. For such a crime it seems doubtful this could be done, depending on how first degree murder is defined in the Colorado statutes. So this charge may not stick. It will likely either be downgraded or there will be a plea deal to a lesser charge.
Maybe prosecutors hit defendants with heavy charges in response to public sentiment. Maybe they do it to intimidate the defendant and encourage a plea deal, which can include some kind of confession or other admission of guilt/responsibility. But if there is no reduction and no deal, a defendant can call their bluff and go to trial on the original charge, here first degree murder. And if the prosecution cannot prove intent to kill, there will be an acquittal.
There was a similar case not long ago in Michigan:
https://www.mlive.com/news/flint/2021/08/3-teens-sentenced-in-clio-rock-throwing-case-that-shattered-victims-family.html
Regarding intent to kill and Colorado law, the NBC article says:
ReplyDelete[While first-degree murder is typically associated with an intended victim and motive, Colorado’s extreme indifference statute is meant for defendants who aimed to kill someone — but just not a targeted individual, University of Colorado clinical law professor Ann England said.
“Pulling out an AK-47 and shooting into a crowd of people, then there’s no doubt that you intended to to kill,” even if not targeting a specific individual, England said.
“Throwing a rock (and charging first-degree murder) is going to be hard. I mean is throwing a rock a known risk (to possibly kill someone)? Throwing a rock at a moving car, now that someone has died, it seems obvious, right? But before that? I’m not totally sure.]
The law prof was right to steer the discussion toward "defendants who aimed to kill someone", rather than "an intended victim and motive". The "intended victim" was the person in the other car (apparently the rocks were thrown from a vehicle traveling in the opposite direction), but the crucial question here whether there was *intent to kill*.
So the first degree murder charge still seems open to question.
YES. White and perhaps one oriental. That cannot be 1st degree murder anyhow. Nop premeditation or malice aforethought. Reckless misconduct resulting in deff YES. 3rd degree without a doubt.
ReplyDelete"Nop premeditation or malice aforethought."
ReplyDeleteOf course there was both "premeditation" AND "malice aforethought" (do either of those appear explicitly in the CO statutes?). They obviously knew and planned what they were doing ("premeditation", "aforethought"), and throwing a rock at someone's car definitely shows "malice".
The key question is intent to kill.
I recall reading rocks were thrown at other cars that nite. The woman who was killed was not the only victim of the rock-throwing.
https://www.denverpost.com/2023/04/26/rock-throwing-attack-death-arvada-westminster-arrests/
ReplyDelete"Suspects will face charges of first-degree murder with extreme indifference, authorities say"
The article makes clear there were multiple victims of thrown rocks.
Also the father of one was also arrested when he tried to prevent the arrest of his son.
Here is the relevant CO statue:
https://codes.findlaw.com/co/title-18-criminal-code/co-rev-st-sect-18-3-102/
"(1) A person commits the crime of murder in the first degree if:
(d) Under circumstances evidencing an attitude of universal malice manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life generally, he knowingly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to a person, or persons, other than himself, and thereby causes the death of another;"
Note part (d) omits any language about intent to kill, and instead says "creates a grave risk of death to a person". There can be no question that throwing a large rock at an oncoming car creates "a grave risk of death".
Now that I see the language in the statute, the charge seems more reasonable. Maybe the lady lawyer was not familiar with or just did not remember the specific language about "extreme indifference".
Depending on developments, they could still be offered a deal before trial. In general prosecutors are always interested in avoiding a trial, assuming the agreed sentence is long enough. The victim's family is also often consulted.
A shocking and savage crime. I can see why prosecutors are going for the maximum charge. Everyone involved is probably extremely angry about what happened to that poor young woman.
Capital punishment is off the table in Colorado:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Colorado
It's a mistake for any state to abolish the death penalty. Also because it can be a strategic tool for prosecutors to use when trying to coerce a confession from a defendant when they think the risk of an acquittal is a little too high should they go to trial.
Yes,I remember the Detroit rock throwing incident.These crimes are pure stupidity and there's zero defense for the perps to explain themselves about their motives. Go to prison for a few years--it needs to happen,for many reasons--and then do something with your lives.
ReplyDelete--GRA
Did Derek Chauvin have intent to kill?
ReplyDeleteNo,but george floyd did-with a life of coke,heroin and fentanyl.
Delete--GRA
"Did Derek Chauvin have intent to kill?"
ReplyDeleteYou should investigate the charges against Chauvin, paying special attention to the ones resulting in a conviction. Then find the Minnesota criminal statutes to see if the language there for those specific counts mentions anything about 'intent to kill'.
Then come back and post your findings.