• With the success of American Sniper, the defense team of Chris Kyle's killer is worried about gettin
    24 replies, posted
[URL="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/how-american-sniper-could-complicate-764712"]http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr...plicate-764712[/URL] [URL="http://www.inquisitr.com/1777850/chris-kyles-suspected-killer-eddie-ray-routh-wants-change-of-venue-in-american-sniper-murder-trial/"]http://www.inquisitr.com/1777850/chr...-murder-trial/[/URL] [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/01/22/the-trial-of-eddie-routh-the-man-who-killed-chris-kyle-will-be-american-snipers-darkest-chapter/"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/p...rkest-chapter/[/URL] [QUOTE=Hollywood Reporter]On Feb. 11, Eddie Ray Routh is scheduled to stand trial for killing Chris Kyle, the former Navy SEAL played by Bradley Cooper in the film. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for Routh, who confessed to shooting the deadliest sniper in American history and Kyle's friend Chad Littlefield two years ago at a rifle range southwest of Dallas. Routh, a former Marine, plans to introduce evidence that he was experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder and mount an insanity defense, but the enormous profile of Kyle in the wake of American Sniper's success could present some complications.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Inquisitr]Chris Kyle’s suspected killer, Eddie Ray Routh, has requested a change of venue in the upcoming murder trial of the Navy SEAL portrayed by Bradley Cooper in American Sniper. On February 2, 2013, just four years after Kyle left the military, he and his friend, Chad Littlefield, were allegedly shot and killed by Eddie Ray Routh, a former Marine they were helping to cope with his PTSD.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Inquisitr]The Eddie Ray Routh change of venue request is not the only issue plaguing his defense team. The incredible success of American Sniper has left the attorneys very concerned about finding an impartial jury in the Chris Kyle murder case.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=The Washington Post]St. John’s petition to move the trial from Erath County in Texas has already been denied once; it will likely be even more difficult now to find a suitable venue where anyone can claim to not know Chris Kyle’s name, or at least his “American Sniper” accomplishments. It is also unclear whether Routh’s diagnosed PTSD and mental illness will ultimately have any bearing on the trial.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=The Washington Post]Friends who knew him told the New Yorker in a riveting 2013 investigation that as a teen, Routh was a “standard troublemaker” with no respect for teachers: [QUOTE]Kc Bernard, who was a security guard at the school for two of the years that Routh was there, said that Routh was “always ready to fight” and “had a chip on his shoulder.” [/QUOTE] But his dispatches to family while he was deployed suggest that Routh was also haunted by the death he witnessed in the war zone, including one incident in which he might have killed someone while on patrol. Routh served four years in the military and was stationed in Iraq from 2007 to 2008 and on a disaster relief mission in Haiti in 2010. He returned to the United States and worked odd jobs, and he was reportedly prescribed eight medications to treat a wide range of symptoms, including depression, mania and nightmares, according to the New Yorker. His complex psychological profile and troubles with substance abuse that his family coped with upon his return are almost standard for people with PTSD.[/QUOTE] I suggest you read the articles themselves--they go into more depth than I could.
hopefully they will at the least try to find jurors who hadn't seen the film, that is the only way I can think of it minimizing any partiality
Yeaaah...it's probably gonna be pretty hard to find anything approaching an impartial jury. Everybody knows Kyle is, and thinks he's either Jesus with a high-powered scope or a racist mass-murdering sociopath. That's what happens when your brag memoir is parked at the top of the NYT bestseller list for however long it was. He's definitely not getting a fair trial in Texas. I think they still tie you to a runaway horse if you shoot a war vet.
This is one of the big problems with biopics, sadly.
Yeah Texas has a hard on for executions and when somebody shoots a war hero in Texas I would be shocked if he didn't get the death penalty. Quite sad really
I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up working in the defense's favor, they don't really have much of a case, but this could be used to get a conviction thrown out.
I haven't seen the movie, and I don't know much about this case. But the guy admitted to killing him according to this quote [quote] Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for Routh, who confessed to shooting the deadliest sniper in American history and Kyle's friend Chad Littlefield two years ago at a rifle range southwest of Dallas. [/quote] So unless the two he shot was doing something wrong, he should get a pretty harsh punishment, no? edit: Oh read that they're trying to say that he was mentally unstable. I've only looked into the story for like the past five minutes, so I can't form a complete opinion. But it seems that his PTSD and several visits to the ward has shown that he is unstable, shouldn't have even gotten to be near the gun that he killed the two guys with. I would probably convict him if I was the jury.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;46999672]Yeaaah...it's probably gonna be pretty hard to find anything approaching an impartial jury. Everybody knows Kyle is, and thinks he's either Jesus with a high-powered scope or a racist mass-murdering sociopath. That's what happens when your brag memoir is parked at the top of the NYT bestseller list for however long it was. He's definitely not getting a fair trial in Texas. I think they still tie you to a runaway horse if you shoot a war vet.[/QUOTE] But he was shot by a war vet. The jurors will be very conflicted and might just shoot themselves.
I don't actually see the issue here? The movie didn't really display or change any opinion for me. Me being un-opinionated though, it is still wrong to shoot someone, let alone if they are a war vet. There is no reason the movie should intrude with the jury's decision what so ever. Doesn't matter if you are mentally unstable or not.
[QUOTE=HyperShifter;46999878]I don't actually see the issue here? The movie didn't really display or change any opinion for me. Me being un-opinionated though, it is still wrong to shoot someone, let alone if they are a war vet. There is no reason the movie should intrude with the jury's decision what so ever. Doesn't matter if you are mentally unstable or not.[/QUOTE] And this is why you'd be unfit to act as a juror in the trial. The function of a jury is simply to come to a consensus on the application of the law in light of the facts, and to come to a consensus on the facts themselves, taking into their accounting any aggravating or mitigating factors, such as an insanity plea (if found valid by experts) if such would affect the verdict. You don't get to use your own morals as a guide for this judgment, especially since it's someone's life that hangs in the balance. If you have any opinion on the person, the case or the trial either way, or hell, if you've even seen the movie, you're an unfit juror. 'Right and wrong' have no place in a courtroom. Only innocence, or guilt, as guided by the criminal code and case law.
[QUOTE=HyperShifter;46999878]I don't actually see the issue here? The movie didn't really display or change any opinion for me. Me being un-opinionated though, it is still wrong to shoot someone, let alone if they are a war vet. There is no reason the movie should intrude with the jury's decision what so ever. Doesn't matter if you are mentally unstable or not.[/QUOTE] The idea of justice is that you are punished for things you are responsible for. If they can convince the jury that the man is insane, he could be considered irresponsible for what he has done. You have to consider that he didnt lose his sanity to a drug he took voluntarily or something, his psychological damage is practically a war wound he took while serving people, protecting people.
The whole "It's worse because he's a war hero" sentiment around this case seems odd to me. You already shot a dude who had done nothing wrong, [i]it doesn't really get worse than that[/I]. In my world, you've pretty much reached peak awfulness right then and there. Same goes for killing police officers on duty for that matter. Alright, maybe if it was like, a baby you shit, it'd be a bit worse, but an adult? War hero or Walmart cashier, you're within a 2% margin of awfulness.
The fact that any of us has any opinions on whether or not he should get the insanity plea or death penalty shows we're all unfit for the trial. The move just made it so millions of other people are now too. The movie shows Kyle as the good guy American bad ass for two hours, it's hard to not for an opinion as a Joe Blow American who only saw the movie without hearing about the case beforehand.
[QUOTE=archangel125;46999896]And this is why you'd be unfit to act as a juror in the trial. The function of a jury is simply to come to a consensus on the application of the law in light of the facts, and to come to a consensus on the facts themselves, taking into their accounting any aggravating or mitigating factors, such as an insanity plea (if found valid by experts) if such would affect the verdict. You don't get to use your own morals as a guide for this judgment, especially since it's someone's life that hangs in the balance. If you have any opinion on the person, the case or the trial either way, or hell, if you've even seen the movie, you're an unfit juror. 'Right and wrong' have no place in a courtroom. Only innocence, or guilt, as guided by the criminal code and case law.[/QUOTE] "Right and wrong have no place in a courtroom" are you fucking serious
[QUOTE=archangel125;46999896]And this is why you'd be unfit to act as a juror in the trial. The function of a jury is simply to come to a consensus on the application of the law in light of the facts, and to come to a consensus on the facts themselves, taking into their accounting any aggravating or mitigating factors, such as an insanity plea (if found valid by experts) if such would affect the verdict. You don't get to use your own morals as a guide for this judgment, especially since it's someone's life that hangs in the balance. If you have any opinion on the person, the case or the trial either way, or hell, if you've even seen the movie, you're an unfit juror. 'Right and wrong' have no place in a courtroom. Only innocence, or guilt, as guided by the criminal code and case law.[/QUOTE] It's a nice sentiment, but with what you want we'd be better off leaving judging to computers then. Since it's impossible for a human to reach a decision while completely disregarding their own feelings and standards.
[QUOTE=ZakkShock;47001535]"Right and wrong have no place in a courtroom" are you fucking serious[/QUOTE] Do you guys like, not understand how the law works (or at least is in theory supposed to work)? [editline]24th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Rebi;47001590]It's a nice sentiment, but with what you want we'd be better off leaving judging to computers then. Since it's impossible for a human to reach a decision while completely disregarding their own feelings and standards.[/QUOTE] Well yeah, if and when such a thing is actually possible, having computers replace humans as judges/jurors would be pretty ideal, as they'd always be impartial.
[QUOTE=ZakkShock;47001535]"Right and wrong have no place in a courtroom" are you fucking serious[/QUOTE] stop twisting the statement right and wrong define our laws, and the courtroom is supposed to adhere to these laws jurors are not supposed to decide what is right and wrong, because that isn't their job [editline]24th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=HyperShifter;46999878]I don't actually see the issue here? The movie didn't really display or change any opinion for me. Me being un-opinionated though, it is still wrong to shoot someone, let alone if they are a war vet. There is no reason the movie should intrude with the jury's decision what so ever. Doesn't matter if you are mentally unstable or not.[/QUOTE] the purpose of the judicial system is to, on a case by case basis, create rulings that best serve the greater good the greater good isn't to kill someone, if they are suffering a medical condition that can be treated instead context is important
Chris may not deserve to be killed like this, but he sure as fuck is far away from being a "hero".
[QUOTE=Megadave;47002944]Chris may not deserve to be killed like this, but he sure as fuck is far away from being a "hero".[/QUOTE] Figure that depends a lot on who you ask.
[QUOTE=Saxon;46999707]Yeah Texas has a hard on for executions and when somebody shoots a war hero in Texas I would be shocked if he didn't get the death penalty. Quite sad really[/QUOTE] What's sad is how you just managed to generalize the entirety of one of the biggest states in the US. I'd be more worried about jurors like you being selected. We need the opposite of that in trials like these.
[QUOTE=Megadave;47002944]Chris may not deserve to be killed like this, but he sure as fuck is far away from being a "hero".[/QUOTE] I dont know why soldiers have to be either heroes or baby killers in peoples minds. Can't a person just be good at their job?
[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;47003128]What's sad is how you just managed to generalize the entirety of one of the biggest states in the US. I'd be more worried about jurors like you being selected. We need the opposite of that in trials like these.[/QUOTE] Texas has executed almost 5x as many people than the next closest state since 1976 [url]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/number-executions-state-and-region-1976[/url] It's fair to say Texas is pretty execution-happy. [editline]24th January 2015[/editline] Texas alone is responsible for nearly half of the executions in this country since 1976. That's just crazy.
[QUOTE=dilzinyomouth;47003138]I dont know why soldiers have to be either heroes or baby killers in peoples minds. Can't a person just be good at their job?[/QUOTE] The problem is that being good at your job at wal-mart makes you just good at your job. Being good at your job in the military usually equates to having a body-count, which is much more morally ambiguous than being really good at accounting or something.
[QUOTE=HyperShifter;46999878]I don't actually see the issue here? The movie didn't really display or change any opinion for me. Me being un-opinionated though, it is still wrong to shoot someone, let alone if they are a war vet. There is no reason the movie should intrude with the jury's decision what so ever. Doesn't matter if you are mentally unstable or not.[/QUOTE] The argument isn't that it suddenly becomes 'right' to shoot someone if you're unstable. If someone suffers from mental illness, it can inhibit their ability to think in a rational manner, or to fully understand the repercussions of their actions. That's why things like 'diminished responsibility' or the insanity defence exist in many legal systems.
If you read the guy's book you'd realize that he's hardly a hero. Yeah he was a war vet and I have respect for anyone that is willing to put their life on the line like that, but he blatantly lies in his book and literally admits to being a racist psychopath who probably enlisted just so he could kill people. In his book he actually writes about how he was "stationed on top the stadium in New Orleans" during hurricane Katrina and how he killed a bunch of looters by "order of the DoD". Which is either a fucking massive lie, he has blatantly admitted to murdering American citizens in the name of vigilante justice, or our government has actively used the military to circumvent the rights of citizens to a trial for their crimes. I'm willing to put money on either the first two being true, and the last one being a far fetched conspiracy you'd hear on coast to coast AM. He didn't deserve to be murdered any more than anyone else, but his status as a "hero" shouldn't have any place in deciding the outcome of this trial. He him self should have been investigated for murder on multiple occasions. Anyone who read his book would know that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.