The headline says they make 250k, or around 21k gross. 17k was my estimate of net. Article doesn’t match the headline.
UmeU
joined 1 year ago
Bringing in 17k+ per month after tax and cannot afford a home?? I call bullshit. A $750k home is 5k per month including HOA/tax/insurance. That’s less than 30% of their take home.
They could double their payment and pay it off in 5 years, with 7k per month to live on, then they live rent free for the rest of their lives.
This article feels like propaganda. Homes are over priced but 250k per year is a lot of money.
Does AP have a left center bias because reality has a left center bias?
Or maybe a little from column A and a little from column B
YoU dOn’T kNoW wHaT lIBeRaL mEaNs
To be fair, there is a considerable amount of overlap.
His defense was irrelevant because by only charging 1st degree, and not including the lesser charges, the prosecution took on the burden of proving premeditation, which was not possible to prove in this case.
Even if they were able to admit the evidence that KR had talked about his desire to kill protesters only weeks earlier, the prosecution would still have had trouble proving premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt given this heresy evidence alone.
He was found not guilty because the premeditation was not established beyond a reasonable doubt.
The self defense argument only would have been relevant if he had been charged with 2nd degree murder, reckless homicide, or manslaughter.
In the case of reckless homicide, his self defense argument would have failed due to the fact that a reasonable person would have known that bringing a loaded rifle into the middle of an unpredictable and potentially volatile situation would have the potential of resulting in death.
His unjustified and inappropriate presence that night instigated the conflict, and but for the fact that he was incorrectly charged, he would be in jail now.
Keep in mind that the verdict only establishes that the prosecution did not meet their burden of proof, not that the jury believed the self defense story.
All of his shootings were legally self defense
Not quite… The jury’s decision simply indicated that the prosecution did not meet their burden of proof, not that the defense’s position was accepted as fact. This is an important distinction.
… at trial the jury absolutely decided his case correctly.
Agreed, but keep in mind he was found to be not guilty, which is not the same thing as innocent.
Because he's immensely, painfully stupid.
Immensely, painfully, and dangerously stupid.
But we really, really don't need to give him any more of a spotlight than he already has.
Fair enough, but I think that this case should be taught in law school as an example of prosecutorial negligence in that if he were simply charged appropriately, 2nd degree non premeditated and/or manslaughter, he would be in prison now for a minimum of 15 years but probably closer to 25 years.
The choice to only charge 1st degree, which took on the burden of proving premeditation, was the biggest legal blunder of our time… worse than Alex Jones’s lawyer sending the full cell phone copy to the prosecutor, which was an absolute joy to watch live as it happened.
He got off because of an overly ambitious prosecution. Had he been charged appropriately, with second degree non premeditated, he would have been found guilty.
He was only charged with first degree premeditated, and because the prosecution had no way to prove that this idiot kid intended to kill when he traveled to the area, the jury had no choice but to find him not guilty.
The prosecutor is at fault, not the jury.
Good job, we need more people like you, people who value the truth.
I watched every moment of the trial including the jury instructions. You are spreading false information. Please check your sources.
view more: next ›
What’s more reliable than NPR?