Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Here’s A Guy That Didn’t Need To Be Charged
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Here’s A Guy That Didn’t Need To Be Charged
People v. Wilkinson, 2018 IL App (3d) 160173 (June). Episode 504 (Duration 15:06)
Defendant beats back a racist aggressor; now he’s doing 3 years.
Subscribe: Apple | Google | Spotify | Android | RSS | Direct Download
APPLE PODCASTS GOOGLE PODCASTS
SPOTIFY ANDROID RSS
DIRECT DOWNLOAD
Gist
A big white dude walks up to defendant’s front door with another guy. When Defendant gets to the door the white dude punches defendant who is African American. A struggle ensues. Defendant grabs a hammer and hits defendant in the head. Either he doesn’t stop and repeatedly hits him or the struggle ensues.
Issue
On appeal, defendant argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not reasonably believe that the force he used was necessary to prevent great bodily harm.
The parties on appeal limit their arguments to the reasonableness of defendant’s belief that striking the victim with a hammer was necessary to prevent great bodily harm to himself.
Facts
Big white dude was jacked up.
The victim testified that he suffered fractures to his eye socket, sinus cavity, and “nose socket” as a result of the altercation. Looks like it came from one blow with the hammer.
He required 12 staples and a number of stitches. A tendon was also severed. He continued to suffer from eye spasms and headaches.
The Verdict
The State concedes “that the record in this case supports defendant’s and trial court’s beliefs that Cook was the initial aggressor. More pointedly, the State concedes that Cook punched defendant in the face. The State, however, argues that defendant used “excessive force,” or “an amount of force far greater than needed to neutralize the threat posed by Cook.”
Here, the jury was free to conclude that defendant struck the victim repeatedly in the head with a hammer while he was on top of him and the victim was trying to get away.
It follows that the jury could rationally conclude that any b...
View all episodes
By Police NuggetsPeople v. Wilkinson, 2018 IL App (3d) 160173 (June). Episode 504 (Duration 15:06)
Defendant beats back a racist aggressor; now he’s doing 3 years.
Subscribe: Apple | Google | Spotify | Android | RSS | Direct Download
APPLE PODCASTS GOOGLE PODCASTS
SPOTIFY ANDROID RSS
DIRECT DOWNLOAD
Gist
A big white dude walks up to defendant’s front door with another guy. When Defendant gets to the door the white dude punches defendant who is African American. A struggle ensues. Defendant grabs a hammer and hits defendant in the head. Either he doesn’t stop and repeatedly hits him or the struggle ensues.
Issue
On appeal, defendant argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not reasonably believe that the force he used was necessary to prevent great bodily harm.
The parties on appeal limit their arguments to the reasonableness of defendant’s belief that striking the victim with a hammer was necessary to prevent great bodily harm to himself.
Facts
Big white dude was jacked up.
The victim testified that he suffered fractures to his eye socket, sinus cavity, and “nose socket” as a result of the altercation. Looks like it came from one blow with the hammer.
He required 12 staples and a number of stitches. A tendon was also severed. He continued to suffer from eye spasms and headaches.
The Verdict
The State concedes “that the record in this case supports defendant’s and trial court’s beliefs that Cook was the initial aggressor. More pointedly, the State concedes that Cook punched defendant in the face. The State, however, argues that defendant used “excessive force,” or “an amount of force far greater than needed to neutralize the threat posed by Cook.”
Here, the jury was free to conclude that defendant struck the victim repeatedly in the head with a hammer while he was on top of him and the victim was trying to get away.
It follows that the jury could rationally conclude that any b...