Help Me Understand the Legal Issues of this Shooting Case

[LanceOregon]

I just don't know. This case I read about today doesn't seem to make much sense to me at all.

Am I off the mark to think that these charges were inappropriate, and that more serious charges should have been filed? It just doesn't seem right or make any real sense at all to me. Can anyone here make any sense of why only Assault Charges were filed against him?

A 34 yr old man from Louisville, KY by the name of Shawn M. Martin was arrested after shooting his live-in girlfriend's 3 yr old Toddler boy with a .45 Auto handgun. Martin was involved in heated argument with his girlfriend at the time, and the boy had got between him and his girlfriend. So instead of shooting his girlfriend, he shot the innocent little child.

Fortunately, the little fellow managed to survive the shooting. However, for two hours, the boy was allowed to bleed, and no effort was made to get him medical treatment, while Martin and his mother tried to clean up the scene and conceal evidence.

On top of that, Martin fled the scene, but was later tracked down by anonymous tips.

Martin's history includes felony drug convictions, and numerous misdemeanors. Just 5 months earlier, he plead guilty to reduced charges after attacking both the boy and his girlfriend in an earlier incident. However, he was only given 5 years probation!!! That's all.

How on earth does one get away with only probation for attacking your domestic companion these days?

Should this shooting incident not instead be attempted murder? Or am I missing something?

God help us when this idiot gets out of prison the next time.

Here is a courtroom photo taken of Martin shortly before he began his tirade of obscenities that he screamed at the judge in his case:




So he now faces contempt of court charges too.

Am I wrong to think that the legal system should not be coming down harder on this criminal? What am I missing?

Here are links to news reports about this case:

http://www.courier-journal.com/artic...ld+in+contempt

http://www.whas11.com/news/crimetrac...-96567369.html

.

.

[357 Python]

The bad thought is that he will probably get more real time from the contempt of court charge than the charge that landed him there in the first place.

[Sefner]

How do you know he did all of those things? Did he admit to them? If that's what the evidence points to, it has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, your articles seem to disagree...

A Louisville man arrested in the shooting of a 3-year-old boy was held in contempt of court during his arraignment on Thursday and sentenced to six months in jail for shouting obscenities at the judge.

Shawn M. Martin, 34, cursed loudly as he was being led away after pleading not guilty to charges of first-degree assault, first-degree criminal abuse, being a convicted felon in possession of a handgun, first-degree wanton endangerment and tampering with physical evidence.

So he was charged with a battery of crimes (pun totally intended). He hasn't even been tried or sentenced for those charges:

He will be back in court later this month.

So he was sentenced not to 5 years probation, but 6 months in jail, and that's not even for the shooting. That's only for swearing at the judge. He hasn't been charged for the shooting yet. Hopefully he goes to jail for a very very long time.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Should this shooting incident not instead be attempted murder? Or am I missing something?

I am guessing that proving intent is going to be the tough part of making that charge.

[ZeSpectre]

I suspect that he's going to be going to trial on several other charges as well so it'll probably add up.

[Brian Pfleuger]

He's lucky I'm not king of the world. In my world, what he did would be a Capital Offense.

[KyJim]

As I read the newspaper article, the guy was convicted or pled guilty in March of other charges relating to an attack on the boy and his mother. He was given probation for this. So why probation? Hard to say. Could be there were no injuries and little actual proof other than a reluctant witness (the mother). Just guessing. I would think his probation will be revoked.

He was sentenced to six months for contempt for swearing at the judge during arraignment on his latest charges. Six months is the maximum a judge can give a person for contempt in Kentucky without bringing in a jury to hear it. And, if I'm not wrong, that means he won't get credit for the six months of time served while waiting trial. That may not make a big difference, but it is something.

The charges he now faces are serious. First degree assault is a Class B felony (10 to 20). Possession of a handgun by a felon is a Class C felony (5 to 10). The others are Class D felonies (1 to 5 years). They can run consecutively (one after the other) though there are some outer limits on these. He might also be eligible for treatment as a persistent felony offender under which his sentences could be further enhanced.

[markj]

I would like to offer the kid a .45 when he turns 18, hopefully the thug will be getting out ............

Shot a baby? I will never understand the levels of bad some folks can achieve and be OK with themselves....... isnt human.

[Pbearperry]

Unfortunately,cases like this are all over the country.It's not something new,it's been going on for years.For many years the court system wasn't working and now there is no system.It has been killed by Lawyers,politicians (of which most are lawyers) and liberal pinheads.I have always said,if something bad ever happens to a loved one,don't be suprised if you see no justice.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by LanceOregon

Help Me Understand the Legal Issues of this Shooting Case
I just don't know..... This case I read about today doesn't seem to make much sense to me at all....

I wouldn't try to figure out the legal issues of anything based on a couple of newspaper articles. There is never enough information in the newspaper accounts, and the details matter a great deal. It also looks like this is only the beginning.

[GM1967]

so much for .45 cal stopping power.

Why, Glen? It doesn't say anywhere in the article that the kid ever got up, just that he survived. And it doesn't say where he was hit.


It's a despicable thing to intentionally harm a child, but in this case I really think the jerk intended to harm the woman, not the child....he just wasn't man enough to take responsibility for his actions.

If he was no probation for a previous offense, that should help add time to the punishment for this. I hope he goes away for a long time. If he'd shot the kid intentionally, I'd be hoping for the death penalty

[obxned]

There is at least a fair chance this creep will do serious time now, but what about Mama? She has been an enabler and accomplice in all of this and needs similar prison time. She should never be allowed near that child again, and in a better world she would be locked up until too old to have anoher child.

[LanceOregon]

It's a despicable thing to intentionally harm a child, but in this case I really think the jerk intended to harm the woman, not the child

I guess that the thing that bothers me the most is this:

If he indeeded to shoot the Mom with the .45, is that not an act of attempted murder? Putting .45 caliber holes in a person is usually very bad for their health.

So if that was his intention, then should the fact that the bullet instead unintentionally hit an innocent bystander then make the crime any less serious? This strikes me as being a flaw in the way that the law works.

To me, he attempted murder. And should thus be so charged.


.

[GM1967]

If he indeeded to shoot the Mom with the .45, is that not an act of attempted murder? Putting .45 caliber holes in a person is usually very bad for their health.

So if that was his intention, then should the fact that the bullet instead unintentionally hit an innocent bystander then make the crime any less serious? This strikes me as being a flaw in the way that the law works.

To me, he attempted murder. And should thus be so charged.

You may be right, but prosecutors often don't charge people the way they should be charged. Plea bargaining seems to be the norm these days, rather than a trial, and to me plea bargaining is a slippery slope to....not sure, but a place I don't want us all to be.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by LanceOregon

...If he indeeded to shoot the Mom with the .45, is that not an act of attempted murder? Putting .45 caliber holes in a person is usually very bad for their health.

So if that was his intention, then should the fact that the bullet instead unintentionally hit an innocent bystander then make the crime any less serious? This strikes me as being a flaw in the way that the law works.

To me, he attempted murder. And should thus be so charged.

And you're basing all of this on a couple of very brief newspaper articles?

How the DA files charges is based on what the evidence is and what the DA and his investigators have determined they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. We have only the barest sketch of the evidence and circumstances. What does the forensic evidence show? Did the neighbors give statements and what did they say? Did the participants give statements and what did they say? This is "Monday morning quarterbacking" without even having watched the game.

[KyJim]

If he indeeded to shoot the Mom with the .45, is that not an act of attempted murder? Putting .45 caliber holes in a person is usually very bad for their health.

In charging attempted murder in Kentucky you actually have to show specific intent to murder that person. You don't have to show this in an assault first charge. Yet, the penalty is the same. And as I mentioned before, he could see significantly increased penalties if he is convicted because of his other alleged crimes.