Skip to main content

View Diary: Dawn Nguyen should be charged with being an accessory to murder (55 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm of the opinion these guns are the type (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    glorificus, bear83

    for killing people and any time prior to the commission of the crime she could have reported to the police that he had those weapons.  Even if he had not committed crimes with those guns, she helped him commit the crime and she continued to have knowledge of that crime and withheld that knowledge from the authorities.  Had she turned him in, she'd have probably had a very minor fine at most and he'd have been the one in trouble.  Her (in)actions still facilitated the deaths of those firemen.

    •  Morally, it is a strong counterargument (4+ / 0-)

      that she could not reasonably have imagined that Spengler, a convicted felon, had any good intentions for the weapons. Nevertheless I don't think that counts as "knowledge of the crime", certainly not the specific crime that he committed, which is what would need to be proven in court.

      If I were her lawyer, I'd be claiming that she bought the guns under duress and that Spengler threatened her and/or her family. He isn't around to deny it, and no one will think that he was above doing such a thing. In fact I sort of suspect that something like this is the case, although if so she should have gone to the cops rather than bought him a fucking arsenal.

      Visit Lacking All Conviction, your patch of grey on those too-sunny days.

      by eataTREE on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:12:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  She had two years to report her crime. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Christian Dem in NC, eataTREE, zett

        He had murdered someone and for that reason he was banned from having guns.  I'd say it's not unreasonable that he might repeat the crime and she had made it easier by buying guns designed to kill people (as opposed to for hunting).

        She'd have to prove that she was under duress through producing witnesses and I'd have a hard time believing that she'd be under duress for two years and not ever report her worries to the authorities.

        •  I'm pretty sure she could testify to it herself (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wenchacha, ColoTim

          although she would then have to submit to cross-examination, which would be a very bad idea if she wasn't telling the whole truth on the point. Furthermore, the jury is under no obligation to believe her, especially if she has not supporting evidence...

          Visit Lacking All Conviction, your patch of grey on those too-sunny days.

          by eataTREE on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 04:47:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site