shooting unarmed people from 100 yards away is illegal.
He admitted he never saw guns, (then changed his story multiple times). His wife admitted she never heard gunshots.
I hope Justice is served. You can’t just kill people because you don’t like who they are
I'm not agreeing with ANY of what you say, because it sure doesn't fit the evidence as it was presented at trial ...
First and foremost, the state had no real proof that Kelly actually shot the guy. All they could show that he
might have done so. But he might not have shot him. Kelly's actions, as described by both him and his wife, would not have hit the man. The state couldn't show that the shot that killed him came from Kelly's gun - they didn't match bullet to gun, or wound to gun. Even though they claimed it traveled over 100 yards before hitting him, the bullet wasn't in his body or nearby. That doesn't convince me that it was a shot from Kelly that caused this.
Nor did we see anything to convince us that Kelly was trying to hit or kill anyone. And the upward trajectory of the bullet that hit the guy was never explained by the state. Shades of JFK, this is a Magic Bullet indeed. In fact, getting an upwards trajectory from so far away seems impossible unless you are close by, and perhaps shooting from a prone position. That isn't even close to what the state wants to claim Kelly did.
Did one of the other criminal trespassers fire shots wildly, and happen to hit GCB? That's a much better fit to the evidence, and it might explain why no bullet was found (the shooter finding the bullet and taking it before fleeing).
Kelly's story never changed - but from the outset the eager-to-prosecute DA had been changing his words, and saying he said things he never said. This became clearer and clearer as the trial went along and the defense attorneys put the truth on display. If the DA has to make stuff up, what does that say about their case? And Mrs Kelly did say she heard shots - I watched the testimony, and she was very demonstrative of where she was and what she heard, step by step.
Ultimately I find it very informative that Kelly turned down a plea deal offered by the state that would have reduced the Murder charges to only one count of negligent homicide (I made a mistake, it was just a really bad accident, I was careless) if he pleaded guilty. If he did it, isn't he going to just grab the best deal and reduce the downside? Instead, we see a response that looks like a man who knows he did nothing, and can't put that lie that he killed someone on the books.
That's what it all looks like to me. But we'll see what the jury says.
www.kgun9.com
