You're talking about the potential for KG to be charged in juvenile court? It is possible I suppose but she would only face misdemeanor fighting charge at most. And I don't see even that as very likely.
Of course not. It was reported that 8 of the students there that day were referred to the family court for corrective measures. I am guessing, since there were far more than 8 there, that it was the ones identified as “fighting”. That would potentially encompass KG. Just my opinion
I don’t either, honestly, but 8 others were referred that direction.
Again, I have argued more than once that the defense attorney likely knows that it is going to be extremely difficult to prove his client innocent, which is not even a legal term, but he doesn't have to. It is incumbent upon the state to prove that she is guilty. And yes, I actually have seen the video . I am well aware what it shows, but what it DOESN'T show are things that may have led up to it, mitigating circumstances, which is a legal term. While one never knows what any given jury will decide, I think the defense attorney is probably trying to pave the way for his client to be shown some leniency, in sentencing, and perhaps even to put her in a position to perhaps take some type of plea bargain, prior to going to trial. And just a reminder that I am sure we all know, 'not guilty' does not necessarily mean the same thing as 'innocent'. JMO, and OMO
Very true.
I only watched the video once, because it was revolting. I could be wrong, but I believe I saw MD step over KG’s body and briefly engage another person.Stand Your Ground? No Duty to Retreat?
snipped for focus @Cryptic
If ^ post is saying MD & KG, both teens initially involved, had a right to be where the altercation occurred, then I agree, as that (main) fight was on a public street, sidewalk, and/or easement.
Per MO. law both MD & K had a right to be there on the public property, i.e., neither had a duty to retreat.
MO. Use of Force statute provides that under some circumstances, a person has "no duty to retreat" (sometimes called Stand Your Ground).
"563.031. Use of force in defense of persons. — "
Sets forth principles about use of force, qualified by this ¶:
"3. A person does not have a duty to retreat:
"(1) From a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining;
"(2) From private property that is owned or leased by such individual; or
"(3) If the person is in any other location such person has the right to be."
I'm not following line of thought about why some posts discuss Stand Your Ground or Duty to Retreat. AFAIK it's not an issue in these possible juvie or crim charges.
BTW, not clear to me who the "second individual" in ^ post is. Does it refer to a teen in another fight there?
__________________________________
Yes, I was stating that both people, not just the one specified in a previous post, had a right to use that street / side walk.
I respect your opinion, so which 8 do you believe were referred to family court out of that huge group? I am not asking for names, but description of involvement. Why only 8?
I am not the OP, but I have seen the video, and the eight teens referred to the family court for corrective measures were almost certainly seen, and identified, due to their presence at the scene of the brawl involving KG and MD, although just being there was no crime, and none of their probable crimes were actually inflicted upon Kaylee. Watching the video, it is obvious that no one is fighting KG, at any time, other than MD. There were several other teens, it appeared to be about 8 or 9, most likely from the two rival groups that we have learned of, fighting each other, and that is where any charges for them likely will arise. There were others standing around, watching, but they did not appear to be actively engaged in any brawl, so likely would face no charges JMO
Right. That is what I stated also. The 8 referred for corrective measures were the ones actively engaging in fighting. The one arrested was the only one that hurt KG. The OP seemed to disagree with me so I was curious to hear their perception.
Unfortunately we don't know a lot of the facts. But from the video, I think many of the others seen in the video could be charged with fighting. You don't need injuries for a fighting charge and really typically if "fighting" is the charge, there isn't much injury, otherwise it is charged differently. Now, I think some of those individuals might be able to put forward good defenses to those charged, but again that would depend on some facts we don't know yet. I think it is possible (though maybe not likely) that if some were found to have been actively engaged in organizing/arranging this fight, they could face charges in regards to Kaylee's injuries. But again, that would depend on information we just haven't seen yet. I'm sure police have a real good idea by now of how this all came to be, but we just haven't been given access to that info. The prosecutor's office and juvenile authorities will charge as they see fit and since most are juveniles, we may not hear much.
BBM...I agree. While I respect every individual's decision whether or not to view the troubling video of the brawl, and I would never try to tell another poster what or how to post, I do feel that video is certainly the single most important piece of evidence that exists in this case, and is a must-view for anyone wishing to have as fully an informed view of the events of this case as possible. JMO
snipped for focus @Cryptic
snipped for focus @SteveP
The state's burden of proof became much less burdensome, imo, when the video surfaced.
Mitigating circumstances, for the most part, are considered during the penalty phase. No??
