The man accused of attacking Paul Pelosi, the husband of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), offered an apology in court on Tuesday, claiming the former Speaker’s husband was “…

“I never meant to hurt him, only kidnap and potentially murder his wife!”

In his defense, the article does a much better job of explaining the apology than the headline

  • Nougat@kbin.social
    114·
    1 year ago

    DePape said Tuesday he went to the couple’s home to talk to the former Speaker about alleged Russian involvement in the 2016 election, and that he planned to wear a costume and post his interrogation of her online. He claimed he was looking for the former Speaker and other targets to confess to their corruption.
    …
    DePape’s attorneys have argued the charges do not fit as he was not trying to go after Nancy Pelosi because of her official duties.

    I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that this guy’s attorneys are wrong.

    • Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
      282·
      1 year ago

      Adversarial process at work. Each side works against each other as hard as they can within the bounds of law and the jury (or just judge, depending) decides.

      It’s ridiculous, but the defense attorney working as hard as possible against the prosecution. If there’s even a tiny hope of it working it’s worth trying.

      • Esqplorer@lemmy.zipEnglish
        71·
        1 year ago

        They’re still wrong because criminal law has the concept of transferred intent.

        • jopepa@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          1 year ago

          Just had to google that, but it’s astounding that needs to be spelled out into law. Before that was inked out could you just call a mulligan if you killed the wrong person?

      • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafeEnglish
        47·
        1 year ago

        This is why we need a scientific system and not an adversarial one. We need the truth regardless of who is harmed by it.