The line seems to be drawn at choosing whether to charge the murder at a state or federal level. In Luigi’s case, he is being tried federally.
Which asks the question as to why Luigi’s case is being tried federally while mass casualty/terrorism crimes are only being charged at the state level.
I think texas has a death penalty for capital murder, which begins at two or more murders done at the same time. That means the el paso shooter could have gotten it. Xorollo pointed out the florida possibility.
So, in the second example, I realise those people didn’t get the death penalty, but were they also eligible for it?
The line seems to be drawn at choosing whether to charge the murder at a state or federal level. In Luigi’s case, he is being tried federally.
Which asks the question as to why Luigi’s case is being tried federally while mass casualty/terrorism crimes are only being charged at the state level.
Capital punishment is a legal penalty in the state of Florida. And based on the Wikipedia link, Parkland could have qualified based on: 3. The defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to many persons.
Because he crossed state lines to escape I guess?
It’s an excuse given that is a piss poor reasoning overall.
I think texas has a death penalty for capital murder, which begins at two or more murders done at the same time. That means the el paso shooter could have gotten it. Xorollo pointed out the florida possibility.
So, they’re comparing someone who could have gotten the death penalty but didn’t, to someone who could get the death penalty but likely won’t?