Did General Eiling actually Murder Plastique?

December 7, 2015

The Flash
Season 1, episode 5: Plastique

In The Flash Season 1, episode 5, Bette, also called Plastique, makes an appearance. It was a fun episode to watch. There’s a showdown between Eiling and Plastique; the villain essentially gets away; and we get to see The Flash run on water. However, at the end of the episode Barry says he watched Eiling murder Plastique. Eiling shot Plastique, but was it murder…or self-defense?

In this corner: Plastique
Plastique turns anything she touches into a bomb. Briefcases. Steelies. Even the clothes the Flash was wearing. She is Away Without Leave (A.W.O.L.) from the her unit, having absented herself from her unit, organization, or place of duty as required at the time prescribed. (Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86. Absence Without Leave).

In this corner: General Eiling
Eiling is Plastique’s commanding officer. As a commissioned officer on active duty, has the authority to apprehend her. (Rules for Courts-Martial 301 (Hereafter R.C.M.)) Further, an apprehension is made by clearly notifying the person to be apprehended that they are in custody, although it can be implied. (R.M.C. 302(d)(1)) Any person authorized to apprehend “may use such force as is reasonably necessary under the circumstances to effect the apprehension. (R.M.C. 302(d)(3))

Did Eiling provoke her into attacking?
No.

General Eiling is a superior officer, so he has authority to apprehend her. Plastique knows she is A.W.O.L. and even says “I’m here to turn myself in.” This is an acknowledgment that she is going to be taken into custody. And Eiling, as an individual authorized to apprehend can use whatever force is reasonable necessary to bring her in.

In an attempt to apprehend her he has used non-lethal tranquilizer darts and flash-bangs up to this point. He also tries to talk her into coming peacefully, by telling her she can save lives if she’ll come back. Plastique responds with “The world will be a safer place once you’re no longer in it” and then she throws six steelies (three from each hand) she has charged to explode towards Eiling and his men. On impact Eiling and his men are thrown to the earth. We don’t know how many are hurt or killed.

U.S. Code §1114 says that killing or attempting to kill an officer, employee, or member of the uniformed services while they are engaged in their official duties will be punished as murder or attempted murder.

Did she actually attempt murder?
Yes. Unlawfully killing a human without justification or excuse through a premeditated design to kill, or the intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm, counts as murder under the R.M.C.

Plastique intentionally threw explosives at Eiling and his men. It was an unlawful act because she has no legal justification, such as self-defense, for using that kind of force. It was premeditated because she: 1) went out to get the steelies, 2) knew once she touched them that they would explode, 3) intentionally weaponized them, 4) let Eiling know where she was and then waited for him, and 5) concealed the weaponized items in her hands, instead of keeping them in something like a bag in case they weren’t necessary. Finally, once Eiling and his men were thrown to the ground by the explosions she didn’t retreat, instead she advanced towards him with arms outstretched to finish the attack.

The show doesn’t resolve what happens to those soldiers, we just see them lying on the ground and not moving. Because she has the intent to kill, or inflict great harm, on Eiling, if they were killed in the process she will be guilty of murder based on transferred intent. For now, let’s give Plastique the benefit of the doubt and assume none of the soldiers were killed.

When she throws the balls as General Eiling and the soldiers under his command, that is an overt act intending to inflict grevious bodily harm or kill. She reinforces this with the threat “The world will be a safer place when you’re no longer in it.” An “act, done with specific intent to commit an offense…amounting to more than mere preparation and tending, even though failing, to effect its commission, is an attempt to commit that offense.” (R.M.C. part 4, Article 80) Finally, she doesn’t just make the balls explosive she actually throws them at Eiling and his men. And it’s an act intended to effectuate a certain result, his death or serious bodily injury.

When Eiling shot Plastique was it self-defense or murder?
Self-defense, probably.

Self-defense is a defense to homicide if an individual: (1) reasonably apprehends death or grevious bodily harm is about to be wrongfully inflicted on them; and (2) they believe they used the necessary force to protect themselves from death or grevious bodily harm.(R.C.M. 916(e)(1).

This is a two part test.

1) Objectively, would a reasonably, prudent person have been under the apprehension they were about to die. It considers height, weight, if you can safely retreat, if your attacker can they blow you up just by touching you. You know, the usual. Plastique knocking Eiling to the ground through an explosive blast, then approaching him while he’s helpless qualifies as apprehension, assuming Eiling has enough awareness to understand Plastique is intent on killing him.

2) Subjectively, how much force was actually necessary to repel the attack? This takes items like intelligence and education into account. Eiling is in a good position to determine what an individual under his command is capable of, as shown by his speech on how she can keep others from dying through her powers. He knows what is necessary to stop her in the event she turns hostile. He knows Plastique can make things explode by touching, he knows she just threatened to kill him, he knows she intends to kill him.

Anything that would disqualify his defense?
Let’s take a look.

Was he the agressor?
Under normal circumstances, drawing a gun on someone makes the person to draw the aggressor. However, here she’s a known fugitive whose very touch is dangerous, and he’s been given the lawful authority to bring her in using whatever force is reasonably necessary.

Even assuming he did not have the authority, he seemed intent on talking her down. And “an initial aggressor” he can still “regain the right to act in self-defense if the other party escalates the degree of force, or if the initial aggressor or the mutual combatant withdraws in good faith and communicates that intent to withdraw.” (United States v. Behenna, 12-0030 (C.A.A.F. 2012) Here, it went from non-lethal talking by Eiling to escalated lethal action by Plastique who threw explosives.

We’re they engaged in mutual combat?
No. He could legally use force, but opted to talk instead. She was not not in a legal position to use lethal force and still threw the first bomb, literally.

Did he provoke the attack?
No, even though no one likes a gun pointed at them.

She was A.W.O.L. and he had the authority to apprehend her using whatever force was reasonably necessary. Although the soldiers with Eiling moved forward at his command they did not make a move to attack. She also knew from the encounter with the doctor they were using non-lethal means of attack. She also listened long enough to know Eiling wanted her to return to duty willingly.

Did he have a duty to retreat?
No.

He was under no duty to lawfully retreat, because he had the necessary authority to try and apprehend her after she went A.W.O.L. And, after she attacked and approached he was not in a position to retreat, he got one shot off and then fell unconscious.

Was he allowed to use lethal force?
Yes, if he determined that she was going to kill him.

A death threat, followed by an attack using explosives, followed by an apparent approach to turn something on him into an explosive counts. That allows him to use force appropriate to the circumstances, even if it is deadly force. (See United States v. Lewis, 65 M.J. 85, 88 (C.A.A.F. 2007))

Was Eiling justified in shooting Plastique?
Probably yes.

After she threw explosives at Eiling and his team, and they were injured and knocked to the ground, Plastique then approached Eiling with her hand out as if she would touch Eiling or the soldiers with him, thereby causing another explosion. He tried to talk her down, she escalated by attacking with explosives then approaching to finish the job, he shot her in defense of his own life and in defense of the lives of others. Seems open and shut case of self-defense, except…

Does the Flash intervening between Plastique’s approach and Eiling shooting her matter?
Yes, if voluntary abandonment occurred.

Voluntary abandonment occurs when a person stops the intended crime because their conscience kicks in. (They can still be guilty of a lesser offense.) It doesn’t occur if they stop the crime for another reason, like they’re unable to complete because something else interferes.

In between the time Plastique approached Eiling, and the time Eiling shot her, the Flash showed up, and tried to talk her down telling her that “You’re not a murderer. Don’t become one now,” (We’re still pretending the soldiers didn’t die) and that’s when Eiling shoots her.

Here Flash appeals to her conscience, and her momentary hesitation would suggest that abandonment has occurred. This is further implied by her statement of “I’m glad you stopped me” after she gets shot but before she dies.

However, because she had made no overt motions, signs, or statements to let Eiling, or others, know she had voluntarily abandoned her course of action, it would probably still be considered self-defense in a court of law. And, it could be argued it wasn’t true abandonment because she only stopped her attack when The Flash intervened to prevent her from completing her crime.

Did Plastique act in self-defense when she attacked Eiling?

No.

She had no reason to think she would be killed or suffer grevious bodily harm in the moment where General Eiling was trying to talk her into coming back. Further, although the soldiers had weapons drawn, they had previously used non-lethal attacks and there was no reason to suspect that had changed.

Even if Eiling was the aggressor, she escalated the situation from words to lethal attacks when she used the explosives, which would disqualify her from a self-defense as an actual defense. Further, he was within his legal rights to attempt to apprehend her based on her being A.W.O.L.

And Dr. Well’s, who put Plastique up to the attack, just rolls away?
No. Talking someone else into committing a crime doesn’t mean your innocent of the crime.

The night before the confrontation occurs, Plastique seemed like she was going to walk away from the fight when she was at S.T.A.R. Labs. Dr. Wells rolls in, gives her the sheep dog speech and, says “Kill Eiling. One last mission and then you go home.” Based on that, she decides that she is going to kill General Eiling so that he will stop “attacking her flock.”

Here’s the thing, “Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.” (R.M.C. part 4, Article 77(1)).

What is a principal? That’s any actor who is primarily responsible for the crime being committed.

Dr. Wells counseled her to go out and kill Eiling. Eiling is an active, commissioner officer in the U.S. Military, on military business (tracking down an A.W.O.L. soldier). When Dr. Wells puts the idea in her head, using language she’ll understand, and she then acts upon it, he has induced her into action. When Plastique then acts on that inducement, Dr. Wells can likely be held responsible as a principal in the commission of the act. He didn’t directly try to kill Eiling but he talked Plastique into doing so, and you’re not allowed to do that.

So, Barry’s wrong. It wasn’t murder. Eiling acted in self-defense. But if he’s looking for someone to finger for murder he might want to look a little closer to home.

We Should Not be OK with Agents of SHIELD Planning a Murder

Josh Gilliland

October 8, 2015

The Agents of SHIELD episode “The Purpose in the Machine,” had a lot of positive things going for it, from using steampunk technology with an Asgardian to figure out how the Kree monolith operated, to Agent May spending quality time with her dad.

The only way it could have been better, would have been leaving Simmons on that Kree Moon for a few more episodes. This was a great opportunity to have introduced Captain Mar-Vell as an ally, or Una treating Simmons, or a Peter Quill cameo. Sadly, none of those things were not meant to be. Let’s see what the flashbacks hold for us.

The problem with the episode is Lance Hunter being sent out to kill Grant Ward. SHIELD is a rogue government agency, not following the Constitution, not taking orders from the President, and doing whatever they see fit. This pattern of behavior is not that dissimilar from the Red Skull going rogue with HYDRA from Germany.

A former secret agent deciding to kill a terrorist is still murder, even if the intended victim is a horrible human being. We have a pesky Constitution that specifically prohibits people being deprived of their life without due process of law. Director Coulson deciding to have Ward killed is simply murder and everyone participating is part of the conspiracy.

SHIELD acted as an agency with law enforcement, military, and espionage missions before the HYDRA coup. Continuing to blend law enforcement and national defense is highly problematic, because law enforcement in the United States does not execute kill orders from the President. The mission of law enforcement is to arrest with specific rules on when lethal force can used.

Military operations are inherently different. In the War on Terror, Congress has authorized the use of force in combating terrorists groups. President Obama has used drones executing his “kill list,” which has included Americans operating with terrorists. These individuals are no doubt traitors who took up arms against the United States in foreign counties. The military does not conduct law enforcement; it wages war. Those who take up arms against the United States overseas should not be surprised to have war waged against them.

We have a very different situation in the fictional world of Agents of SHIELD. Director Coulson has no legal authority to order any missions, let alone to decide to kill people. Moreover, the FBI and CIA would both be monitoring for HYDRA communications to counter terrorism at home or abroad. The mission of the FBI would be to stop HYDRA, but the goal would be to arrest those involved and use lethal force if met with lethal force.

It would not be farfetched in this imaginary world to see Congress authorize the military to hunt down HYDRA on US soil, just like Congress did against the Klan during President Grant’s administration. General Talbot might have such a mandate, but it is not clear to what extent.

Director Coulson deciding to kill a US Citizen who should be prosecuted for murdering a US Senator, multiple military service personnel, treason, terrorism, and a long list of other crimes, really makes him no better than Grant Ward. If SHIELD is successful, there really is no going back from the fact that Coulson, Hunter, and May, have more in common with the Punisher than Captain America.

Regarding Henry: How Could the Flash Legally Get His Dad Out of Prison?

Josh Gilliland

May 22, 2015

Did Barry Allen save his mother and forever alter the timeline that turned him into The Flash? No, which is a good thing. However, his dad is still left in prison for being wrongfully convicted of killing Norma Allen in The Flash season finale.

How could a good lawyer help The Flash get his father out prison? It’s time to put on a Blue Power Ring, because there is hope of proving Henry Allen’s innocence in court.

States vary on the exact procedure for setting aside a conviction, but one option is to introduce new evidence showing the conviction was wrong. Some states require a new trial after the conviction is set aside.

Ohio law allows a defendant to seek a new trial and set aside a conviction when “When new evidence is discovered material to the defendant, which he could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial.” ORC Ann. 2945.79(F). The defendant must produce “affidavits of the witnesses by whom such evidence is expected to be given,” and the state may produce affidavits to impeach any defense witnesses. Id.

New York permits a Court to vacate a judgment and set aside a sentence if “[n]ew evidence has been discovered since the entry of a judgment based upon a verdict of guilty after trial, which could not have been produced by the defendant at the trial even with due diligence on his part and which is of such character as to create a probability that had such evidence been received at the trial the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant;” NY CLS CPL § 440.10(g). There must be supporting affidavits if the motion to vacate the judgment is based upon the existence of facts. NY CLS CPL § 440.30(a).

How could The Flash get his father out of prison with a similar statute to vacate a conviction based upon new evidence, without causing a paradox to destroy all of reality?

The answer: A Go Pro camera. Or Polaroid Cube. Basically any personal action camera could do the trick.

The issue is having evidence that the Reverse Flash killed Norma Allen. One option for The Flash is to travel back in time before the murder, place an action camera in either the fish tank, or a book shelf, or some other part of the living room that is not visible or easily overlooked. The recording of the high speed blurs slowed down would demonstrate reasonable doubt that Henry Allen killed Norma Allen.

The big challenge is offering the video evidence in court. A Court would be rightfully confused if there was video footage from 2000 on a camera that did not exist in 2000. A District Attorney would rightfully challenge the authenticity of the video. Moreover, it is unlikely The Flash would appear to testify in Court.

One solution to this issue is the fact the police and District Attorney have openly cooperated together with The Flash. Detective Joe West could prepare an affidavit stating the recorded video was given to him by The Flash and that the footage accurately depicts the crime scene from the night Norma Allen was killed. A Judge in Central City, especially if the District Attorney was not contesting the footage, could find the new evidence either would justify a new trial if not outright setting aside Henry Allen’s conviction.

A lawyer from the Blue Lantern Corps could also give Henry Allen hope of proving actual innocence. In New York, new evidence could prove actual innocence if:

(1) The new evidence will probably change the result if a new trial is granted;

(2) It must have been discovered since the trial;

(3) It must be such as could not have been discovered before trial by the exercise of due diligence;

(4) It must be material to the issue;

(5) It must not be cumulative; and

(6) It must not be merely impeaching or contradictory to the former evidence.

See People v Marino, 99 AD3d 726, 730; People v Tankleff, 49 AD3d at 179.

Video evidence of a yellow blur killing Norma Allen would 1) change the result of Henry Allen’s conviction if there is a new trial; 2) the video evidence would be discovered after the trial, since the technology to record it was invented over a decade later and required time travel to use; 3) there was no way the Defense Attorney’s due diligence could have found evidence only available from time travel; 4) the video would be material to the issue of who killed Norma Allen; 5) the evidence is not cumulative; and 6) it is not offered impeach or contradictory to the former evidence, but verifying what Henry and Barry Allen claimed they saw the night Norma Allen was killed by the Reverse Flash.

Jemma Simmons is the New Punisher

Josh Gilliland

April 29, 2015

Jemma Simmons planned to murder Grant Ward with a “splinter bomb” that would cause Ward to disintegrate as if exposed to the destructive force of a Diviner in the Agents of SHIELD episode “The Dirty Half Dozen.” This was murder at the most basic level of common law that was premeditated with malice aforethought. Agent Simmons truly transformed herself from Agent of SHIELD to the Punisher.

Make no mistake, Grant Ward has a body count that includes AT LEAST 5 SHIELD Agents 4 soldiers, 2 guards, 2 Airmen, 1 Senator (his brother), and parents (plus possible other family members). Ward has committed treason and international terrorism. There is no question that Ward has earned himself a death sentence by his long list of crimes.

The problem is Jemma Simmons is not supposed to be the judge, jury, and executioner. Agent Simmons has given herself the same moral standing as Frank Castle with her plan to kill Grant Ward that resulted in the death of Sunil Bakshi. Worse yet, it is bad when the terrorist who killed his own brother (a US Senator) gives you a lesson on morality after you kill someone.

Let’s be clear: Simmons murdered Bakshi under the doctrine of transferred intent. Simmons intended to murder Ward, but instead killed Bakshi, who attempted to save Ward. The intent to kill Ward would be “transferred” to Bakshi. This makes Simmons not just guilty of the attempted murder of Ward, but the murder of Bakshi.

Jemma Simmons turning into a murderer is directly connected to SHIELD no longer being the “Strategic Homeland Intervention Enforcement Logistics Division,” but a bunch of mercenaries since Captain America The Winter Soldier. It is true that they tried maintaining their mission to fight HYDRA (and other international terrorism), but SHIELD itself is no longer taking orders from the US Government. Law enforcement is a thing of the past. Upholding the Constitution is ignored in the name of security. Personal foreign policies are forged in violation of the Logan Act and totally ignore the War Powers Act, let alone the chain of command. These are all bad traits that result in heroic characters becoming shadows of their former selves.

How should this change? SHIELD should go back to its roots as quickly as possible after Avengers Age of Ultron. SHIELD should be about upholding the law, opposed to taking the law into one’s own hands. Save that for when the Punisher appears in a future season of Daredevil.

Batty Crimes on Gotham

Josh Gilliland

April 28, 2015

The Gotham episode “The Anvil or the Hammer,” taught us the following legal lessons in bad decision making:

The Gotham PD have not read the 4th Amendment. No one gets a search warrant for anything, like searching a suspect’s apartment;

Barbara Kean is either a) an accessory to three murders; b) insane c) both;

The Fox Club has the crimes Professor Whitebread said would NEVER be on a Bar Exam; and

Edward Nigma is a murder.

Riddle Me This: Who Needs a Search Warrant to Enter an Apartment?

Answer: The Police!

Detectives Gordon and Bullock entered the Ogre’s apartment after getting a tip from a prostitute the Ogre maimed nine years earlier. The goal was to save Barbara Kean from the suspected serial killer.

Did the police need to get a warrant? Calling the duty judge would take time in the 24-hour window since Kean’s abduction. The 4^th Amendment requires a search warrant for the police to enter someone’s home, unless there are “exigent circumstances.” The threat to Kean’s life arguably was an imminent and ongoing danger to life, so Gordon and Bullock have a strong argument for violating the 4^th Amendment.

Is Barbara Batty?

Barbara Kean telling the Ogre to kill her parents does not fall under the necessity defense. You cannot get other people killed to save yourself. That is exactly what Barbara did with her parricide (and butler-cide). There is no question she was the proximate cause of these three murders.

The Ogre was the one who did the actual killing, however, “but for” Barbara telling the Ogre to kill her parents, no murders would have taken place. Barbara’s actions take her from tortured hostage to accessory by the willful targeting of others for death.

Could Barbara argue insanity defense? That she lost her mind from fear? Maybe, but that likely will show she is not competent to stand trial and would spend her time in a state mental hospital.

What Does the Fox Say?

Way back while studying for the California Bar Exam, the great Criminal Law Professor Charles Whitebread said you would never see a bar exam question involving bestiality, buggery, or any other funky sex crime.

Gotham went there.

That will be one surreal arraignment.

The Riddler’s Odyssey

Murder does not win the heart of a girl. Edward Nigma laid in wait, confronted an off duty police officer, and stabbed him. Nigma then cut up the body with an ax, took it to the police station, melted it down, and then crushed the bones.

It does not take much of a riddle to see that is murder.

Wayne Enterprises

There is no question Wayne Enterprises is breaking a large number of Federal, state, and international laws. There is a good bet they are also violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, but we do not yet know enough about their business practices to know for sure.

Did Bruce Wayne Break His One Rule by Being an Accessory After the Fact to Murder?

Josh Gilliland

April 21, 2015

Bruce Wayne on Gotham is neither the Caped Crusader nor the Boy Wonder. However, he might be an accessory after the fact to Selina Kyle’s murder of Reggie Payne. Did Batman break his one rule for the first girl who kissed him?

Maybe…

First things first: Selina Kyle pushed Reggie Payne out of a five-story window that resulted in his death. This meets the statutory definition of murder, because Selina Kyle both knowingly and purposely caused Payne’s death. N.J. Stat. § 2C:11-3(a)(1) and (2).

Bruce was with Selina Kyle at the time of Payne’s fall in order to get information on the Wayne Enterprise’s conspiracy. Bruce himself considered pushing Payne out of the window, but stopped. This shows Bruce did not have the intent to kill Reggie Payne.

Selina told Bruce not to tell anyone about her murdering Payne. Does Bruce Wayne’s covering up of Selina’s murder of Payne make him an accessory after the fact?

Under New Jersey law, assuming Gotham City is in New Jersey, a person is legally accountable for the conduct of another person when:

(1) Acting with the kind of culpability that is sufficient for the commission of the offense, he causes an innocent or irresponsible person to engage in such conduct;

(2) He is made accountable for the conduct of such other person by the code or by the law defining the offense;

(3) He is an accomplice of such other person in the commission of an offense; or

(4) He is engaged in a conspiracy with such other person.

N.J. Stat. § 2C:2-6(b).

New Jersey case law explains that an accessory needs only to have notice that the other person committed a “high misdemeanor” and knowing that assisting that person would justify a conviction. See, State v. Lynch, 79 N.J. 327, 399 A.2d 629, 1979 N.J. LEXIS 1199 (1979).

As another case explained, New Jersey requires that an accomplice act with the same purposeful state of mind in furtherance of a crime for liability. State v. Whitaker (2009) 200 N.J. 444, 457-458; N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6(c)(1). Moreover, “mere knowledge, without more,” does not make one an accomplice. Id. As such, an “accomplice is only guilty of the same crime committed by the principal if he shares the same criminal state of mind as the principal.” Whitaker, at *458-459. However, the accessory can be guilty of lessor crime. Id.

What does this mean for Bruce Wayne? Bruce did not have the intent to kill Reggie Payne, thus Bruce did not have the same murderous intent as Selina. Moreover, Bruce actually decided not to push Reggie out of the window. As such, Bruce did not have any criminal intent, where Selina certainly had criminal intent to commit murder. As such, it is unlikely Bruce could be convicted for murder, but certainly for obstruction of justice and related crimes for helping cover-up a murder.

Did Selina Kyle Commit Murder or Act in Self Defense?

Josh Gilliland

April 14, 2015

Oh, the future Catwoman. What does she do on Gotham when a heroin addict, who was in the British military, threatens to tell a ruthless corporate criminal on she and Bruce? Push the addict out the window while he is trying to retrieve his drugs.

Is pushing an unarmed man out a window, with his back to you, self-defense? Or is that murder?

New Jersey defines murder as when 1) someone “purposely causes death or serious bodily injury resulting in death;” or 2) when someone “knowingly causes death or serious bodily injury resulting in death.” N.J. Stat. § 2C:11-3(a)(1) and (2). Furthermore, a juvenile tried and convicted as an adult can be sentenced to at least 30 years without parole, or sentenced to a time between 30 years and life imprisonment, with parole eligibility in 30 years. N.J. Stat. § 2C:11-3(b)(5); (b)(1).

Pushing an unarmed man out the window of a multistory building is both a purposeful act and Kyle knew it would cause the victim’s death.

A person can use force to protect him or herself if they “reasonably believe that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.” N.J. Stat. § 2C:3-4(a).

A drug addicted verbally threatened Selina Kyle and Bruce Wayne that “I am going to tell on you.” The drug addict was not armed. The victim’s threat was that a third-party would cause them harm once the youth had been identified to the third-party. These facts do not show the victim was using any unlawful force to physically threaten Selina Kyle and Bruce Wayne. As such, Kyle’s actions look like murder and not self-defense.

Selina Kyle’s age would be to her advantage as a defense. In only one decision was a 14-year old tried as an adult and convicted for murder, felony murder, first degree kidnapping, second degree kidnapping, conspiracy to commit first degree robbery, first degree robbery, second degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, third degree unlawful possession of a handgun, and second degree sexual assault. State v. Jones (Super.Ct.App.Div. 1998) 308 N.J.Super. 174, 178, fn. 1.

The facts of the case from 1998 are extremely dissimilar than Kyle pushing someone out a window. Could she be tried as an adult? Highly unlikely.

1 234 5 Page 3 of 5