Photo via Coconut Creek Police Department/Wikimedia Commons
September 2, 2021, 12:57 pm
Lawyers defending Parkland mass school shooter Nikolas Cruz argued Wednesday that terms such as “killer,” “massacre,” and “slaughter” should not be allowed during the defendant’s upcoming trial, calling these words “inflammatory” and “prejudicial,” according to reports. Assistant public defender Melisa McNeill specifically argued that this kind of language is unnecessary because they’re not trying to minimize what he did, which seems unlikely given that the defense’s entire job is to try and get Cruz off or at least reduce the severity of his inevitable sentence.
Featured Video
Hide
“We are not making effort, as the state has alleged, to minimize or purify what happened,” McNeill said. “The evidence speaks for itself, and it’s not necessary to invite error into the record with these prejudicial references.”
Advertisement
Hide
We were not aware that one could be prejudiced against mass shooters, but sure.
Cruz was indicted on 34 charges, 17 each of first-degree murder and first-degree attempted murder, in 2018, after he killed and injured the same number of people after entering the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, and opened fire with an AR-15. His trial has been delayed multiple times, including due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but is expected to begin this month.
The argument against certain terminology was made during a preliminary Zoom hearing and is not unusual for cases involving such violent actions as a mass shooting. Prosecutors, of course, argued against the assertion that terms like “killer” shouldn’t be used for an individual who killed 17 people, pointing out that the language is clearly accurate.
“Especially when they adequately describe the defendant and what he did, what else do you call an event where somebody goes into a school and kills 17 innocent people? That is a massacre,” said prosecutor Nicole Chiappone.
The judge is expected to rule on what language will be allowed during the trial sometime this week. Meanwhile, a mother of one of the victims of the shooting, who was a teacher and coach at the high school, argued to local reporters that all the terms mentioned by the defense fit Cruz, judging by both his actions and the writings that were found on his phone in the aftermath.
Advertisement
Hide
“He is what he is, and he did what he did,” said Linda Beigel Schulman. “It was a slaughter to shoot all those people with a weapon of war. He knew what he was doing, he wrote it all out, it was all on his cell phone.”
Cruz’s defense additionally argued against the death penalty for the shooter during the hearing, bringing up similar cases in which the death penalty was not issued, and insisted that he should only be referred to him by name during the trial, presumably to humanize him and avoid constant reminders of what he did.
It’s clearly and entirely expected that Cruz will be found guilty, and as the trial is being held in the state of Florida, the death penalty is absolutely on the table. While the majority of Americans oppose this punishment, few across the political spectrum appear to think that the terminology mentioned by the defense is inappropriate in this case.
Advertisement
Hide
Don’t commit a massacre and kill anyone then, let alone 17 people, unbelievably infuriating. Never cease to amaze me.
What are your thoughts on this? https://t.co/Psi2CJFcfr
— J.D.
(@iownjd) September 2, 2021
*First Published: September 2, 2021, 12:57 pm
0 Comments