Shock and Anger as Philly DA Krasner Downgrades Murder Charge to Manslaughter
What we do know is that the progressive policies he champions have set the stage for three back-to-back acts of violence that have shocked the nation over the past ten days.
Shortly before 6 p.m. on Friday, September 5, a deadly clash erupted outside a 7-Eleven store at 12th and Chestnut Streets in Center City, Philadelphia, that left city resident Lauren Jardine, 33, dead. WCAU-TV, NBC’s affiliate in Philadelphia, reported that Jardine had intervened in a heated argument between John Kelly, 45, and his girlfriend, both of whom the article notes “were unhoused and known to frequent the area.”
According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, during the clash, “Jardine pulled out a gun — later confirmed to be stolen and illegally carried — and Kelly brandished a screwdriver.” A struggle for the gun ensued. Witness reports and cell phone videos show Kelly wound up with the gun and fired several shots at Jardine. In one video, after the first shots had been fired, Jardine is seen lying on the pavement. Ten seconds later, Kelly fires a final shot.
Jardine was transported to a local hospital, where “she was pronounced dead shortly after 7 p.m.”
Prosecutors from Soros-backed Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner’s office initially charged Kelly with murder, which most people familiar with the case agreed was appropriate. On Tuesday, however, it was widely reported that, after viewing “newly released video footage,” prosecutors had downgraded the charge to voluntary manslaughter.
After watching a video of the crime, Mark Fusetti, a retired sergeant of the Philadelphia warrant unit, was stunned by the downgrade to voluntary manslaughter. He insists that Krasner “just gave a murderer a free pass.”
The video below shows the suspect beating Jardine. Fusetti notes that, at 31 seconds, Kelly shoots her and “she’s done.” She no longer posed a threat to him. Yet, 10 seconds later, he fires again. Fusetti writes: “The threat was over at 31. This is murder! Why the free pass?”
In his second post, Fusetti told viewers that some people claimed the killing was justified simply because Jardine was the one who drew the gun. But that’s not how the law works, he said.
After Kelly had already beaten her, taken the weapon, and fired, Jardine was on the ground. Had he stopped there, a lesser charge might have been appropriate.
He explained:
The problem is, he shoots her. She’s down and she’s out. And 10 seconds later, he walks over and f***in’ executes her.
…
Once the threat is done and over with, it’s over. You can’t go and f***in’ murder somebody after you have gotten the upper hand.
…
Once he shot her the first time, and it stopped, that was the end of it. He waits 10 to 12 seconds, goes up and f***in’ puts it right behind her ear. That’s murder. Krasner gave him a freebie. This is one of the most insane f***ing cases you’ll ever hear about.
Here’s why this is not a justified shooting pic.twitter.com/zHhpCVKX6C
— Sgt. Mark Fusetti (Retired) (@MarkFusetti) September 10, 2025
While Fusetti’s explanation makes perfect sense to me, I’ll admit that I am not a lawyer. What I do know, however, is that District Attorney Larry Krasner has built a reputation for being one of the most progressive prosecutors in the country, and critics frequently describe him as being notoriously soft on crime.
Krasner’s tenure has overlapped with a period in which Philadelphia has grown markedly more dangerous, plagued by spikes in violent crime, carjackings, and open-air drug markets. The perception that the city has suffered under his watch is hard to miss.
What we do know is that the progressive policies he champions have set the stage for three back-to-back acts of violence that have shocked the nation over the past ten days. We lurched from a mentally ill transgender man opening fire on children during a Mass at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis, to a young woman brutally murdered by a repeat offender with more than a dozen priors — someone who would have been behind bars were it not for liberal judges and a no-cash-bail system — to the killing of Charlie Kirk, a man of deep faith whom Krasner’s ideological brethren over at MSNBC smeared as guilty of “hate speech” even as he lay dying.
District attorneys like Krasner — and many of his counterparts across the country — have spent years neglecting their duty to hold criminals accountable. Time and again, their progressive ideals have taken precedence over their fundamental obligation to safeguard the public. The cumulative weight of their bad prosecutorial decisions has pushed America into an increasingly dangerous place.
One murder on a Philadelphia street corner may mean little to Larry Krasner. But to John Kelly’s next victim, it will mean everything.
Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
the “unhoused” give us a fn break
the homeless who morally can be taken off the streets were it not for gops lack of interest..unless it raises money for them
the left only controls us b/c we feared the cries of racism and the violent behavior of that crowd
djt is trying to turn the tide towards maga
but the locals are stuffing the ballot box
Huh? GOP ‘lack of interest’? Are you serious?
Where are the homeless found sir? They are found in blue states and blue cities, though some red cities/states have a problem too. To get them off the streets is first a legal/then moral issue.
Since the 1960’s it’s been almost impossible to get mentally ill people into long-term care or confinement for their illnesses. Add in all kinds of other laws and policies from leftists/Democrats, and there is your problem.
GOP is not the problem here.
rinos
Sadly, deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill by the left and misguided libertarians was abetted by Republican governors and legislatures that sought to economize.
Trump and the GOP want the homeless off the streets, the Democrats do not.
the rinos who are the gop
wont stop the flow of money to lefty
we know the dems hate america
the gop is and has been allowing the welfare state by signing off to it over and over
Why do you act as if the GOP has even the smallest amount of power there? Doesn’t matter what we want, the Communists that run that place don’t care
correct
even when we have the power
we cede it away
Unhoused scum. Get these people off the street and into work camps.
WWGMD? What would Golda Meir do?
From the description provided here, it sounds like the first shot might be considered self-defense but the second shot is murder.
No. In any case, putting a gun to the head of someone helpless in the ground and pulling the trigger is murder. That was a cold blooded execution.
Sadly, deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill by the left and misguided libertarians was abetted by Republican governors and legislatures that sought to economize.
I’m not sure even the first shot was justified. If the dead woman was an amazon and the shooter was Mr. Magoo, maybe, but the video shows otherwise.. Once he got the gun away from her, he was armed and she was not. She wasn’t even approaching him when he shot her the first time.
he was armed and she was not.
First, neither he nor you can know that she was now entirely disarmed.
Second, being “armed” is irrelevant to fearing grave bodily harm and/or death, which is the line for self-defense. She had threatened him with a concealed gun. But we all know that an unarmed person can also maim or kill (as a general rule).
Third, her approaching o not approaching in the moment is not directly indicative of the perceived imminence of the threat. Aggressive posture/stance will still signify an ongoing threat.
Having said all that, he might not have been able to make a case for self-defense in the first shot. (His pulling a screwdriver at the beginning is the one thing that would probably doom that claim.) The execution shot? Pure murder.
To get the full context, we need Marlin Perkins to explain it.
ok ..
1. never never ever get involved in a
domestic fight .. call 911 and let the cops handle it … period.
2. if you pull a gun .. use it
dont point and threaten the
target has a screwdriver
and your afraid and your trying
to protect the girlfriend
whatever .. pull, shoot center mass
1 round and wait.
3. you get what you vote for.
ok that is my take.
Agreed on all points. Intervention into a DV by a bystander is not a good idea b/c;
1. We don’t how/why it is occurring or which party is truly at fault.
2. Often the DV dispute is put on hold and DV combatants unite and turn their combined attacks onto the third party who stuck their nose in. Call 911 instead.
Remove the weapon from the bolster and you need to pull the trigger. If you weren’t ready/don’t feel justified in firing a set of 2-3 center mass in quick succession then for goodness sake don’t draw the weapon. Anything else and you risk the weapon being taken away/used against you or hit with a ‘brandishing’ charge.
Cops hate DVs with a passion.
Injecting yourself into one unnecessarily is 200% stupid.
WWGMD? What would Golda Meir do?
We need to make the price exponentially unacceptably high
The Charlotte judge The Philly DA. Their families…
And how often will you keep asking the same question?
You get to live in the sh*thole that you vote for. I’m sorry, but Philly is chock full of progressive morons who continue to vote for anarchist c&nts like Krasner. Krasner should be swinging by a rope around his neck, but instead he is put in a position to destroy our legal system. Wallow in the sh*t you voted for, prog morons.
The democrats of Philadelphia voted for him him not once but twice. This type of behavior is what the people who showed up at the polls want,
In 2021 he won a primary with almost 67% of the vote and the general with almost 72% of the vote. In May of 2025 he won again with over 64% of the vote and faces the same person. He won the repub primary as a write in candidate.
Like in nearly all democratic urban strongholds the repubs can’t find someone to challenge the entrenched dems. The repubs don’t even try to allocate any resources to change the status quo. The change has to come from within,
the dems love to reelect crime loving dems b/c it goes back to the old
there for the grace of stalin goes me..or my family for sure
They will probably plea bargain it down to littering
Or “non-violent” possession of some illicit drug. So he’ll end up as one more in the chain of people they want to let go because “he didn’t do nuffin’ but drugs.”
While Fusetti’s explanation makes perfect sense to me, I’ll admit that I am not a lawyer.
Well, I’m not a lawyer, either. But I did have some basic law classes and I pay attention to the lawyers around me (here, for example), and what I know is Fusetti’s explanation is absolutely correct. Unless this other video showed the deceased with another gun and was acting to use it, there’s NO way she was still a threat to the shooter. No threat equals no good shoot.
Maybe. Maybe not.
Here is the definition of manslaughter from the Chapter 25 of the Pennsylvania statutes:
2503. Voluntary manslaughter.
(a) General rule.–A person who kills an individual without lawful justification commits voluntary manslaughter if at the time of the killing he is acting under a sudden and intense passion resulting from serious provocation by:
(1) the individual killed; or
(2) another whom the actor endeavors to kill, but he negligently or accidentally causes the death of the individual killed.
There is a really good case that can be made that as the woman came up to the homeless man and threatened him with a gun while arguing and an ensuing struggle that he was “acting under a sudden and intense passion resulting from serious provocation….
“Murder” typically involves “intent.” “Manslaughter” charges are based on the person not having intent or not having the right state of mind.
In a fight that took over 30 seconds where an illegal weapon was pulled on the man, would the man have had time to regain his “right state of mind?”
One critical element may be that we don’t know what the man said in his interview with the police. What he said and what his state of mind was at the moment could be why they charged him with manslaughter instead of third degree murder.
Generally speaking, you charge what you can prove and perhaps the DA did not feel they could prove the murder charge but could prove manslaughter.
Aside from the insanity of calling second degree murder (which would include the above definition in most places) “manslaughter”…
The whole point is the fight was clearly over and he walked away, then returned and executed her. There’s no way you get that resulting “from sudden and intense passion” and still have a definition of “self-defense” that makes any sense.
No, the prosecutor is definitely pulling some shenanigans here.
In Pennsylvania, second degree murder is defined as:
Murder of the second degree.–A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the second degree when it is committed while defendant was engaged as a principal or an accomplice in the perpetration of a felony.
Second degree murder doesn’t fit here.
Third degree murder, defined as Murder of the third degree.–All other kinds of murder shall be murder of the third degree. Murder of the third degree is a felony of the first degree. may fit.
That being said, I think it would be somewhat difficult to get a conviction on what was essentially as street fight with a homeless person where the aggressor was the one with the gun initially.
If you have ever been in a fight or seen a street fight, it takes longer than 10 seconds to calm down and regain a “reasonable” mind.
And that is with people who are not living on the street.
If this were a fight between neighbors, or two people getting gas at a gas station, I would readily concede the point that this incident was under charged by a lot.
But given the aggressiveness of the woman, the illegal gun, the length of the fight, and the fact the man is homeless I believe would be a tough sell to a jury – especially in left leaning Philadelphia. The jury would, in my opinion, side with the homeless guy.
Like I said, you often charge what you can prove and where you can get a conviction.
I do understand the sentiment that you and others are expressing. In my opinion, we are all missing the critical element of what the man told to the cops after the fight and what witnesses said. (ie, was he still riled up? Had he been attacked before?, etc.)
Soros money buying Soros chaos. President Trump should send the DOJ to Filthadelphia and file suit against the DA for deprivation of the deceased’s civil rights. You have a right to expect justice if you’re murdered. Her family should expect the same.
This is nonsense. Legally deceased person has no rights at all. Also, legally, even a living victim of a crime has no right to justice. There simply is no such law.
There is nothing that the DA could be sued for, even if he didn’t have absolute immunity, which he does.
Soros and his tame DAs are the real problem (as are the voters), If I was DOJ/FBI I’d spend money, time, and personal investigating Soros. He is a clear and present danger to the US and it’s values. He might be completely legal but it doesn’t matter. Investigation is fine. See if he and son are completely above board. If not, slam him hard.
I don’t care
Can a prosecutor charge murder with manslaughter as a fallback? Many times not, so it’s what the prosecutor can win that determines the charge. He never knows what a jury will do after the defense gets their say, especially when it’s the victim that pulls the ONLY gun.
In Pennsylvania, you charge Criminal Homicide, which includes First, Second and Third degree murder, along with Voluntary and Involuntary Manslaughter. When you make jury instructions, you go over with the judge and other attorney which of those the jury will be instructed on. In my county, it’s at the end of the trial, but before the jury gets the case. So you know what evidence you’ve introduced and what the jury should convict on. You also get to instruct on as many of the degrees of homicide as fit. It can be one or all of them. The jury will consider each charge.
According to The Philadelphia Inquirer, the gun-owner Jardine attempted to stab the screwdriver-owner Kelly with his screwdriver—and that’s the detail that changed the charge.
“Jardine and Kelly then began arguing, and multiple people attempted to separate them, said the source. The video then shows Jardine pulled out a gun, which she was carrying illegally.
Kelly pulled out a screwdriver in response, the source said, and Jardine, Kelly, and Kelly’s girlfriend then began to struggle over the screwdriver and the gun.
At one point, Jardine took hold of the screwdriver, and Kelly took the gun. As Jardine sought to stab Kelly with the screwdriver, he shot her, said the source.”
https://archive.ph/FDOQa
From the video, that would have to be some f*g long screwdriver. She was four or five feet away, and not moving in any direction.
Are you referring to the “New video recovered by the investigators ?”
All of that is fine for the first shot. But doesn’t justify the second shot.
Krasner is a POS. Prove me wrong.
You’re not wrong. He sucks so bad the state AGs office actively tries to find ways around him to take over cases in his jurisdiction.
“Stinky” Soros and his stooge Krasner need to be charged as criminal accessories.
Kelly, being both homeless and mentally ill, is at least twice a Protected Class. Philadelphia is a Democrat ruled city, so the first thing that the legal system will do is reduce the charges so as to be in a better position to drop them completely later in the process. That way they avoid convicting someone who is a Protected Class.
Subotai Bahadur
It seems to me that this Fusetti is an idiot. It seems pretty obvious why examining footage might lead to downgrading the charge.
Only if she’s still alive. How do you know she was? That’s what closer analysis of the footage might yield. If she died from the initial shot/s, during the altercation in which she was the aggressor as well as the one who pulled a gun, then the coup de grace becomes irrelevant. You can’t murder a corpse.
You also can’t tell from a video whether or not she was dead from that first shot, no matter how closely you claim to examine it.
And because he felt compelled to shoot her again, one may assume HE thought she was still alive.
THIS. If he thought she was alive, and you can’t prove beyond a shadow of a doubt she was not, then he clearly intended to kill her with that second shot.
On the contrary, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was alive. If it can’t prove that, then the jury must assume that she was dead, and therefore the shot was not murder.
Article says:
Jardine, of West Philadelphia, was shot in the lower back and hand. She was rushed to nearby Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, where she died a short time later.
So she was alive for the second shot. Presumably that was the back shot, unless the shooter was a total spaz.
The linked Inquirer article, once you get past the malformed URL and the paywall, does say that. But this post says otherwise:
There’s no link to show where that quote came from, but whichever source it is doesn’t say she died at the hospital. I’ve found several other sources that say she was pronounced dead at the hospital, rather than that she died there.