SubJeff on 14/7/2013 at 19:23
Did you suggest anyone looked like a middle Eastern terrorist?
:p
Dia on 14/7/2013 at 20:05
Cheap shot SE.
SubJeff on 14/7/2013 at 22:06
Man, you're uptight.
That's a friendly ribbing!
demagogue on 14/7/2013 at 23:12
Quote Posted by Renzatic
...what exactly is the legal line between Murder 2 and Manslaughter? I think I know what it is in theory.
When you're thinking about it like a lawyer, then you're thinking about it in terms of the elements you have to meet for a conviction. And in those terms, the difference between manslaughter & murder 2 is the element of intent. Murder 2 has it and manslaughter doesn't. (Yes states can differ sometimes, but I think that's most places.)
I think if you wanted to sum it up, it'd be asking the question, did A really mean to kill B? When you're in a fight, sometimes A doesn't really mean to kill B, just get them to submit, and all the evidence backs that up or anyway there's no evidence to back up that he did mean to kill B. So if B dies, you can't establish the intent element for murder 2 (that's what the evidence is doing; you need evidence to check each element box), so it's manslaughter. That's really the gist of the difference in technical terms.
But A is using deadly force recklessly, so they know it's possible death can occur and they're still using the force. And yes you mentioned the difference between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, which is what it sounds like. Involuntary would be if you're so drunk you don't know what you're doing, falling asleep in the car; but you recklessly drank too much and that's what makes you guilty. The crime of passion case IIRC is more like an exception to murder 2 on the intent element, because so much emotion takes over the person they lose control for a moment & strike, so some states say that temporary intent doesn't count for the intent element, so it's voluntary manslaughter.
A typical case of voluntary manslaughter is more like throwing a rock off a bridge onto a highway; you don't know it'll hit a car and don't mean to kill anyone, but it's so reckless that if someone is killed you can expect it, and it's voluntary.
Quote:
some cases I'd think would be Murder 2 are classified as Murder 1 in court
The reason this happens is that for each type of crime, there are different tracks you can take (like murder 1(1), murder 1(2), etc), and while the typical track is what we just mentioned, some of the other tracks involve aggravated circumstances (so it's murder 2 + some AC). Like if a murder happens during an armed robbery, even if it'd otherwise look like murder 2, IIRC it'd still count under one of the murder 1 crimes because the armed robbery is an aggravated circumstances (so the elements might be like (a) all the elements of Murder 2. (b) Plus the elements of Armed Robbery). It's like A is barging in with a weapon so we can expect someone might get murdered, so A should face the more serious charge.
Dia on 14/7/2013 at 23:27
I have a question: the media is saying that Zimmerman may still have to face charges of murder in civil court, if 'certain criteria' can be met. What 'criteria' are they referring to?
Vivian on 15/7/2013 at 11:16
Right, so does this mean that the jury considered this unarmed teenager a credible threat to the dudes life? Or is shooting someone acceptable in other circumstances as well?
Muzman on 15/7/2013 at 11:44
It's even finer grained than that I think. He only has to justify that he felt that his life was under threat.
There's probably some room for a wrongful death suit, a la OJ, but I suppose there might be some way he is protected from that (since the whole law is designed around "Good People" not being afraid of legal repercussions if they shoot first and ask questions later).
Plus there's hopefully various other means the prosecutors might try to get the guy, so they don't want that to get in the way.
Vivian on 15/7/2013 at 13:28
wait wait wait, what? So I could shoot you and all I would have to prove is that I felt threatened by you? How the hell is that enforceable?
faetal on 15/7/2013 at 13:47
So long as you kill the person and there are no definitive witness statements, you can essentially make up whatever story you like. History is written by the victors.
Phatose on 15/7/2013 at 13:53
The typically requirement is "reasonably believes". So not only do you have to believe it, but any reasonable person would have to believe it too.
As I recall, Zimmerman's story was that Martin had knocked him to the ground, then straddled his chest and began repeatedly punching him in the face. As I recall, the angle of the bullet wound on Martin backed up them being in that position.
