http://www.sptimes.com/2006/08/03/Hillsborough/_Excusable_homicide__.shtml
Sorry if this link isn't perfect, I lose at the internet sometimes :/ Anyways, the gist of it is, a man was robbed at "gun point" (later turned out to be a pellet gun), chased after the robber, found him and hit him with his car. The person that was hit ended up dieing from the hit.
Now, the guy was not convicted of man slaughter. My wife and I were having a discussion on it, and it got kinda heated. We finally decided that the guy should not have gotten any jail time and be let go.
What do you guys think?
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- What do you think?
What do you think?Follow
Dragosan wrote:
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/08/03/Hillsborough/_Excusable_homicide__.shtml
Sorry if this link isn't perfect, I lose at the internet sometimes :/ Anyways, the gist of it is, a man was robbed at "gun point" (later turned out to be a pellet gun), chased after the robber, found him and hit him with his car. The person that was hit ended up dieing from the hit.
Now, the guy was not convicted of man slaughter. My wife and I were having a discussion on it, and it got kinda heated. We finally decided that the guy should not have gotten any jail time and be let go.
What do you guys think?
Sorry if this link isn't perfect, I lose at the internet sometimes :/ Anyways, the gist of it is, a man was robbed at "gun point" (later turned out to be a pellet gun), chased after the robber, found him and hit him with his car. The person that was hit ended up dieing from the hit.
Now, the guy was not convicted of man slaughter. My wife and I were having a discussion on it, and it got kinda heated. We finally decided that the guy should not have gotten any jail time and be let go.
What do you guys think?
He was guilty of manslaughter, if not murder.
If he had hit the guy with his car while the guy was brandishing the gun at him, it could have been considered a case of self-defense, as with a gun being waved at him he could easily claim he felt his life was in danger--because, of course, he has no way of knowing it was a pellet gun.
But to chase the guy down AFTER the gun has stopped being pointed at him, however, is an act of vengeance, not self-defense. The law does not allow for violence done in retribution. Therefore, he was guilty and quite properly should have receive a sentence, and the fact that he didn't is a miscarriage of justice.
Edited, Aug 3rd 2006 at 10:51pm EDT by Ambrya
DA did not prove Mens Rea. Since he was going at 20 miles an hour when he hit the guy, and claimed he was only try to knock the guy down, not kill him, ther is reasonable doubt as to intent to kill.
Nevertheless, killing someone accidentally is still manslaughter. I'm having a hard time grasping the concept of "excusable homicide".
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
Nevertheless, killing someone accidentally is still manslaughter. I'm having a hard time grasping the concept of "excusable homicide".
It might even fall under the category of depraved indifference, which still qualifies as murder. Anyone who tries to "knock someone down" with a car at ANY speeds is obviously not concerned with that person's safety or well-being and therefore the argument could be made that, even if the murder wasn't intentional, it was the result of actions which demonstrated a depraved indifference for that person's continued existence.
So I say again, he's definitely guilty of manslaughter and quite possibly guilty of murder, and there is no "excusable" about it. The jury was obviously smoking some bad crack when they reached that verdict.
Edited, Aug 4th 2006 at 3:15am EDT by Ambrya
FUck the rights of the criminal. When he pulled that gun out (regardless it was of a pellet variety) he knew what he was doing, and in turn suffered the consequences. If I were the store owner, after running the ******* over I would have finished him off with my own hands. Once you pull a gun on me and take my hard earned money, all bets are off. If more people took justice like this into their own hands, there would be a lot less crime.
Did the crime and did the time, fUck him, one less asShole on the street ruining the lives of decent hardworking people. Leave it up to the courts? Sorry I have little faith in the judicial system. Recently a judge in PA dismissed a case of underage drinking cause the prosecution did not clearly state that Miller Genuine Draft is indeed an alcoholic beverage.
Edited, Aug 4th 2006 at 7:46am EDT by Soracloud
Did the crime and did the time, fUck him, one less asShole on the street ruining the lives of decent hardworking people. Leave it up to the courts? Sorry I have little faith in the judicial system. Recently a judge in PA dismissed a case of underage drinking cause the prosecution did not clearly state that Miller Genuine Draft is indeed an alcoholic beverage.
Edited, Aug 4th 2006 at 7:46am EDT by Soracloud
He should've been locked up.
Sora wins. That's all.
Quote:
Nevertheless, killing someone accidentally is still manslaughter. I'm having a hard time grasping the concept of "excusable homicide."
It takes more than accidental killing, the test is whether a reasonable prudent person would consider the actions of the defendant as having a significant chance of causing a persons death and therefore he should have know better. If you asked 20 people if knocking down a fleeing armed robber with a car going 20 miles an hour would cause death, I am sure 90% + would say no. Especially since, they have seen that sort of thing on TV all the time without any deaths. I in fact saw it recently on a repeat of the Shield.
I think if you were actually full of **** and vinegar, you wouldn't last all that long....
Yay for descriptive titles on threads
Yay for descriptive titles on threads
Quote:
Florida law says homicide is excusable when it occurs by “accident or misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden or sufficient provocation.â€
Sound like a gimme for most any form of manslauther. He would have done time in CA.
I will remember that next time I want to stab one of my students because he was being loud...
BloodwolfeX wrote:
Quote:
Florida law says homicide is excusable when it occurs by “accident or misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden or sufficient provocation.â€
Sound like a gimme for most any form of manslauther. He would have done time in CA.
There's a case very similar in California right now, a convenience store clerk who followed a robber out of the store and shot him. Be interesting to see what happens.
But, yeah. I just have a problem with the whole "well, he was upset" defense.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Soracloud, King of Bards wrote:
If more people took justice like this into their own hands, there would be a lot less crime.
Quote:
There's a case very similar in California right now, a convenience store clerk who followed a robber out of the store and shot him. Be interesting to see what happens.
In CA the "Justifiable Homicide" defense could only apply if you or another were in immediate jeopardy. Once they are leaving, you’re no long under immediate threat.
As one of the officers at the Reserve Police Academy said, “If you shoot the guy as he enters your house carrying the bat he used you bust your window, you’re likely OK. If you shoot him in the back as he leaves with your jewelry, you’re screwed.â€
Unless the robber walked out of the store and pulled a gun on someone else, the clerk will probably be convicted.
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
Soracloud, King of Bards wrote:
If more people took justice like this into their own hands, there would be a lot less crime.
Yeah thats something to consider also. Its easy to say, bah take the law into your own hands (I said it earlier) but petty street crimes and robberies would end in bloodshed and it wouldn't be the culprits blood. Why shove a gun in someones face and demand money at the risk of being attacked when you can walk up and shoot someone. No matter what is done, deliquents will level off the playing field. They have for years.
Soracloud, King of Bards wrote:
FUck the rights of the criminal. When he pulled that gun out (regardless it was of a pellet variety) he knew what he was doing, and in turn suffered the consequences. If I were the store owner, after running the ******* over I would have finished him off with my own hands. Once you pull a gun on me and take my hard earned money, all bets are off. If more people took justice like this into their own hands, there would be a lot less crime.
Did the crime and did the time, fUck him, one less asShole on the street ruining the lives of decent hardworking people. Leave it up to the courts? Sorry I have little faith in the judicial system. Recently a judge in PA dismissed a case of underage drinking cause the prosecution did not clearly state that Miller Genuine Draft is indeed an alcoholic beverage.
Edited, Aug 4th 2006 at 7:46am EDT by Soracloud
Did the crime and did the time, fUck him, one less asShole on the street ruining the lives of decent hardworking people. Leave it up to the courts? Sorry I have little faith in the judicial system. Recently a judge in PA dismissed a case of underage drinking cause the prosecution did not clearly state that Miller Genuine Draft is indeed an alcoholic beverage.
Edited, Aug 4th 2006 at 7:46am EDT by Soracloud
So, I can run someone over now and lie and say "Hey, he robbed me. Look there's the pellet gun that looks exactly like the one I own, but it's not that one. Really." And I will get away with it because "he robbed me." Sweet.
Edited, Aug 4th 2006 at 3:49pm EDT by GitSlayer
Recent Visitors: 455
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (455)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- What do you think?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC