Support NeoGAF

[MIMIC]

That would depend on the specific details and his own state of mind. His interview certainly doesn't paint a picture of uncontrolled rage.

Well I don't think you have to appear enraged, only that you're acting in response to something that would provoke you.

You don't have to look pissed off to BE pissed off.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

It makes it malice aforethought. It's simply conscious intent to cause death.

Yes, but this has nothing to do with whether or not it's voluntary manslaughter or not.

To be clear, voluntary manslaughter involves deliberately killing someone. It isn't like vanilla manslaughter where it's an accident. That's what makes it voluntary.

This man had to follow them outside, and his interview strongly suggests he was under no such influence.

I have no idea why you believe that he should be displaying similar emotions during an interview and when he's having two thugs break his collarbone.

 

["God's Beard!"]

"The woman’s autopsy is scheduled for Friday, and cops have yet to confirm whether Miller actually was pregnant."

loooooooool

 

[BronsonLee]

[QUOTE="God's Beard!";122551336]"The woman’s autopsy is scheduled for Friday, and cops have yet to confirm whether Miller actually was pregnant."

loooooooool[/QUOTE]

Well, I mean unless she was clearly visibly pregnant, they're not going to be able to do so until the autopsy.

That being said...that would be an odd (yet possibly predictable?) turn

 

[KHarvey16]

Probably because he's being interviewed well after the event. Should he start foaming at the mouth at the very mention of it?

Did I mention foaming at the mouth being necessary?

 

[Prologue]

I really like this new "He is so old, the law does not apply to him" defense being trotted out by at least 2 posters now.

Its very simple, don't rob people. And its even more simple not to put yourself in dangerous situations while you're pregnant. She showed disregard for her baby and herself. This guy got rob three times, I'm sure he's tormented by now, lives in fear and not even thinking clearly. And this time, they actually got physical with him and broke his collar bone.

I'm sorry, not everyone is going to think clearly given those circumstances. Was he right or wrong? I just wouldn't give the man time behind bars, would you?

 

[Toxi]

That wasn't an argument, it was me opining about the absurdity of different standards for criminals and victims, in general.

What different standards? If the woman were alive, she should also be put in prison.

Its very simple, don't rob people. And its even more simple not to put yourself in dangerous situations while you're pregnant. She showed disregard for her baby and herself. This guy got rob three times, I'm sure he's tormented by now, lives in fear and not even thinking clearly. And this time, they actually got physical with him and broke his collar bone.

I'm sorry, not everyone is going to act clearly given those circumstances. Was he right or wrong? I just wouldn't give the man time behind bars, would you?

I would. Killing is for immediate defense. You do not kill someone who does not present an immediate danger. I do not want to live in a country where cowboy "justice" is allowed.

 

[xbhaskarx]

his interview strongly suggests he was under no such influence.

I have no idea why you believe that he should be displaying similar emotions during an interview and when he's having two thugs break his collarbone.

Apparently people have to be in a panic at all times now... look how calm he is while giving a statement after the fact, what a sociopath!

 

["God's Beard!"]

I don't know what it is about this topic, but you and others are very bad at reasoning through the justification for self defense.

I never said anything about self-defense. I said they were a threat. If someone does a drive-by and shoots up your home, just because they left doesn't mean they're not still a threat.

Again, I'm not justifying the old man. I'm just saying I understand why he attacked them.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

Did I mention foaming at the mouth being necessary?

I have no idea how else you'd expect him to display an "uncontrollable rage" during an interview.

I don't know what it is about this topic, but you and others are very bad at reasoning through the justification for self defense.

Deadly force requires not only a person feel threatened, but that the threat be perceived by a reasonable person to potentially cause grievous bodily injury or death. A person running away can obviously not meet this burden.

It's as though you haven't read any of my posts.

 

[Suikoguy]

[QUOTE="God's Beard!";122551705]I never said anything about self-defense. I said they were a threat. If someone does a drive-by and shoots up your home, just because they left doesn't mean they're not still a threat.

Again, I'm not justifying the old man. I'm just saying I understand why he attacked them.[/QUOTE]

That might be the worst comparison yet in this thread.

Good to know that Drive By Shootings and Robberies are similar.

 

[GorillaJu]

One of those situations where it's tragic, and I wouldn't have done it, but I don't feel much sympathy at all.

 

[Lactose_Intolerant]

This thread......

 

[OrlanisWorks]

No sympathy for the woman, but I don't praise the man for the kill.

 

[KHarvey16]

Well I don't think you have to appear enraged, only that you're acting in response to something that would provoke you.

You don't have to look pissed off to BE pissed off.

What makes you think I'm basing it on his appearance? The way he describes the event, and the way he talks about doing what he did and why he did it, there is no indication he wasn't in control. None at all. That kind of defense, which again is not accepted in every jurisdiction to begin with, requires you show the person completely lost it. That interview did not give that sense whatsoever.

Yes, but this has nothing to do with whether or not it's voluntary manslaughter or not.

To be clear, voluntary manslaughter involves deliberately killing someone. It isn't like vanilla manslaughter where it's an accident. That's what makes it voluntary.

I have no idea why you believe that he should be displaying similar emotions during an interview and when he's having two thugs break his collarbone.

For it to be voluntary manslaughter he must have not been in control of his actions due to some kind of emotional distress. As I said above nothing he describes suggests he acted because of this.

 

[Prologue]

One of those situations where it's tragic, and I wouldn't have done it, but I don't feel much sympathy at all.

 

[Jmanunknown]

Were they running away still carrying his stuff or did they put it down?

It was money in a gun safe. All they took was the money. So it would be easy to run away.

 

["God's Beard!"]

That might be the worst comparison yet in this thread.

Good to know that Drive By Shootings and Robberies are similar.

I didn't realize that unexpected attacks that could result in death were so different.

 

[bomma_man]

[QUOTE="God's Beard!";122549152]We know people are desperate when they rob shit, but that doesn't make them good people either. You should have a little more respect for people's intelligence.

Just because we don't care about how hard their life is or isn't doesn't mean we think they're out robbing people for shits and giggles.[/QUOTE]

People probably should care about why people commit robberies if they ever want to, you know, actually prevent stuff like this happening in the future.


Puritans gonna puritan though.

 

[Slurmer]

[QUOTE="God's Beard!";122551705]
Again, I'm not justifying the old man. I'm just saying I understand why he attacked them.[/QUOTE]

Many posters here are arguing that, and you're doing it cogently and more reasonably than most. Don't worry about what KHarvey says.

 

[KHarvey16]

I have no idea how else you'd expect him to display an "uncontrollable rage" during an interview.

Why do you have it in your head I need him to display uncontrollable rage? The thought of my reasoning being restricted to the limits of your own imagination annoys me.

 

[pottuvoi]

So property is worth more than life now?

For him, certainly seems like it.

I would have to say that the idiotic person in this case were the robberers.
The woman becouse she invaded another persons house while being pregnant and the male as he allowed it.

If she wasn't pregnant they were just stypid scum who selected wrong target.

 

[SuperAndroid17]

So it's ok to get burglarized and do nothing about it according to a few posters in here.

The woman did not deserve death but her stupidity got her killed.

 

[statham]

this guy also kept his guns locked up

 

[Crayons]

People probably should care about why people commit robberies if they ever want to, you know, actually prevent stuff like this happening in the future.


Puritans gonna puritan though.

There is no excuse for robbery in a country with so many programs for poor pregnant women.

No excuse

 

[striferser]

robbers rob him 3 times.
It's a strike out, but shit, i don't think they deserved to be killed.

 

[computers putin']

Seems like cold blooded murder to me, and I'm pretty sure there have been other cases that are somewhat similar to this, where a person gets shot in the back fleeing a crime, and the person who shoots him or her gets charged.

edit: he's been robbed by the same people before? I'll withhold my opinion til I find out more.

 

[DY_nasty]

Threat implies self defense. You're not making sense.

lol where have i heard this before

 

[TheRedSnifit]

What makes you think I'm basing it on his appearance? The way he describes the event, and the way he talks about doing what he did and why he did it, there is no indication he wasn't in control. None at all. That kind of defense, which again is not accepted in every jurisdiction to begin with, requires you show the person completely lost it. That interview did not give that sense whatsoever.



For it to be voluntary manslaughter he must have not been in control of his actions due to some kind of emotional distress. As I said above nothing he describes suggests he acted because of this.

Why are you simply looking at the interview and not the facts and circumstances of this case? He'd been robbed/attacked several times by these same people. This time, they broke into his house, assaulted him and broke his collarbone, and assaulted him again when he tried defending himself. Again, the question is "would a reasonable person respond similarly to these circumstances" (many people in this thread say "yes"), not "how does he sound in an interview".

Why do you have it in your head I need him to display uncontrollable rage? The thought of my reasoning being restricted to the limits of your own imagination annoys me.

That would depend on the specific details and his own state of mind. His interview certainly doesn't paint a picture of uncontrolled rage.

 

[baphomet]

Shouldn't have broken into someone's house.

 

[hiroshawn]

There is no excuse for robbery in a country with so many programs for poor pregnant women.

No excuse

True. She can easily find a home and get an allowance and even a job after the babies birth.

 

[Toxi]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...t-burglar-face-charges-cops-article-1.1879554

Well based on the facts as presented here, I hope they don't charge the old man with anything and I predict they won't. The police are stating that these two had robbed him twice before, so I'm assuming that was the case and he had contacted the police each time. Plus they attacked him and broke his collarbone... The right person to charge is the criminal who escaped, with felony murder, and it looks like they've done just that.

I'm sorry, why shouldn't he be charged?

Does one's home suddenly extend to the street in front of it? Does "self-defense" involve shooting a criminal while they're running away?

So it's ok to get burglarized and do nothing about it according to a few posters in here.

No, according to a few posters here isn't not okay to kill a person in cold blood when they're not a clear and present danger.

Revenge should not factor in the law.

 

[KHarvey16]

Why are you simply looking at the interview and not the facts and circumstances of this case? He'd been robbed/attacked several times by these same people. This time, they broke into his house, assaulted him and broke his collarbone, and assaulted him again when he tried defending himself. Again, the question is "would a reasonable person respond similarly to these circumstances" (many people in this thread say "yes"), not "how does he sound in an interview".

You can't simply argue that a reasonable person could lose control, in such a case you need to argue that he also did lose control. Nothing he described gave any indication he lost control and I guarantee you any lawyer that is hired to defend him will very much wish the interview wasn't conducted.

Edit
I don't understand what you think those quotes show. Your assumption was incorrect and I've told you that more than once.

 

[ReturnOfTheRAT]

True. She can easily find a home and get an allowance and even a job after the babies birth.

Why wait when you can steal now?

 

[TheRedSnifit]

You can't simply argue that a reasonable person could lose control, in such a case you need to argue that he also did lose control. Nothing he described gave any indication he lost control and I guarantee you any lawyer that is hired to defend him will very much wish the interview wasn't conducted.

No, you simply have to argue that a reasonable person would lose control. That interview does not magically prove that he's a sociopath, no matter how much you wish it were so.

I don't understand what you think those quotes show. Your assumption was incorrect and I've told you that more than once.

You believe that he should've "painted a picture of uncontrolled rage", something you've reiterated several times without actually explaining how he would do so.

 

[KHarvey16]

No, you simply have to argue that a reasonable person would lose control. That interview does not magically prove that he's a sociopath, no matter how much you wish it were so.

Again with the inserting words. You have a tough enough time thinking for yourself, leave my thinking to me. Obviously you need to also make the argument he did lose control since the loss of control is why such a murder can be excused in some jurisdictions, and evidence suggesting he didn't would be damaging to the defense.

You believe that he should've "painted a picture of uncontrolled rage", something you've reiterated several times without actually explaining how he would do so.

With his words? He describes the event to the reporter. He doesn't describe a scenario in which he losses control.

 

[MIMIC]

What makes you think I'm basing it on his appearance? The way he describes the event, and the way he talks about doing what he did and why he did it, there is no indication he wasn't in control. None at all. That kind of defense, which again is not accepted in every jurisdiction to begin with, requires you show the person completely lost it. That interview did not give that sense whatsoever.

I'm talking about the incident. He says they tackled him during the robbery (an 80-year-old man). Now, in the incident, he doesn't have to be screaming and hollering or anything....that's sufficient provocation regardless of his outward appearance.

Now, "completely losing it" does demonstrate the necessary provocation component, but "completely losing it" is not required. What is required is the event that brought about the provocation...and being seriously injured during a robbery IS sufficient provocation.

(and for anyone reading this post: I'm talking about voluntary manslaughter vs. murder, not self-defense)

 

[GorillaJu]

Hahaha

 

[gogosox82]

Can you say for sure what you would do in that situation with your adrenaline pumping after you just got jumped and robbed by two people? You aren't in your normal state of mind at that moment.

I'm positive I wouldn't shoot a pregnant girl in the back TWICE especially after she started begging for her life. I would've forced her back to the house and waited there until the police showed up.

 

[dr3upmushroom]

The old guy was out to kill. You don't shoot someone twice.

Also, wtf at the interviewer. He's more shocked from the robbery than the killing.

Man, this old man... Fucking asshole.

 

[jay]

This thread is terrifying.

 

[KHarvey16]

I'm talking about the incident. He says they tackled him during the robbery (an 80-year-old man). Now, in the incident, he doesn't have to be screaming and hollering or anything....that's sufficient provocation regardless of his outward appearance.

Now, "completely losing it" does demonstrate the necessary provocation component, but "completely losing it" is not required. What is required is the event that brought about the provocation...and being seriously injured during a robbery IS sufficient provocation.

(and for anyone reading this post: I'm talking about voluntary manslaughter vs. murder, not self-defense)

The only reason voluntary manslaughter applies when a heat-of-the-moment defense is employed is because of that loss of control due to emotional stress caused by, for instance, walking in on your wife and her lover. That is the only reason murder does not apply in that case, so if you can't show that the emotional stress in fact did cause that loss of control there is no heat-of-the-moment defense. Obviously the burden of showing this isn't high, but evidence that suggests it wasn't the case is damaging. That interview is evidence he didn't lose control because he describes it as if he did not.

 

[baphomet]

The old guy was out to kill. You don't shoot someone twice.

Out to kill? Yes after being a victim numerous times in what should have been the safety of his home, he was out to kill and this poor woman just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[timetokill]

[QUOTE="God's Beard!";122551336]"The woman’s autopsy is scheduled for Friday, and cops have yet to confirm whether Miller actually was pregnant."

loooooooool[/QUOTE]
need thread title update to "allegedly pregnant"

 

[Lambda Pie]

I'm positive I wouldn't shoot a pregnant girl in the back TWICE especially after she started begging for her life. I would've forced her back to the house and waited there until the police showed up.

genuinely curious: how?

asking "please, robbers, wait for the cops. i got cookies"?

 

[WonkyPanda]

No, you simply have to argue that a reasonable person would lose control. That interview does not magically prove that he's a sociopath, no matter how much you wish it were so.



You believe that he should've "painted a picture of uncontrolled rage", something you've reiterated several times without actually explaining how he would do so.

Red, you're absolutely, 100% wrong. If you're trying to argue mitigating circumstances here, it isn't sufficient to say "a reasonable person would have been provoked." The defense's burden will be to prove that he was ACTUALLY provoked without sufficient time to cool off, in addition to a reasonable person standard.

If a person did have time to calm down and cool off, in this scenario, from a cursory glance at the facts, could easily be first degree murder, i.e. premeditated/deliberate.

 

[dr3upmushroom]

Out to kill? Yes after being a victim numerous times in what should have been the safety of his home, he was out to kill and this poor woman just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

He shoot twice. Simple as that, he shows no remorse. I'm not against your own protection and in that situation, depending on the circumstances, I might shoot at someone... But I wouldn't act nonchalant about it and smirk when I talk about the death of a pregnant women.

 

[Vincent Alexander]

The invader was a piece of shit. And now the old man is a piece of shit too.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

Again with the inserting words. You have a tough enough time thinking for yourself, leave my thinking to me. Obviously you need to also make the argument he did lose control since the loss of control is why such a murder can be excused in some jurisdictions, and evidence suggesting he didn't would be damaging to the defense.</i>

This is where the whole "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" thing comes into play. Simply proving that any reasonable person would lose control is sufficient without compelling evidence to the contrary. And no, him not being worked up in an interview isn't sufficient.


With his words? He describes the event to the reporter. He doesn't describe a scenario in which he losses control.

Uh, we are using the same definition of "losing control", right? I don't mean "losing control of the situation", I mean "getting mentally disturbed to the point where he can't think rationally". You cannot expect him to adequately explain the latter in a TV interview.

Red, you're absolutely, 100% wrong. If you're trying to argue mitigating circumstances here, it isn't sufficient to say "a reasonable person would have been provoked." The defense's burden will be to prove that he was ACTUALLY provoked without sufficient time to cool off, in addition to a reasonable person standard.

If a person did have time to calm down and cool off, in this scenario, from a cursory glance at the facts, could easily be first degree murder, i.e. premeditated/deliberate.

They were assaulting him. Physically. They broke his collarbone. I'm going to say that qualifies as provoking, and I have no idea how an 80-year old man would manage to both have time to cool off and chase people down the street. And apparently the law enforcement - as in, the people who's jobs it is to figure this stuff out as opposed to armchair-lawyering on a video game forum - agree with me.

 

[MIMIC]

The only reason voluntary manslaughter applies when a heat-of-the-moment defense is employed is because of that loss of control due to emotional stress caused by, for instance, walking in on your wife and her lover. That is the only reason murder does not apply in that case, so if you can't show that the emotional stress in fact did cause that loss of control there is no heat-of-the-moment defense. Obviously the burden of showing this isn't high, but evidence that suggests it wasn't the case is damaging. That interview is evidence he didn't lose control because he describes it as if he did not.

Or being tackled during a robbery.