smokeandmirrors
Banned
Yes. Apparently reading comprehension isn't a something you're good with and throwing hypothetical situations out to elicit emotion isn't going to change the fact that it's still cowardly.
Man shoots and kills intruder. Police determine she was not pregnant.
- Thread starter MThanded
- Start date
- Status
Yes. Apparently reading comprehension isn't a something you're good with and throwing hypothetical situations out to elicit emotion isn't going to change the fact that it's still cowardly.
This. Seriously, the dude probably shouldn't have shot her, but these clowns kinda asked for it.
Then I see we disagree. Evil like that needs to be removed IMHO.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
Seriously. It's alarming.
So let's say this man is telling the truth and he's been robbed multiple times and assaulted. And the criminals are running away with your valuables and money at hand, why exactly are you supposed to value their well-being when trying to recover your property? How much value must be being taken to make firing at them justifiable? Why are police allowed to fire at uncooperative fleeing suspects, but not civilians defending their property?
timetokill
Banned
If the cops don't even know if she was pregnant or not it's clear she wasn't showing and possibly not pregnant at all. not saying he should have shot but if someone is willing to rob you three times and break the collarbone of a very old man I have no doubt she is able to lie about a pregnancy to try and save her life.
TheRedSnifit
Member
The whole "cowardly" thing seems out of place, given how this case revolves around an 80-year old up against two significantly younger people.
I posted the California law. Showing that the provocation lead to an actual situation where your reasoning was obscured is required. If you walk in on your wife cheating and your ability to reason isn't crushed by extreme emotion, you can't claim voluntary manslaughter when you shoot them.
I cannot logically work out how a defense could argue that a person acted unreasonably because of intense psychological distress due to some provocation yet not acknowledge that the act was unreasonable. It's contradictory and completely undermines the argument.
It's stated explicitly in the California law.
EnVy_CaLiBeR
Member
Hard for the victim of the crime to show remorse and concern when the mother put herself in the situation to get killed by breaking into victim's home. It's fucked up all around on both ends.
TheRedSnifit
Member
Holy evasiveness, Batman.
Can you come up with a single case where a court agreed that a charge couldn't be reduced to manslaughter solely because the defendant said he didn't regret it? The law you quoted doesn't seem to mention it.
Cold-blooded man, stupid pregnant thief. These things do not mix. Never, ever think it's ok to rob someone's house cause you never know who the owner is or what they could do.
Shooting someone in the back as they flee, that's crazy. I can't condone that type of response even if you were just robbed. Old man deserves some type of punishment. Tragic all around though.
Shooting someone in the back as they flee, that's crazy. I can't condone that type of response even if you were just robbed. Old man deserves some type of punishment. Tragic all around though.
Killing_Joke
Member
I don't know. They tackled the guy and hurt him pretty bad. It's pretty obvious the guy was scared for his life. Just because they ran off when they see the gun doesn't mean the fear simply disappears. That's ridiculous. If he gets charged because of the law then so be it but i personally won't lose sleep if he doesn't.
rokkerkory
Member
You'd be a terrible parent
freethoughtbubble
Member
The fuck is this? Seriously?
OK, I found what I was looking for:
(can't post the link; it's from a law resouce database)
I think you're misinterpreting the statutes. The reasoning being obscured....again....is presumed. How often does a serious injury or walking in on your wife with another man NOT make someone lose it?
They go hand-in-hand, which is why they are both (battery and adultery) deemed sufficient provocation
That's very true and I'm afraid not many people will attribute the behavior of these "problematic citizens" to such external factors. Heck, I find it really difficult sometimes to look at the whole situation when judging people.
EnVy_CaLiBeR
Member
He let it slide twice before he used his "favorite toy".
The leap you're making is from "As a result of being provoked, the person acted irrationally" to "The person must recognize after the fact that the action was irrational and unjustified."
The requirement is that they're provoked into acting irrationally, which he was.
I understand your reasoning: If he's not currently being provoked and he believes his action was rational, then how can we say that his action was caused by his irrationality, which was caused by provocation?
But in your reasoning, you're adding that middle requirement. We don't need to determine that the action was caused by his irrationality, we just need to determine if his irrational action was caused by the provocation.
Regret is not at issue. I would say it is unlikely a case has come up where a defendant claimed to act unreasonably due to mental distress yet argues the killing was not unreasonable. Because that would be stupid.
You keep just arguing what is an adequate provocation. I am not disagreeing that violence or battery or infidelity is an adequate provocation.
Your assertion that showing adequate provocation existed is enough is demonstrably wrong, and the statute is very clear. That second requirement there is followed by an and. You need to act under the influence of extreme emotion AND the provocation must cause the same reaction in an average person. Your interpretation does not align with the way the law is written at all. Even the excerpt you quote says the principle mitigating circumstance is the defendant was "in a state of passion engendered in him by an adequate provocation." It then lists, I assume, standard adequate provocations. It isn't just assumed that if the provocation is there the defendant is also in the state allowing for such mitigation.
Apparently some gaffers have never had their grand parents robbed and beaten black and blue in their own home.
I think murder is slightly higher on the "crimes ordered by severity" scale than any form of home invasion or theft
Anyone who can take another person's life and not feel remorse, anyone who can shoot someone in the back, is fucked up in the head.
bananafactory
Banned
Thank you. Many people don't stop to consider what drives people to commit crimes. Not everyone is beyond redemption.
The requirement is they are provoked, enter into a state of obscured judgment, and then commit an unreasonable act due to their faulty ability to reason. If the unreasonable act is solely the result of obscured judgment as the defense claims, agreeing with that act after the veil of obscured judgement has lifted completely contradicts that position.
freethoughtbubble
Member
Sorry to but in, but that doesn't mean the fact of provocation is presumed under these circumstances, only that a reasonable person's passions are likely to be inflamed under them. It's a subtle difference, but it's there. If it were a true presumption, then the fact of infidelity or serious injury would in and of itself establish the subjective component of the defense. (Which is a point being lost here, I think: in California at least, there is a subjective and objective piece to provocation. It's not enough that a reasonable person would have been provoked -- the defendant himself must have actually been provoked.)
While I don't doubt that certain juries would presume that the shooter was actually provoked here (this thread is evidence enough of that) that does not mean that an actual legal presumption is at play here. And it also doesn't mean that the interview (particularly the calm and remorseless way he described the shooting) is not some evidence that his reason was not completely overwhelmed by rage/passion at the time of the shooting. Guy seems like a pretty cool customer in general, which works against him here, I think.
KHarvey16 said:
Just to play devil's advocate, couldn't he have acted unreasonably in the moment and then approved of his actions after the fact? I don't see these two facts being necessarily at odds, but I agree it's a tough argument to make in light of that interview.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
The tricky thing here is that if he was justified in pulling iron then he would have been justified in shooting before they decided to run.
Well, yeah. You have to act in direct response to that provocation.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_bur-crime-burglary
Can look up the population totals for the year and compare the rates yourself.
I highlighted the part you're adding in.
The elements are they were provoked (check), under the influence of a state of emotional irrationality (probably check, it is presumed), AND they performed the irrational action (check). There is no "due to," outside the provocation. You keep saying that the irrational action had to be done DUE TO their irrational state of mind. But that's wrong. They merely have to be under the influence of a state of irrationality. The state of irrationality doesn't have to be shown to have caused the action, just the provocation does.
EDIT: Now, what the interview does do is disallow the defense from claiming that he was certainly under the influence of emotional irrationality because now he thinks it's wrong. Basically, the interview takes a very small arrow out of the defense's quiver. They have to rely on the irrationality being presumed from being beaten and his collarbone broken. They can't add remorse as evidence of his irrationality at the time. But that's hardly a big factor in this scenario.
TheRedSnifit
Member
He never said that the killing was not unreasonable, you're adding that part in yourself. Again: Find a case where the defendant saying they didn't regret it prevented the homicide from being lowered to manslaughter.
ReignofSparrows
Member
I am really glad that the thrust of this thread has turned to legal analysis instead of the talking points you'll see on Fox News tomorrow.
Also, I don't want to make a bigger mess of the statutory readings we have, but the people acting like this is a true presumption are not correct.
Also, I don't want to make a bigger mess of the statutory readings we have, but the people acting like this is a true presumption are not correct.
cpp_is_king
Member
Call me a cold-hearted bastard, but if someone gets killed during a B&E, or really any crime where they endanger another person, I'm OK with that. Even if they were running away.
He'll almost certainly be convicted, which I agree is a correct interpretation of the current law, but I think it's unfortunate that the law is the way it is.
He'll almost certainly be convicted, which I agree is a correct interpretation of the current law, but I think it's unfortunate that the law is the way it is.
And have your ability to reason clouded by the intense emotion.
The only reason being in such a mental state mitigates criminal charges is because it's recognized that emotional distress can put us under the influence and alter the way we make decisions. As your excerpt says the fact the defendant was in such a state is the primary argument for why charges should be mitigated. If they weren't in such a state there is no reason to allow voluntary manslaughter. It doesn't make sense.
TrueGrime
Member
Good info. Thanks.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
You know absolutely nothing about me so fuck off.
apparently not sharing people's bloodlust means I'd end up being a terrible parent.
No, that is the law. Again:
Do you think he feels it was unreasonable?
I agree, but that's all the more reason why you shouldn't go around robbing people. Not all people act rationally when provoked, and this situation is a prime example.
When I look at the facts -
He was robbed three times
They actually assaulted him on this third attempt, he suffered a broken collarbone
It seems like things kept escalating after the first encounter. What if they came back a fourth time with weapons? That may have been going through the old man's head, and could be one of the reasons he snapped.
I won't speculate on what I'd do in the same situation. It's easy to say right now that I wouldn't pull the trigger but I've not been involved in anything remotely like this, and I imagine that goes for a lot of people in this thread.
TheRedSnifit
Member
Sure. Now prove he feels it was unreasonable.
You are discussing this in bad faith. You and I both know he doesn't view it as unreasonable given his comments to the reporter. He clearly feels he was right.
Edit
Your edit makes no sense. Why would I prove he feels it was unreasonable?
I feel like you're being deliberately obtuse because you don't want to be wrong. Like I said, the only "due to" is due to the provocation. Read the law you posted yourself. It's right there. "As a result of being provoked, you acted--" That's the only "due to" in there. They then flesh out in what manner you acted--"rashly" and "under the influence of intense emotion..."
No where does it say "you acted in a way that you would not have had you not had the intense emotion."
And you don't think being tackled to the ground during a robbery would cause one's ability to reason to be obscured by intense emotion?
freethoughtbubble
Member
That's the entire point of the defense. It's what reduces your level of culpability -- you were not in your right mind when you acted. If your state of mind had no bearing on why you killed someone, then why would it serve mitigate anything? It would be utterly irrelevant.
Edit: This is getting way into semantics, but "acting under the influence of" is the piece you're overlooking. You might argue that those words do not necessarily imply a causal link between intense emotional distress and the act of killing, but I assure you the law does not split those hairs.
Fortunately not, but I'd be pretty upset if they shot a pregnant woman running away afterwards.
ReignofSparrows
Member
Your reading of the statute is more cogent on a pedantic level, but it seems to serve no purpose. The action has to fit the descriptors, so the 'due to' part being argued doesn't seem to have any relevance.
TheRedSnifit
Member
You're arguing something while in the same post claiming not to be arguing it.
Anyways, your argument is this: Because he's rational now and believes the killing to be reasonable, he can't claim to be irrational during the killing. But, ignoring the validity of the argument in the first place, at no point does he say that the killing was reasonable. He merely says that he doesn't regret it, and you just said his lack of regret is "not at issue". You're saying that we shouldn't draw implications from the circumstances, but you yourself have no problem drawing implications from the interview.
So he should shoot to kill because it's starting to become a nuisance, should he?
Do you people even read the OP?
Apparently not so let me help you. They robbed him twice before this incident. That makes this the third time they were robbing him. They also attacked him and brokehis collarbone..
If I was in the same position this is a shot I would take 100% of the time.
Apparently not so let me help you. They robbed him twice before this incident. That makes this the third time they were robbing him. They also attacked him and brokehis collarbone..
If I was in the same position this is a shot I would take 100% of the time.
- Status