ReignofSparrows
Member
Are you the subjective test for murder in California?
Man shoots and kills intruder. Police determine she was not pregnant.
- Thread starter MThanded
- Start date
- Status
Are you the subjective test for murder in California?
Vicetrailia
Banned
You better wait until the results of this matter set in rather than blindly saying that.
freethoughtbubble
Member
I read it. Also watched the interview. I wouldn't take the shot. What's your point?
I'm talking about what the law is, not what it should be. But if I had to take a guess at why the law was designed the way it is in this matter, it's probably a matter of practicality. It's too difficult to prove that, given the same provocation but keeping a less heated head, you would not have acted the same way. So it's just presumed: If provocation caused you to act irrationally and that provocation would make a reasonable prudent person incensed with emotion, we're going to presume that your emotion is what caused you to act that way. Since that's too hard to prove, we'll just presume it, since it's going to be the case 99% of the time.
For example, let's look at an aggravating factor instead of a mitigating factor that works the same way: a DUI.
If you run into a stop sign, and you're drunk, we're going to presume your drunkenness caused the accident. It's too hard to prove, so instead of asking if your drunkenness caused the accident, we just ask if you were "under the influence" at the time, and if yes, we assume it caused the accident. Whether or not you've run into a stop sign at other points in your life while not drunk is pretty irrelevant. We just ask if, at the time, you were drunk. If so, that's an aggravating factor.
In this situation, the emotional state is a mitigating factor, but it works the same way. Did the provacation put you in such a state? If yes, we assume the state is what caused the action.
EDIT:
See above.
No, what it says is the intense emotions caused that rash behavior. I cannot fathom any other way to read that. In fact the whole reason for mitigating criminal punishment only makes sense if you argue the action was committed only because of the intense emotional state the defendant was under. Consider the justification for the law in the first place.
I have no doubt it could. Was his reasoning obscured? He needs to establish that it was and he should start by going back in time and avoiding that interview.
EnVy_CaLiBeR
Member
Never said that but your comment implies that he was trigger-happy when this is actually the third time that they've actually robbed him. It's not like he was looking for the first opportunity he got.
ReignofSparrows
Member
That's not an analogous example. You are still rendering the second element superfluous. You said yourself "caused you to act irrationally." As the poster you were responding to along with myself said - it is not a purely objective test that is truly presumed.
Jmanunknown
Member
The more I think about it the more this story gets crazier. Old guy has his collarbone broken after they tackled him. Then they let him stand up and watch them open the safe. Male thief can not get safe open old guy offers to let him use his tools. Male thief goes to get tools. Female thief takes her eyes off of old guy. Old guy sneaks off gets gun comes back they see him with gun they take out off he goes outside chases them guy is to fast cannot get him somewhere in here women begs for life is too slow is shot in back twice. old dude drags his kill back to garage.
They actually robbed him three times before this final incident, it was the fourth:
Which, of course, does not justify his actions in any way.
freethoughtbubble
Member
I'm sorry, but I just don't think that's correct.
How else would a provocation cause you to act irrationally if not through intense emotional distress? I'm being serious here, explain how that could be.
He killed her.
No.
The facts are in front of you. 80 year old man beaten and robbed. Pulled a gun and shot one of his attackers.
That's fine, it your choice if you want to keep getting robbed. The old man thought enough was enough and I agree with him.
Oh, wow it was the fourth robbery! Man, these people are shameless.
Does he feel the killing was unreasonable? He has a funny way of showing it. If the defense does not consider the act of killing unreasonable it would render that defense useless because you don't need to argue all these mitigating circumstances if the end result was correct.
No, to get technical, it's an subjective-objective standard. From my notes on the subject, outlining the Model Penal Code:
Under influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is a reasonable explanation or excuse (objective), the reasonableness of such excuse shall be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the actors situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be (subjective)
In other words, would a reasonable person in your situation as YOU perceive it to be (subjective standard) be under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance?
The key here is that we're not asking if the reasonable person shot the woman, we're asking if the reasonable person would be in an emotionally disturbed state. That's the standard, and it's why we don't have to figure out if THIS PARTICULAR MAN was disturbed and thus his actions influenced by the emotional state.
Ackersfury
Banned
It's her own fault....don't steal peoples shit...only reason your all strung up is because its a pregnant women...if it'd of just been some guy...no one would give a fuck
freethoughtbubble
Member
Cool. I suggest you lead with that next time, instead of claiming that people haven't read the OP.
And yes, I'd like to think that I would only kill somebody in defense of myself or another or in a blind rage. The former's not in play here it seems, and I don't even want to think about what it would take to make me angry enough to shoot a fleeing woman in the back twice. Especially one who claims to be pregnant and begs for my life.
Ackersfury said:
Nope, I would feel the same about a man. It's a human being with his back turned to me, I'm not going to shoot him. If he were alone, I'd probably want to chase him down and beat the shit out of him to subdue him before the cops arrive. (Assuming that's, you know, feasible, hahaha.) But that's a far cry from shooting someone dead and watching them die in front of you. I honestly feel like most people would be hesitant to do what this guy did if it ever came to it, no matter what they say in the abstract.
Chilling situation all around. Beating up and robbing an old man is unambiguously evil. Shooting someone in the back after they beg for their life is worse. I hate to think how often weird, horrible things like this happen and don't make the news.
The only way the old guy's demeanor makes sense to me is if he was sure they were going to kill him and doesn't believe she was actually pregnant. Or, he may just be a cold, hard son of a bitch.
The only way the old guy's demeanor makes sense to me is if he was sure they were going to kill him and doesn't believe she was actually pregnant. Or, he may just be a cold, hard son of a bitch.
TheRedSnifit
Member
That's a pretty strong claim to make.
Bornstellar
Member
For a forum which supposedly embraces tolerance there sure is a lot of judgment being passed around here.
This is definitely not one of the elements. You're, again, imposing some extra burdens.
Foghorn Leghorn
Unconfirmed Member
Yup, been like that for awhile. My wifes male cousin tried to commit a kidnapping with two accomplices over a pound of pot. The cousin had his gun taken from him and the intended victim killed him. One accomplice killed himself before being arrested, the other sits in jail awaiting a murder trial.
People can get bitter if say, they get robbed all the time and there's nothing you can do about it.
The "desperation" argument is see brought up all the time works for the old man too.
That said, you shoot someone who is fleeing, you will probably (rightfully) go to jail.
Well, let's take this very situation, and assume that he thought ahead of time that if they ever hurt him, he would shoot them. (Let's set "malice aforethought" aside for a moment and focus solely on this mitigating factor.)
They break in, they break his collar bone, and he shoots them. That would be the provocation causing the act, but the irrational state is not what caused the act. He may have been in an irrational state at the time, but that's not what caused it. However, since (as I posted above) the irrational state is an objective standard, I believe that whether the irrational state was a but-for cause is irrelevant. The question is just whether he was under the influence of an irrational state at the time of the irrational action.
Strong persecution complex for the old man ITT for something he likely did under emotional distress. If this was a case where a woman got raped three times before she shot at one of the dudes as they were running away how many of you would even bat an eyelid at her actions. False equivalents? Not entirely. He was singled out, assaulted, violated (they knew the insides of his house), and likely felt helpless and angry. Look, shooting them was not what I'd personally have done (or the "right" decision IMO) but some of you are calling him a psychopath that deserves jail time regardless of the circumstances.
It's basic reasoning. How can you simultaneously argue the defendant acted rashly under the influence of extreme emotional stress and also that the defendant acted correctly?
Easy, and it happens all the time: What the defendant did was correct, and even if it wasn't, his rash action took place under the influence of extreme emotional stress.
Jmanunknown
Member
Their is no bitterness in the old guy he is just a stone cold killer. He dragged her lifeless body back to his garage with a broken collar bone. If she was not dead I am pretty sure he would have shot her again to make sure.
freethoughtbubble
Member
You have the bolded backwards. The first describes the subjective component (actual provocation); the second is the objective component (the reasonable person standard). I'm not trying to be nitpicky, I just want to make sure we're talking about this correctly.
Edit: to be more explicit, it should read:
PogiJones said:
But the irrational state contemplated by the law is a state of high passion. Seriously. Without that, there is no provocation defense, and in your formulation of the facts, absent that he would be guilty of murder. (I.e., the planning ahead bit.)
It also means that they have no regard for the lives of other people. When you break into someone's house to steal from them you are inflicting a trauma on them. People should be able to feel safe and secure in there home. No one should be allowed an excuse to steal the feeling of security and innocence from someone.
I feel bad that the robber was shot and killed, but I don't think there is an excuse to invade someone's home, where there children may sleep. It's also fucked up to do that to someone that would have difficulty defending themselves like an 80 year old man. What the Hell is he going to do?
Sometimes it's okay to look at things on a macro level and not ascribe blame, but invading someone's home is a crime that should be among the worst offenses. It's a violation of everyone who lives in the home.
baphomet
Member
He murdered an intruder. Good for him, now she can't terrorize him or anyone else.
It's akin to shooting someone or attacking someone after being violated in other ways. People deserve the right to feel safe. Being attacked and robbed in your own home multiple times is not some minor offense.
Jmanunknown
Member
Really so you would also be on the side of the guy who's house was also broken into but, he setup a trap for the two teenagers and he murdered them both? They can not terrorize anyone anymore either.
I didn't mean you literally couldn't, it's just that they are logically incongruous. Your statement even constructs it that way: it isn't both simultaneously since you say "if it wasn't..." If not one, then the other.
PAULINK
I microwave steaks.
Shitty situation on both ends. What kind idiot enables a pregnant mother to rob an elderly person's home?
Obviously the old person wasn't justified in taking her life (and the unborn infant), but he has a right to defend his belongings. Clearly did not want to live with the feeling of being violated, acted irrationally and tried to make them responsible for their actions.
Obviously the old person wasn't justified in taking her life (and the unborn infant), but he has a right to defend his belongings. Clearly did not want to live with the feeling of being violated, acted irrationally and tried to make them responsible for their actions.
ReignofSparrows
Member
I know the standard, and you have it incorrect. I think it would just be economic for me to say this - if the guy walks into court and says "I acted rationally, 10/10 would shoot again," the statute is explicitly written for him to fail the second element. Under your standard, the court would respond with "yeah, but a reasonable person in your situation as YOU would have perceived it differently." That's not subjective.
baphomet
Member
Yes, exactly.
This is stuff from the old world that I don't want to a part of. It's sad that this guy has to live in a place where the same people can rob him three times and it's sad that people can be shot in the back TWICE and it's ok because the society cannot solve these issues in a more humane way. Just sweep the dirt under a rug and go to sleep with your firearms.
So entrapping and murdering is not that bad, but break-ins deserve a death sentence?
So entrapping and murdering is not that bad, but break-ins deserve a death sentence?
freethoughtbubble
Member
Right on. Murder. Good for him.
And fuck her too. She deserved to die, even if she posed no threat to him at the moment that he put two bullets into her back and dragged her corpse like a leaking animal across his driveway.
Just awesome.
Maybe they shouldve thought about the potential consequences of their actions before embarking on a life of crime. What they guy did was wrong but they wouldn't have found themselves dead if they hadn't committed criminal acts. Their own wrong decisions led to their deaths.
User 100115
Banned
I never said it excused their actions, nor that they weren't to blame for them. I was simply saying that someone committing a crime like theft or robbery doesn't automatically make them worthless to society, in response to a comment about the woman's life being worthless anyhow.
I firmly believe that if we focused as a nation more on education and ending poverty, as well as having a rehabilitative prison system instead of one more seen as punishment, crime would be reduced dramatically. Reduced, not removed, of course, because there will always be people who will murder and rape for the fun of it. But theft is more motivated by poverty and lack of education. I do believe that people who are poor and uneducated have been failed by society as well.
baphomet
Member
She posed plenty of threat to him. Her and a murderer broke into this mans house and attacked him while robbing him. Numerous times.
Jmanunknown
Member
Wow you support this guy
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ho-killed-2-teen-intruders-convicte/?page=all
I do not even know what to say.
In the interview, the reporter asked him if he was fearful, and he responded that he was thinking "how am I going to get out of this mess". And being fearful or desperate in his circumstances (tackled during a robbery) would stand as an intense emotional state that would cloud one's reasoning.
From the resource I referred to earlier:
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
baphomet
Member
freethoughtbubble
Member
But the moment he shot her, she was running and begging for her life. Leaving aside all the legalese some of us have been spouting, does that count for nothing?
And if what you say justified her killing, then what principled reason would you have against the old man tracking down the boyfriend at a later date and shooting him dead too? Under both circumstances, the victims are just as culpable, are no longer immediate threats to the shooter (but they are potential threats, of course), and in both cases the shooter could simply choose to call the cops. So why is one okay, but the other is not, assuming you agree with that.
I'll respond to both of you, since it's all pretty much the same thing.
I just grabbed this from Westlaw (State v. Rambo, N.J.Super.A.D.2008, 951 A.2d 1075):
Passion/provocation manslaughter has four elements, which are (1) the provocation must be adequate, (2) the defendant must not have had time to cool off between the provocation and the slaying, (3) the provocation must have actually impassioned the defendant, and (4) the defendant must not have actually cooled off before the slaying; the first two elements are objective, i.e., they are viewed from the perspective of a reasonable person, while the last two elements are subjective, i.e., whether the defendant was actually impassioned and whether the defendant actually did cool off before committing the fatal act.
So I was too strong (read: wrong) in saying he didn't have to actually be impassioned; he does. But I was right that whether the provocation is adequate is the only point where we determine causation. We don't need to determine that the impassioned state is what caused the killing. We just need to determine that he was adequately provoked to an impassioned state, and that he hadn't had time to cool off.
MIMIC talked about adequate provocation a couple pages ago.
I could be wrong, feel free to show me case law that says the impassioned state must have caused the irrational action. But as far as I've seen, it's only required to show that they were "under the influence" of an impassioned state.
-----
EDIT: Let me clarify what I mean with an analogy. You walk in on your wife, sleeping with another man. You're so enraged you throw her stuff out the window and kick her out. Now you're on trial for kicking her out. If later on in an interview, you say, "Man, kicking her out was the best thing I ever did," that's not going to change the fact that you were provoked to an impassioned state, and the provocation caused your action. Now, if a jury decides you didn't have the right to kick her out, but they think you were impassioned when you did so, your interview isn't going to hurt your impassioned state defense.
At my old job there was this gun nut that was going to give me lessons until we started talking about intruders. He basically said he would shoot a really young kid that entered his house that looked harmless and lost. Shoot first ask question later. I'm sure he's shoot a pregnant girl too.
- Status