Why do I need to explain it? It's not exactly complicated nor difficult to see how it was premeditated.
Never said calculated, planned or premeditated. When talk about a legal issue, word use is pretty important. I said: He was in control of the situation. he didnt plan it. Who would? He never showed that he was planning on killing them, but more to defend himself. But this stops as soon as he walks back in the store (one could also argue that he shouldnt have chased after the kid for self defense, but thats beside the point).lowing wrote:
He was a different person before he had a gun pointed in his face. BEFORE the robbery he was sane and rational. AFTER the robbery he lost it. There is no consistency between the 2 behaviors. He was emotionally affected by the robbery and reacted to that. Not sure how anyone could call that calculated, planned or premeditated.Kampframmer wrote:
If he shot him multiple times, the first time, i would agree with you.
But he took the time to stroll back to his counter after chasing that other kid, grab a second gun out of a drawer and walk up to the kid and shoot him. that did not look like the reaction from someone that was mentally out of control.
Sure, he was pumped, angry and scared. But the fact that he really took his time and so easily grabbed that second gun really made it seem like he was in full control of himself and situation.
e: @ Lowing btw
Self defense applies when one needs to defend from lifethreatening danger to themselves, others or their belongings using (lethal) force. Now i know that someone can go to far in rage, this happens in most of the self defense cases as not many people think of what would be legally approprtiate to inflict on the attacker in that situation.
But the problem here lies, that he didnt NEED to kill that kid in order to defend himself from danger. Most self defense cases dont go through (and end up as assault or manslaughter here because teh court didnt find the NEED in a certain sitaution)
Problem is, as ive said before, im not that knowledgeable on US laws. But if your self defense law is somewhat similar to ours (which i suspect), this wasnt self defense before once he started running after that kid.
Thats said, those children were doing something very stupid and what happened to them was a risk that they should have accepted once they pulled that gun on the store owner. He gave em what tehy had coming to em, but he should be punished for taking it too far.
Well, since he DIDN'T try to avoid detection, nor was he acting in the same rational manner AFTER the attack as he was 1 minute BEFORE the attack, I would think makes it rather relevant to your charge of premeditation within the confines of your definition.Jaekus wrote:
Why do I need to explain it? It's not exactly complicated nor difficult to see how it was premeditated.
I thought you didn't want to talk about definitions, yet here you are throwing the word around again.
Also, read it yet again, and notice the little two letter word that starts with o and ends in r.
I think you just want to defend this guy because morally you believe he did nothing wrong. Whereas I am merely explaining to someone who can't seem to see the situation objectively how to the law his actions were considered premeditated.
Also, read it yet again, and notice the little two letter word that starts with o and ends in r.
I think you just want to defend this guy because morally you believe he did nothing wrong. Whereas I am merely explaining to someone who can't seem to see the situation objectively how to the law his actions were considered premeditated.
Last edited by Jaekus (2011-05-29 02:24:27)
The problem with the law is that both sides can be defended (thats what i like about law).
There are good arguments for murder or manslaughter. Its the grey areas here that make law so interesting and in court it fully depends on who can argument their side better. (in this case, defend the man by claiming manslaughter, or against him by claiming murder)
The main question is: Was this premeditated?
There are good arguments for murder or manslaughter. Its the grey areas here that make law so interesting and in court it fully depends on who can argument their side better. (in this case, defend the man by claiming manslaughter, or against him by claiming murder)
The main question is: Was this premeditated?
Manslaughter at worst if he killed the guy with the first bullet. But seeing as they were attempting to rob him that wouldn't (or shouldn't) stick because he was defending himself and his property.Kampframmer wrote:
The problem with the law is that both sides can be defended (thats what i like about law).
There are good arguments for murder or manslaughter. Its the grey areas here that make law so interesting and in court it fully depends on who can argument their side better. (in this case, defend the man by claiming manslaughter, or against him by claiming murder)
Following his actions after the initial incident, yes.The main question is: Was this premeditated?
Last edited by Jaekus (2011-05-29 02:26:50)
yer right, so at worst ( or best) second degree murder is arguable.Kampframmer wrote:
Never said calculated, planned or premeditated. When talk about a legal issue, word use is pretty important. I said: He was in control of the situation. he didnt plan it. Who would? He never showed that he was planning on killing them, but more to defend himself. But this stops as soon as he walks back in the store (one could also argue that he shouldnt have chased after the kid for self defense, but thats beside the point).lowing wrote:
He was a different person before he had a gun pointed in his face. BEFORE the robbery he was sane and rational. AFTER the robbery he lost it. There is no consistency between the 2 behaviors. He was emotionally affected by the robbery and reacted to that. Not sure how anyone could call that calculated, planned or premeditated.Kampframmer wrote:
If he shot him multiple times, the first time, i would agree with you.
But he took the time to stroll back to his counter after chasing that other kid, grab a second gun out of a drawer and walk up to the kid and shoot him. that did not look like the reaction from someone that was mentally out of control.
Sure, he was pumped, angry and scared. But the fact that he really took his time and so easily grabbed that second gun really made it seem like he was in full control of himself and situation.
e: @ Lowing btw
Self defense applies when one needs to defend from lifethreatening danger to themselves, others or their belongings using (lethal) force. Now i know that someone can go to far in rage, this happens in most of the self defense cases as not many people think of what would be legally approprtiate to inflict on the attacker in that situation.
But the problem here lies, that he didnt NEED to kill that kid in order to defend himself from danger. Most self defense cases dont go through (and end up as assault or manslaughter here because teh court didnt find the NEED in a certain sitaution)
Problem is, as ive said before, im not that knowledgeable on US laws. But if your self defense law is somewhat similar to ours (which i suspect), this wasnt self defense before once he started running after that kid.
Thats said, those children were doing something very stupid and what happened to them was a risk that they should have accepted once they pulled that gun on the store owner. He gave em what tehy had coming to em, but he should be punished for taking it too far.
Look Jaekus, I am not dissecting this definition, I am saying neither criteria for premeditation is met here. THat is why it is not premeditated.Jaekus wrote:
I thought you didn't want to talk about definitions, yet here you are throwing the word around again.
Also, read it yet again, and notice the little two letter word that starts with o and ends in r.
I think you just want to defend this guy because morally you believe he did nothing wrong. Whereas I am merely explaining to someone who can't seem to see the situation objectively how to the law his actions were considered premeditated.
Already asked you if acknowledge there is a difference between this guy and the guy that plans and calculated the death of his wife with a dump site all laid out and a escape plan then what is the difference if not one being premeditated and one being an emotional charged reaction
I wouldnt say manslaughter after the first bullet. Theres not a DA/attorney in the world that could pull that off. The kid was waving a (presumed loaded) gun in his face and he saw an oppertunity to take away this threat by shooting with his own (legally owned) gun.Jaekus wrote:
Manslaughter at worst if he killed the guy with the first bullet. But seeing as they were attempting to rob him that wouldn't (or shouldn't) stick because he was defending himself and his property.Kampframmer wrote:
The problem with the law is that both sides can be defended (thats what i like about law).
There are good arguments for murder or manslaughter. Its the grey areas here that make law so interesting and in court it fully depends on who can argument their side better. (in this case, defend the man by claiming manslaughter, or against him by claiming murder)Following his actions after the initial incident, yes.The main question is: Was this premeditated?
Again, keep to the topic at hand.
The definition of premeditation stands. The law does not care for "emotionally charged reactions", it only cares for actions. Otherwise we would be free to stab anyone who pissed us off because that's an "emotionally charged reaction".
The definition of premeditation stands. The law does not care for "emotionally charged reactions", it only cares for actions. Otherwise we would be free to stab anyone who pissed us off because that's an "emotionally charged reaction".
Theres one thing i want to know.
Why did he grab that second gun from the drawer?
Why did he grab that second gun from the drawer?
Well, actually the law does care.Jaekus wrote:
Again, keep to the topic at hand.
The definition of premeditation stands. The law does not care for "emotionally charged reactions", it only cares for actions. Otherwise we would be free to stab anyone who pissed us off because that's an "emotionally charged reaction".
A persons emotional state, when argued correctly, can make all the difference to a presons case.
Yeah, but if that scenario had played out it the kid's death would have been due to something the pharmacist had in control of at the time and had knowledge it could cause injury and/or death. However, of course the self defence argument would easily take precedence over manslaughter so it would never stick, and thus (like I have previously posted) he would surely not have even been charged (you would think/hope so anyway).Kampframmer wrote:
I wouldnt say manslaughter after the first bullet. Theres not a DA/attorney in the world that could pull that off. The kid was waving a (presumed loaded) gun in his face and he saw an oppertunity to take away this threat by shooting with his own (legally owned) gun.Jaekus wrote:
Manslaughter at worst if he killed the guy with the first bullet. But seeing as they were attempting to rob him that wouldn't (or shouldn't) stick because he was defending himself and his property.Kampframmer wrote:
The problem with the law is that both sides can be defended (thats what i like about law).
There are good arguments for murder or manslaughter. Its the grey areas here that make law so interesting and in court it fully depends on who can argument their side better. (in this case, defend the man by claiming manslaughter, or against him by claiming murder)Following his actions after the initial incident, yes.The main question is: Was this premeditated?
disagree, that is why there are "degrees" of murder. One is reserved for those that calmly plan out a murder, and set in place a means of escape and denial, while the others are reserved for emotional responses, and other factors.Jaekus wrote:
Again, keep to the topic at hand.
The definition of premeditation stands. The law does not care for "emotionally charged reactions", it only cares for actions. Otherwise we would be free to stab anyone who pissed us off because that's an "emotionally charged reaction".
By your insistence that this is premeditated, you would also have to charge premeditated murder to the husband that comes home finds his wife in bed with another man, goes to the closet gets his gun and shoots them where they lay. It just does not fit.
This is a big part of the premeditation. If he had walked past him and shot him on the way back into the store he could argue he thought he was still at risk, and at most receive second degree murder, though even that could be debated.Kampframmer wrote:
Theres one thing i want to know.
Why did he grab that second gun from the drawer?
I was lawys thaught never to 'but if' when it comes to a case. But see what you mean. But manslaughter charges would never stick if he stopped after that first buller. that was self defence, plain and simple.Jaekus wrote:
Yeah, but if that scenario had played out it the kid's death would have been due to something the pharmacist had in control of at the time and had knowledge it could cause injury and/or death. However, of course the self defence argument would easily take precedence over manslaughter so it would never stick, and thus (like I have previously posted) he would surely not have even been charged (you would think/hope so anyway).Kampframmer wrote:
I wouldnt say manslaughter after the first bullet. Theres not a DA/attorney in the world that could pull that off. The kid was waving a (presumed loaded) gun in his face and he saw an oppertunity to take away this threat by shooting with his own (legally owned) gun.Jaekus wrote:
Manslaughter at worst if he killed the guy with the first bullet. But seeing as they were attempting to rob him that wouldn't (or shouldn't) stick because he was defending himself and his property.Kampframmer wrote:
The problem with the law is that both sides can be defended (thats what i like about law).
There are good arguments for murder or manslaughter. Its the grey areas here that make law so interesting and in court it fully depends on who can argument their side better. (in this case, defend the man by claiming manslaughter, or against him by claiming murder)
Following his actions after the initial incident, yes.
Again, if you want to keep bringing up hypothetical situations to distract from the topic at hand, that is also premeditation. I do not care (and neither does the law) how angry someone is. We are not talking people who are psychopaths.lowing wrote:
disagree, that is why there are "degrees" of murder. One is reserved for those that calmly plan out a murder, and set in place a means of escape and denial, while the others are reserved for emotional responses, and other factors.Jaekus wrote:
Again, keep to the topic at hand.
The definition of premeditation stands. The law does not care for "emotionally charged reactions", it only cares for actions. Otherwise we would be free to stab anyone who pissed us off because that's an "emotionally charged reaction".
By your insistence that this is premeditated, you would also have to charge premeditated murder to the husband that comes home finds his wife in bed with another man, goes to the closet gets his gun and shoots them where they lay. It just does not fit.
Premeditated murder is the crime of wrongfully causing the death of another human being (also known as murder) after rationally considering the timing or method of doing so, in order to either increase the likelihood of success, or to evade detection or apprehension.Jaekus wrote:
This is a big part of the premeditation. If he had walked past him and shot him on the way back into the store he could argue he thought he was still at risk, and at most receive second degree murder, though even that could be debated.Kampframmer wrote:
Theres one thing i want to know.
Why did he grab that second gun from the drawer?
Something from wikipedia, so it could be wrong.
But th grabbing of the 2nd gun really makes it look like it should belong under one of those 2 causes. So either he did it to increase his succes of killing the kid or he did so he had more chance to get away with it (maybe an unregistered gun or some shit, although this one seems very unlikely).
Maybe he had some other strange reason to grab it, but thats besides point because what you see is what you get, And here we see a guy grabbing a 2nd gun to shoot somoneone thats already down.
Yeah. If he had accidentally killed the kid legitimately thinking the kid was robbing him but it was proven he was not (dunno why, or how in this case you could argue that, but hypothetically for the sake of discussion) then that would lean a lot more to manslaughter. But CCTV footage of course confirms the facts.Kampframmer wrote:
I was lawys thaught never to 'but if' when it comes to a case. But see what you mean. But manslaughter charges would never stick if he stopped after that first buller. that was self defence, plain and simple.Jaekus wrote:
Yeah, but if that scenario had played out it the kid's death would have been due to something the pharmacist had in control of at the time and had knowledge it could cause injury and/or death. However, of course the self defence argument would easily take precedence over manslaughter so it would never stick, and thus (like I have previously posted) he would surely not have even been charged (you would think/hope so anyway).Kampframmer wrote:
I wouldnt say manslaughter after the first bullet. Theres not a DA/attorney in the world that could pull that off. The kid was waving a (presumed loaded) gun in his face and he saw an oppertunity to take away this threat by shooting with his own (legally owned) gun.
Well, emotion does play a huge role, but its hard to claim that this man was out of his mind with rage and grabbed a 2nd gun (after strolling back in) in a rage fueled craze.Jaekus wrote:
Again, if you want to keep bringing up hypothetical situations to distract from the topic at hand, that is also premeditation. I do not care (and neither does the law) how angry someone is. We are not talking people who are psychopaths.lowing wrote:
disagree, that is why there are "degrees" of murder. One is reserved for those that calmly plan out a murder, and set in place a means of escape and denial, while the others are reserved for emotional responses, and other factors.Jaekus wrote:
Again, keep to the topic at hand.
The definition of premeditation stands. The law does not care for "emotionally charged reactions", it only cares for actions. Otherwise we would be free to stab anyone who pissed us off because that's an "emotionally charged reaction".
By your insistence that this is premeditated, you would also have to charge premeditated murder to the husband that comes home finds his wife in bed with another man, goes to the closet gets his gun and shoots them where they lay. It just does not fit.
Yeah I posted the quote and link on the previous page.Kampframmer wrote:
Premeditated murder is the crime of wrongfully causing the death of another human being (also known as murder) after rationally considering the timing or method of doing so, in order to either increase the likelihood of success, or to evade detection or apprehension.Jaekus wrote:
This is a big part of the premeditation. If he had walked past him and shot him on the way back into the store he could argue he thought he was still at risk, and at most receive second degree murder, though even that could be debated.Kampframmer wrote:
Theres one thing i want to know.
Why did he grab that second gun from the drawer?
Something from wikipedia, so it could be wrong.
But th grabbing of the 2nd gun really makes it look like it should belong under one of those 2 causes. So either he did it to increase his succes of killing the kid or he did so he had more chance to get away with it (maybe an unregistered gun or some shit, although this one seems very unlikely).
Maybe he had some other strange reason to grab it, but thats besides point because what you see is what you get, And here we see a guy grabbing a 2nd gun to shoot somoneone thats already down.
Emotions aside, he is a pharmacist, so you would think his mental capacity is sound (ie. no diagnosis of a mental illness nor being at work would he have been under the influence of any psychoactive substances). He chased the second kid down, then, being the type of person described, would have the mental capacity to have decided (ie. premeditated) to walk back into his store, go get another gun, walk over to the kid on the ground, and by which point he would have run past him once and then walked past him a second time on his way to get the second gun so he would know the kid was no threat any more, lean over and shoot him multiple times.
That fits the premeditation description.
He could have been another wannabe Charles Bronson just itching for a chance to waste some crims.
In which case premeditation definitely applies.
In which case premeditation definitely applies.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
There is nothing hypothetical about it, these situations happen all the time, and there is no difference in the circumstances. They are both emotionally charged scenarios that the person did not plan to be involved in. Now take either of those and compare with the guy killing his wife and dumping her in a predetermined spot and getting his story straight, and you see a difference, but refuse to tell me what it is? I think you are arguing something you do not necessarily think is true.Jaekus wrote:
Again, if you want to keep bringing up hypothetical situations to distract from the topic at hand, that is also premeditation. I do not care (and neither does the law) how angry someone is. We are not talking people who are psychopaths.lowing wrote:
disagree, that is why there are "degrees" of murder. One is reserved for those that calmly plan out a murder, and set in place a means of escape and denial, while the others are reserved for emotional responses, and other factors.Jaekus wrote:
Again, keep to the topic at hand.
The definition of premeditation stands. The law does not care for "emotionally charged reactions", it only cares for actions. Otherwise we would be free to stab anyone who pissed us off because that's an "emotionally charged reaction".
By your insistence that this is premeditated, you would also have to charge premeditated murder to the husband that comes home finds his wife in bed with another man, goes to the closet gets his gun and shoots them where they lay. It just does not fit.
If the law doesn't care then there would not be different classifications of murder.
So far:
Kid 1 and 2 (k1, k2) run in store.
k1 points a gun at man.
Man shoots k1 once.
(SELF DEFENCE)
k2 runs out of the store.
(This is where the self defence line gets blurry. Maybe he was pised and wanted that kid to go down as well, maybe he just felt lie shooting him too. Who knows.)
Man chases k2.
(no longer self defence after this point as all possible threats are eliminated)
Man walks back in to his counter.
man grabs 2nd gun from drawer.
Man walks over to k1 shoots him multiple times, k1 dies.
(Manslaughter or murder (what degree)??)
This is al based on the CCTV footage, nothing more. So the man gets to tell his side of the story in court and his emotional state at that time, but a picture is worth a 1000 words.
Kid 1 and 2 (k1, k2) run in store.
k1 points a gun at man.
Man shoots k1 once.
(SELF DEFENCE)
k2 runs out of the store.
(This is where the self defence line gets blurry. Maybe he was pised and wanted that kid to go down as well, maybe he just felt lie shooting him too. Who knows.)
Man chases k2.
(no longer self defence after this point as all possible threats are eliminated)
Man walks back in to his counter.
man grabs 2nd gun from drawer.
Man walks over to k1 shoots him multiple times, k1 dies.
(Manslaughter or murder (what degree)??)
This is al based on the CCTV footage, nothing more. So the man gets to tell his side of the story in court and his emotional state at that time, but a picture is worth a 1000 words.
Last edited by Kampframmer (2011-05-29 02:53:42)
Do not presume to know what I think, when you can't seem to properly understand the two sentences that make up the definition of premeditation.