Being planned out ahead of time doesn't mean he sat there with a pen and paper and drew a diagram. It just means thought was put into it. Everything up to the point where he changed weapons showed emotional reaction to a crisis. Everything afterwards just showed opportunistic bloodlust.krazed wrote:
which is why it's murder, but not planned out well ahead of time murderJaekus wrote:
He had enough foresight to walk back into the store, get another gun, walk over and shoot the kid on the ground multiple times. That's not a spur of the moment thing. He could have just as easily called the police and stood over the kid with a gun until they arrived.krazed wrote:
hm why would criminals want to rob somewhere with cash and a shitpile of drugs? gee i wonder
desperation has little to do with it
i fail to see how this falls under premeditated
Second degree murder scenario would be, the armed robbers shoot and kill someone. An unintended non accidental killing.lowing wrote:
Oh I do think I know, I also think you can not explain the differences as you see it, without expressing the differences of premeditation and say second degree murder.Jaekus wrote:
It seems you know and yet you want me to explain it to you anyway? I'm not going to waste my time.lowing wrote:
and yet you acknowledge the difference between this scenario and the guy dumping his wife but refuse to tell me what the difference is.
How is there any argument for manslaughter?Kampframmer wrote:
Lets just leave at this.
We can argue all day on this being manslaughter or murder, as there are arguments that support both.
But to a court, this is obviously murder
Last edited by DrunkFace (2011-05-29 08:42:41)
jord wrote:
It's moider!
As I thought; A self defense killing can be classed as Manslaughter if control of the situation has been established.DrunkFace wrote:
Second degree murder scenario would be, the armed robbers shoot and kill someone. An unintended non accidental killing.lowing wrote:
Oh I do think I know, I also think you can not explain the differences as you see it, without expressing the differences of premeditation and say second degree murder.Jaekus wrote:
It seems you know and yet you want me to explain it to you anyway? I'm not going to waste my time.
The shop owner is without any doubt first degree because he decided to go get a weapon for the sole purpose of killing the robber. The definition of premeditation.How is there any argument for manslaughter?Kampframmer wrote:
Lets just leave at this.
We can argue all day on this being manslaughter or murder, as there are arguments that support both.
But to a court, this is obviously murder
The killing was no accident. Unless he tripped over and his gun misfire multiple times at point blank range into the victim, which is about as likely as talking fish.
Definitely not second degree. Not even third by any definition. It's either murder 1, or manslaughter. It was premeditated, the question is whether it was done with malice or in a moment of passion.Ty wrote:
Robber accepted the risk that he could be shot/killed when he decided to rob the place. It's the consideration that so few of his type actually take into account, maybe this incident will send the message home for a few people.
Definitely murder though as I'm sure most have said. I can't see it as being caught up in the moment either, he took the time to change firearms and excecuted the robber in a manner that suggested he knew what he was doing. I'm sure he could argue for Murder Two or Manslaughter, might get it even through a plea deal, but in my book and I'm sure the law's this would be plain old first degree murder. Would make an interesting trial though.
Last edited by Blue Herring (2011-05-29 14:57:33)
You definition for manslaughter is what use for death by blame (so a whole different thing) and then we have manslaughter, which is pretty similar to the US versiona dn we have murder (without degrees) which is probably the same as NZ.Ty wrote:
Ah, I see my bad. In NZ There is only Murder and Manslaughter, no degrees. The situation or passion or being provoked isn't any defence here, I thought in the US this was the difference between degrees. Manslaughter is simply accidental/unintentional but with fault - a hunter accidentally shooting someone he mistook for a deer for example. The NZ definition of Manslaughter definitely wouldn't apply to this case, I'll read into what the US definition is so I know the difference.
I can't see that a jury would be 100% willing to convict this guy of murder as he was the one being attacked. However I also can't see them willing to let him off with manslaughter given the fairly cold blooded way he excecuted the robber.
You got it backwards, I asked the question twice, you have failed to answer it once.Jaekus wrote:
You can think whatever you like, it is a free world after all.lowing wrote:
Oh I do think I know, I also think you can not explain the differences as you see it, without expressing the differences of premeditation and say second degree murder.Jaekus wrote:
It seems you know and yet you want me to explain it to you anyway? I'm not going to waste my time.
I can assure you though, your thinking about me is incorrect.
And I've already explained it twice.
Also, if you think it's second degree murder, why don't you explain to us why? I'm not going to construct your argument for you.
Do your own homework.
Last edited by lowing (2011-05-29 15:41:14)
Your assertion I have not explained is clearly false. I suggest you go back and read. Others seem to have no problem yet you cannot comprehend despite the posts explaining.lowing wrote:
You got it backwards, I asked the question twice, you have failed to answer it once.Jaekus wrote:
You can think whatever you like, it is a free world after all.lowing wrote:
Oh I do think I know, I also think you can not explain the differences as you see it, without expressing the differences of premeditation and say second degree murder.
I can assure you though, your thinking about me is incorrect.
And I've already explained it twice.
Also, if you think it's second degree murder, why don't you explain to us why? I'm not going to construct your argument for you.
Do your own homework.
Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter. <--------This definition best fits what happened. He did not plan it out, it all was a result of the original crime.
In most states, first-degree murder is defined as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated, meaning that it was committed after planning or "lying in wait" for the victim. <----------this does not
Not if you're Calvinist.RTHKI wrote:
god knowsunnamednewbie13 wrote:
Nobody knows.
Yes, all based on the wave of emotion he was just put through. Not because he had it in for these boys weeks earlier and was "lying in wait" until the right opportunity came along.Jaekus wrote:
Your assertion I have not explained is clearly false. I suggest you go back and read. Others seem to have no problem yet you cannot comprehend despite the posts explaining.lowing wrote:
You got it backwards, I asked the question twice, you have failed to answer it once.Jaekus wrote:
You can think whatever you like, it is a free world after all.
I can assure you though, your thinking about me is incorrect.
And I've already explained it twice.
Also, if you think it's second degree murder, why don't you explain to us why? I'm not going to construct your argument for you.
Do your own homework.
Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter. <--------This definition best fits what happened. He did not plan it out, it all was a result of the original crime.
In most states, first-degree murder is defined as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated, meaning that it was committed after planning or "lying in wait" for the victim. <----------this does not
It seems you are either deliberately misunderstanding or genuinely cannot comprehend what first degree murder is in this instance.
He had foresight to get a second gun (planned = premeditated)
He then went over to the now defenceless attacker and deliberately shot him multiple times (intent to kill = murder
