Fleeing the scene is the real dealbreaker to me there. The drinking might be as well, I'd have to know how much he'd had.
But here's the fun part: even if I think the state has a pretty great case for manslaughter there (I'd need to see more but sounds like it), or second-degree murder (meh), they charged first degree murder. Huh?
Charge for the moon, and plead out among the stars, I guess.
But it's precisely that kind of prosecutorial attitude that makes me want fairly strong protection for those that are actually defending themselves.
Well, the elements I'd want for second degree would be:
1. Some actual, reasonable threat to Dunn's life. The teens in question were in their car at the time, listening to music, and did not get out to engage with Dunn. The gun he believed he saw, by his account at least, never materialized.
2. Some provocation for Dunn's aggressive action. As it is, he kind of walked up to a situation, decided to feel threatened by it, and killed somebody.
Second degree should be a slam dunk, I'd say, as feeling threatened but not actually being threatened seems to be unambiguous. First degree...maybe more iffy, as premeditation should be minimal for a chance confrontation at a gas station. If it ended in acquittal or mistrial instead of conviction, though, that would be terrible.
At the moment, they've just thrown out their second judge, last I checked.
Slam dunk? Do you actually know what the elements of second degree murder are? Or do you just think that any non-premeditated killing not justifiable as self-defense is second-degree murder?
I'm really curious how the "ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent" is so obvious as to call this a "slam dunk," implying that the prosecutor should have no trouble showing it beyond a reasonable doubt.
EDIT: If you're curious, the bolded? Doesn't describe second-degree murder. The opposite, really.
I believe the bold would be voluntary manslaughter, not that voluntary manslaughter and second degree murder are especially distant from one another. I do believe that thanks to 10-20-Life, you get 20 years (mandatory) for manslaughter with a firearm, and 25 years (mandatory) for second degree.
(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
Well, I'll go down the list.
An act imminently dangerous to another, yeah. Firing a gun at a group of teens in their car, which itself is a second-degree misdemeanor per 790.151 (drunk) and a second-degree felony per 790.19 (occupied car).
Unlawful killing, because...he was not threatened by these kids in their car, not carrying the gun he says he believed they had, not getting out of their car in response to his provocation.
Depraved mind they've got to prove, I suppose. There is that, it didn't fly in the Zimmerman case.
Depraved mind they've got to prove, I suppose. There is that, it didn't fly in the Zimmerman case.
Which was precisely my point.
By your own words, "feeling threatened but not actually being threatened" is actually an argument against a depraved mind, which requires "ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent." So yeah, I suppose that's a thing they've got to prove, and I suppose they have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
I can go over the various reasons I think it's a "slam dunk" for manslaughter (or as close as you can get in a system that's theoretically biased heavily in favor of the defense), but my point is that it is not a "slam dunk" for second degree murder, and first degree murder is...well, I guess it's a thing you can charge if you feel like it. Or so it seems. The facts of the case seem to have no bearing on the charge, at least.
Depraved mind they've got to prove, I suppose. There is that, it didn't fly in the Zimmerman case.
Which was precisely my point.
By your own words, "feeling threatened but not actually being threatened" is actually an argument against a depraved mind, which requires "ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent." So yeah, I suppose that's a thing they've got to prove, and I suppose they have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
I can go over the various reasons I think it's a "slam dunk" for manslaughter (or as close as you can get in a system that's theoretically biased heavily in favor of the defense), but my point is that it is not a "slam dunk" for second degree murder, and first degree murder is...well, I guess it's a thing you can charge if you feel like it. Or so it seems. The facts of the case seem to have no bearing on the charge, at least.
Well, here's the thing about depravity of mind. It's one of those "I know it when I see it" concepts, like obscenity, but it's got this general idea going on behind it:
Depravity of mind is a condition where there is a deviation or departure from the ordinary standards of honest, good morals, justice, or ethics as to be shocking to the moral sense of the society. Depravity of mind can also be described as an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a person owes to another, or to a community.
Such as, let's say, capping off some shots at a car full of teenagers because their music is loud.
I don't think I'd go for first degree, if I were the prosecutor. There's no reason to believe he had planned out the encounter at all, except insofar as he would go over to their car and complain, and they would...I guess be happy about that.
But his behavior was at best recklessly dangerous, and at worst pointlessly malicious. (When you kill somebody with a firearm in commission of a felony, I think it tends to go badly.) So I think that in that case, manslaughter is a low-ball.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
IN ALL SERIOUSNESS, my biggest qualm isn't the idea of crimes being different for social classes, criminality, or anything else.
My problem is that its going to leave a lot of people dead, and its far more likely going to be the victims seeking to get their stuff back.
Oh, and the joke about pre-emptive self defense earlier.
In the case of a house invasion, I'm going balls to the wall. I have kids and a wife to think about. But it isn't due to a Rambo mentality, its due to the fact that there is no egress that won't put my family in harms way. I gives a fuck about my possessions: That's what renters insurance is for. I want to either scare em off, knock em down, or give my wife and kids the time it takes for emergency services to arrive. I have no illusions in that worst case scenario that it could cost me my life.
In situations where you are not immediately in danger because the person is fleeing with your shit, you are making the decision to put your own life at risk for... what, exactly?
If it was me, I would not risk my life over property. I don't think anyone is saying "everytime someone tries to take your things, the best course is to ATTACK!" But if someone chooses to, should they be criminally charged? That is the question, I think.
Depraved mind they've got to prove, I suppose. There is that, it didn't fly in the Zimmerman case.
Which was precisely my point.
By your own words, "feeling threatened but not actually being threatened" is actually an argument against a depraved mind, which requires "ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent." So yeah, I suppose that's a thing they've got to prove, and I suppose they have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
I can go over the various reasons I think it's a "slam dunk" for manslaughter (or as close as you can get in a system that's theoretically biased heavily in favor of the defense), but my point is that it is not a "slam dunk" for second degree murder, and first degree murder is...well, I guess it's a thing you can charge if you feel like it. Or so it seems. The facts of the case seem to have no bearing on the charge, at least.
Well, here's the thing about depravity of mind. It's one of those "I know it when I see it" concepts, like obscenity, but it's got this general idea going on behind it:
Depravity of mind is a condition where there is a deviation or departure from the ordinary standards of honest, good morals, justice, or ethics as to be shocking to the moral sense of the society. Depravity of mind can also be described as an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a person owes to another, or to a community.
Such as, let's say, capping off some shots at a car full of teenagers because their music is loud.
I don't think I'd go for first degree, if I were the prosecutor. There's no reason to believe he had planned out the encounter at all, except insofar as he would go over to their car and complain, and they would...I guess be happy about that.
But his behavior was at best recklessly dangerous, and at worst pointlessly malicious. (When you kill somebody with a firearm in commission of a felony, I think it tends to go badly.) So I think that in that case, manslaughter is a low-ball.
To be clear, I agree second degree murder is probably a reasonable "stretch goal." I don't think it's at all obvious from what facts I've seen, but it's not so far outside them that charging it is absurd on its face (as with first degree murder).
But you called second degree murder a "slam dunk." I see now you've walked that back. That's all I was looking for.
I'm curious what was caught on the gas station security cameras. If the victims didn't leave the station before the cops showed up, and the cameras show nobody leaving the vehicle or camera frame, arguing imperfect self defense is going to be a bit tough. This wasn't, "I thought he has a gun in his hand, but it was really a cell phone." It was, "I thought he had a shotgun pointing out the window." Without some explanation of why no shotgun was found, along with the fact that he put the gun back in his glove box, left and did not call the police, I don't think murder 2 is that much of a stretch.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
- John Stuart Mill
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
IN ALL SERIOUSNESS, my biggest qualm isn't the idea of crimes being different for social classes, criminality, or anything else.
My problem is that its going to leave a lot of people dead, and its far more likely going to be the victims seeking to get their stuff back.
Oh, and the joke about pre-emptive self defense earlier.
In the case of a house invasion, I'm going balls to the wall. I have kids and a wife to think about. But it isn't due to a Rambo mentality, its due to the fact that there is no egress that won't put my family in harms way. I gives a fuck about my possessions: That's what renters insurance is for. I want to either scare em off, knock em down, or give my wife and kids the time it takes for emergency services to arrive. I have no illusions in that worst case scenario that it could cost me my life.
In situations where you are not immediately in danger because the person is fleeing with your shit, you are making the decision to put your own life at risk for... what, exactly?
If it was me, I would not risk my life over property. I don't think anyone is saying "everytime someone tries to take your things, the best course is to ATTACK!" But if someone chooses to, should they be criminally charged? That is the question, I think.
Depends on the situation.
The fact that its a dangerous situation regardless is why its discouraged. Untrained people engaging in a fight can end with some dire consequences, which TM and GZ demonstrated very clearly.
If someone steals your dollar and the only way to get it back is beat the piss out of them so you can take it out of their pocket without resistance, then well, I see that kind of thing being legal as a bad thing.
Unfortunately, that's also why trying to make laws on such a subjective subject such as "Was it worth it?" comes into play.
I'm curious what was caught on the gas station security cameras. If the victims didn't leave the station before the cops showed up, and the cameras show nobody leaving the vehicle or camera frame, arguing imperfect self defense is going to be a bit tough. This wasn't, "I thought he has a gun in his hand, but it was really a cell phone." It was, "I thought he had a shotgun pointing out the window." Without some explanation of why no shotgun was found, along with the fact that he put the gun back in his glove box, left and did not call the police, I don't think murder 2 is that much of a stretch.
Yeah, leaving the scene of a shooting rather than waiting for the police is inconceivable to me, and frankly does go a long way towards that "depraved mind" thing.
Like, confronting somebody over their stereo volume? Reasonable...ish. Feeling reasonably threatened and responding with a concealed weapon? Maybe.
But then bailing from the scene? What? That alone is enough to throw all his other actions into question.
It's likely the prosecutor charged first degree murder because such a charge also includes the lesser chargers. IE Charge maximally and if you can't prove that you can still go for the lower charges without having to amend the case. But then again, prosecutors make their bones by winning big on heavy charges so... hey....there's that.
I'd love to hear the actual legal reasoning for the charge. I'd love to hear how you even get to probable cause for that charge. But of course, I know better, no such is required. Not really. Why not just charge him with terrorism too? Maybe it sticks, and certainly ups the stakes at the plea bargaining table. *grump*
IANAL but premeditation doesn't require a long period of time. If I decide to shoot someone, go and grab my gun and kill then 10 seconds later that doesn't mean it wasn't premeditated. Its at the very least debatable.
And to bring this more on topic, even Florida says property doesn't justify self-defense
782.11 Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act.—Whoever shall unnecessarily kill another, either while resisting an attempt by such other person to commit any felony, or to do any other unlawful act, or after such attempt shall have failed, shall be deemed guilty of manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
I'm curious what was caught on the gas station security cameras. If the victims didn't leave the station before the cops showed up, and the cameras show nobody leaving the vehicle or camera frame, arguing imperfect self defense is going to be a bit tough. This wasn't, "I thought he has a gun in his hand, but it was really a cell phone." It was, "I thought he had a shotgun pointing out the window." Without some explanation of why no shotgun was found, along with the fact that he put the gun back in his glove box, left and did not call the police, I don't think murder 2 is that much of a stretch.
Yeah, leaving the scene of a shooting rather than waiting for the police is inconceivable to me, and frankly does go a long way towards that "depraved mind" thing.
Like, confronting somebody over their stereo volume? Reasonable...ish. Feeling reasonably threatened and responding with a concealed weapon? Maybe.
But then bailing from the scene? What? That alone is enough to throw all his other actions into question.
He also claimed they had a shotgun and the explicitly saw and they didn't and kept firing at the SUV as they tried to drive away to safety. Realistically they told him to go fuck himself and he decided they he'd show them. He actually killed the kid as they were trying to get away after an appreciable (noticed by witnesses) pause, which might be where the premeditation part comes from.
So in this case, I'm not sure a first degree murder charge isn't applicable. PantsB is right, premeditation doesn't just apply where someone plans for a long time to murder someone. It can, and given Florida likely does, apply in cases where you have a moment of reflection and decide to kill someone.
Of course this is all highly fact intensive and depending on those facts the case could be made for the murder charges or the case could change over to a valid self defense claim. Not knowing the facts beyond what the press has said I'm not about to say any of the charges are easy or difficult. Is there a video link or something where I can see what happened?
Side note: if first degree murder applies, second degree murder also applies as a lesser included offense.
Further side note: McDermott you only have a third of the second degree murder definition of depraved mind.
An act is “imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind” if it is an
act or series of acts that:
1. a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do
serious bodily injury to another, and
2. is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and
3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.
I'd say it is possible to have a depraved mind here, ill will, hatred, spite, or evil intent can apply, particularly if PantsB is right and there was a pause before the shooter killed the kid in the car.
I only quoted (2) because its the only one that I see being in question.
They're "ands," not "ors," so at that point it seemed reasonable to pull that out specifically.
Edit: and I definitely think it CAN apply. I just don't see it as a "slam dunk," reasonable doubt is a motherfucker. And it's entirely orthogonal to "feeling threatened but not actually being threatened."
I don't know, if you feel threatened but aren't threatened that makes things worse in my mind:
1) you can lose self defense because your feelings are likely not reasonable under Florida law. You have to reasonably believe that your life is in danger, but if you aren't actually being threatened, your beliefs are going to be hard to consider reasonable.
2)If you feel threatened without being threatened a skilled prosecutor would probe why that is and those answers can lead to evidence of a depraved mind. Like this: "So you felt threatened, but there wasn't a gun, that right?" "Yeah" "Okay so, why did you feel threatened?" answers to that can help the shooter or be really disastrous. Then I'd go "There was a [whatever number of seconds] pause before you fired the deadly shots into the car, why did you wait to fire into the car?" "Wasn't it odd that they weren't shooting back at you?" "Did you think about that while waiting to fire your gun at a couple teenagers?" "So you are claiming self defense but there wasn't a gun. What made these teenagers so threatening?"
If there was anything in the car that could reasonably be mistaken for a gun, the defendant could reasonably feel threatened without actually being in danger. That would set this at manslaughter (imperfect self defense) if not an acquittal.
Since it doesn't look like that is the case, I think the manslaughter charge is a fairly safe bet. Leaving the scene and not reporting that he fired his gun eight times into an occupied vehicle makes me doubt the self defense claim, but we know very little right now.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
I wonder why we don't bring back the gallows and punish thieves as they so richly deserve. Having broken the social compact, a man should cease to be a man; his life being forfeit, his organs should be harvested and given to worthier people. One criminal's life for five cured human beings; that's fair, no?
I'm assuming that's not a serious proposal a la "A Modest Proposal" Jonathan Swift style?
Its a troll or alt. Don't know which.
Pretty sure it's both. Especially given the choice of name.
Tri-Optimum reminds you that there are only one-hundred-sixty-three shopping days until Christmas. Just 1 extra work cycle twice a week will give you the spending money you need to make this holiday a very special one.
But you called second degree murder a "slam dunk." I see now you've walked that back. That's all I was looking for.
I didn't walk it back, I expect him to be convicted of second degree. If not, you can go ahead and say you told me so later.
I'd say charging him with second degree is a slam-dunk. First degree would be a stretch, although not impossible. When all is said and done, him actually being convicted of second degree isn't what I would call a slam dunk, but I certainly couldn't see the prosecutor going for anything less.
The delay in firing into the car until after it has left and no longer represents a threat (armed or not), as well as leaving the scene and not reporting the incident to the cops make a damn strong argument for ill will and undermine any argument for self-defense. The delay in firing could conceivably make an argument for premeditation, it wouldn't be the first time that a person who disengaged and chose to re-engage a short time later was charged with 1st. Were I the prosecutor, I'd charge 1st up front and aim for a plea to 2nd.
It's likely the prosecutor charged first degree murder because such a charge also includes the lesser chargers. IE Charge maximally and if you can't prove that you can still go for the lower charges without having to amend the case. But then again, prosecutors make their bones by winning big on heavy charges so... hey....there's that.
I'd love to hear the actual legal reasoning for the charge. I'd love to hear how you even get to probable cause for that charge. But of course, I know better, no such is required. Not really. Why not just charge him with terrorism too? Maybe it sticks, and certainly ups the stakes at the plea bargaining table. *grump*
Realistically what happens is a jury gets annoyed because you make a shitty case and acquits the person because you made a shitty case.
Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman FOR EXAMPLE. Both juries likely would have agreed manslaughter was appropriate. But nope, gotta go for full on murder2+ to hope you can get a decade longer sentence on Florida's already stupidly long minimum sentences.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
So because people don't really know the premise behind murder1,2,manslaughter:
Murder 1 - a planned murder
Murder 2 - an accidental murder, but, you had intent to cause harm
Murder 3 (typically manslaughter in most states) - death caused completely by accident, but was caused by negligence (driving drunk, making shitty decisions, shaking your baby to get them to stop crying)
Murder 4 - indirect death (accomplice to a crime, also a form of manslaughter in most states)
So, going for murder 1 in a crime like shooting a car full of people in a gas station? Mmm, not so much. Murder 2? Yeah.
Going for murder 1 and pleading to murder 2 because you're an all-star prosecutor? The jury is just going to get pissed unless they, unanimously, absolutely hate the defendant.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
It sure as hell sounds like 2nd degree murder to me
There's levels of premeditation and 2nd degree usually falls under the "intent" category. you don't carefully plan on murdering someone but you exhibit malice and the intent to do so in your actions. His waiting then firing shows signs of a clear intention to do harm. He also probably falls under the depraved indifference definition where your actions are recklessly violent and show complete disregard for human life. Shooting at a non-threatening moving car full of people fits that definition in my book.
So because people don't really know the premise behind murder1,2,manslaughter:
Murder 1 - a planned murder
Murder 2 - an accidental murder, but, you had intent to cause harm
Murder 3 (typically manslaughter in most states) - death caused completely by accident, but was caused by negligence (driving drunk, making shitty decisions, shaking your baby to get them to stop crying)
Murder 4 - indirect death (accomplice to a crime, also a form of manslaughter in most states)
So, going for murder 1 in a crime like shooting a car full of people in a gas station? Mmm, not so much. Murder 2? Yeah.
Going for murder 1 and pleading to murder 2 because you're an all-star prosecutor? The jury is just going to get pissed unless they, unanimously, absolutely hate the defendant.
It's a bit easier to think of it the other way around. All murders are assaults with extra factors.
You would usually go for the highest conviction you can get. So Murder 1 is a result crime, with additional factors. It is an assault + intent to kill + result of death + premeditation (and depending on jurisdiction there can be a host of other factors that elevate to M1). If you think you can prove all those factors you prosecute under that. If it turns out you can prove the assault + intent to kill + result of death but fail to prove the extra necessary factors for M1, that's still a recipe for M2. If you remove the intent to kill or instead add a second ingredient like the successful application of a defense (ie provocation), then that comes out with a different result again.
one amendment: Manslaughter usually also includes crimes of passion. You get in a huge argument with your spouse or something and stab them with a kitchen knife in the heat of the moment.
Dunn's case hardly fits that bill. I'd have a hard time believing they could frame "black kids with loud music" as enough to induce a murderous rage in anyone.
one amendment: Manslaughter usually also includes crimes of passion. You get in a huge argument with your spouse or something and stab them with a kitchen knife in the heat of the moment.
This is a good example of actually adding in an extra mitigating factor into Murder 2. In 'crimes of passion' you still killed with the intent, but you can successfully apply a partial defense of provocation. There are two main types of defense. Excusatory, and Justifying. Excusatory defenses, such as provocation (ie a crime of passion) mitigate the crime, but the law still holds you blameworthy of wrong doing, but the wrongdoing isn't so bad as to be labeled 'murder'. Justifying defenses are ones like Self-Defense, and in those cases the law justifies your actions to the point that it doesn't hold you blameworthy of wrong doing.
So because people don't really know the premise behind murder1,2,manslaughter:
Murder 1 - a planned murder
Murder 2 - an accidental murder, but, you had intent to cause harm
Murder 3 (typically manslaughter in most states) - death caused completely by accident, but was caused by negligence (driving drunk, making shitty decisions, shaking your baby to get them to stop crying)
Murder 4 - indirect death (accomplice to a crime, also a form of manslaughter in most states)
So, going for murder 1 in a crime like shooting a car full of people in a gas station? Mmm, not so much. Murder 2? Yeah.
Going for murder 1 and pleading to murder 2 because you're an all-star prosecutor? The jury is just going to get pissed unless they, unanimously, absolutely hate the defendant.
That's not accurate, if you read upthread you'll find the actual definitions. For one, there's no such thing as "murder 4"/fourth degree I'm pretty sure.
Murder 1 isn't a "planned" murder its a "premeditated" murder (or a murder in the course of a felony or defined set of felonies). Premeditation does not require an extended period of time, it can be merely a second or two.
Murder 2 is when you kill someone with an act that would be likely to kill them and without regard for human life (or accidentally kill someone while committing a felony or defined set of felonies).
Most states don't have a 3rd degree murder, but Florida does. Its accidentally killing someone while committing a non-violent non-drug felony.
General Manslaughter is not accidental death. Voluntary manslaughter is when you intentionally kill someone but there are mitigating circumstances. The classic example is killing in the heat of the moment/passion. You're thinking involuntary manslaughter, a lesser offense. That can be hitting someone in a car when driving recklessly or being so grossly negligent as to cause a death.
The reason people are discussing the pause its premeditation. It can be reasonably argued that even if the first set of shots were not premeditated, that pause meant he had to decide to keep shooting.
Think of Shawshank Redemption. Andy is convicted of killing his adulterous wife. Each lover was shot 4 times but the gun held only 6 bullets meaning the shooter reloaded. That reloading was enough for premeditation to be shown.
Murder 2 is when you kill someone with an act that would be likely to kill them and without regard for human life (or accidentally kill someone while committing a felony or defined set of felonies).
Mere reckless disregard is, I believe, manslaughter. Killing during a defined set of felonies (felony murder) is, I believe, first degree. The primary distinguishing element between second degree murder and manslaughter is malice. Or rather "depraved mind," which is reckless disregard combined with the ill will, hatred, evil intent, etc.
I'd say charging him with second degree is a slam-dunk. First degree would be a stretch, although not impossible. When all is said and done, him actually being convicted of second degree isn't what I would call a slam dunk, but I certainly couldn't see the prosecutor going for anything less.
The delay in firing into the car until after it has left and no longer represents a threat (armed or not), as well as leaving the scene and not reporting the incident to the cops make a damn strong argument for ill will and undermine any argument for self-defense. The delay in firing could conceivably make an argument for premeditation, it wouldn't be the first time that a person who disengaged and chose to re-engage a short time later was charged with 1st. Were I the prosecutor, I'd charge 1st up front and aim for a plea to 2nd.
See, and this is where I guess I diverge from the usual prosecutorial mindset. I wouldn't want a plea on a charge that isn't an actual "slam dunk" for conviction. I don't think I could sleep at night if I did that too often, because eventually your overcharging is going to get people to plead to shit they didn't actually do. If there's any conceivable justification/mitigation, I wouldn't want a plea higher than manslaughter (which in this case seems to be a "slam dunk").
I mean, I think he very well might be guilty of second degree murder. I think a conviction on that is entirely possible. But I'd never want to see him go to prison for that without a jury verdict.
PantsB, I was giving the historic definitions there. Murder 4 is just considered accessory manslaughter in today's vernacular. Planned vs Premeditated is just you being a pedantic goose. And Steven King isn't a lawyer or judge.
Murder 3 is typically considered manslaughter these days. Murder 2 is "murder by accident", Murder 1 is "Murder by design."
No need to be needless pedantic about the wording because you like to ruffle feathers by some archaic language constructors on some 3rd implication of planned's definition.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
PantsB, I was giving the historic definitions there. Murder 4 is just considered accessory manslaughter in today's vernacular. Planned vs Premeditated is just you being a pedantic goose. And Steven King isn't a lawyer or judge.
Murder 3 is typically considered manslaughter these days. Murder 2 is "murder by accident", Murder 1 is "Murder by design."
No need to be needless pedantic about the wording because you like to ruffle feathers by some archaic language constructors on some 3rd implication of planned's definition.
As a point of interest, most common law countries like to practice what is called 'fair labeling.' This is less criminal law and more criminal justice theory, but the idea is that beside the obvious 'punishment' aspect of any criminal sanctions, there's also a stigma attached to the conviction itself. Even if you get 0 days in prison, the label of what crime you're guilty of is still attached to you. Manslaughter as a term exists because of implicit recognition by the criminal justice system that, while a crime was committed, it wasn't as serious as to be called 'murder.' As the stigma attached to that term is rather more serious.
Of course, this is only one type of classification there are also MPC classifications and variations thereof. Most of the time they all pretty much grasp at the same thing however some places have common law criminal elements which sometimes really messes up the criminal sentencing (Like malignant heart crimes which normally get classified as Murder 2 or depraved indifference).
Gotta say, I really can't get behind that 10-20-Life law at all. Mandatory minimum sentences are bad enough as it is, but it penalizes threatening people with a gun, without actually harming them, almost as severely as actually killing them. That kind of sentencing can cause a perverse incentive to kill. (England used to have a death sentence for theft, for example. If you're going to get hung for robbing a man or hung for killing him, you're better off not leaving a witness.)
I'm still at a loss as to how they did that. I mean they charged him on everything but the murder, which implies his stand your ground defense didn't fly, but they thought maybe the dead man actually deserved killing? WHAT?
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I'm still at a loss as to how they did that. I mean they charged him on everything but the murder, which implies his stand your ground defense didn't fly, but they thought maybe the dead man actually deserved killing? WHAT?
Murder in the first degree requires premeditation. Which, much like with Zimmerman, was a dumb attempt. Second degree would have covered the situation much better.
No idea. I just know that reading the statute, as stupid and reckless as I think Dunn was, I wouldn't be able to honestly accuse him of murder in the first degree.
Posts
Slam dunk? Do you actually know what the elements of second degree murder are? Or do you just think that any non-premeditated killing not justifiable as self-defense is second-degree murder?
I'm really curious how the "ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent" is so obvious as to call this a "slam dunk," implying that the prosecutor should have no trouble showing it beyond a reasonable doubt.
EDIT: If you're curious, the bolded? Doesn't describe second-degree murder. The opposite, really.
Lessee though, second degree:
Well, I'll go down the list.
An act imminently dangerous to another, yeah. Firing a gun at a group of teens in their car, which itself is a second-degree misdemeanor per 790.151 (drunk) and a second-degree felony per 790.19 (occupied car).
Unlawful killing, because...he was not threatened by these kids in their car, not carrying the gun he says he believed they had, not getting out of their car in response to his provocation.
Depraved mind they've got to prove, I suppose. There is that, it didn't fly in the Zimmerman case.
Which was precisely my point.
By your own words, "feeling threatened but not actually being threatened" is actually an argument against a depraved mind, which requires "ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent." So yeah, I suppose that's a thing they've got to prove, and I suppose they have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
I can go over the various reasons I think it's a "slam dunk" for manslaughter (or as close as you can get in a system that's theoretically biased heavily in favor of the defense), but my point is that it is not a "slam dunk" for second degree murder, and first degree murder is...well, I guess it's a thing you can charge if you feel like it. Or so it seems. The facts of the case seem to have no bearing on the charge, at least.
Well, here's the thing about depravity of mind. It's one of those "I know it when I see it" concepts, like obscenity, but it's got this general idea going on behind it:
Such as, let's say, capping off some shots at a car full of teenagers because their music is loud.
I don't think I'd go for first degree, if I were the prosecutor. There's no reason to believe he had planned out the encounter at all, except insofar as he would go over to their car and complain, and they would...I guess be happy about that.
But his behavior was at best recklessly dangerous, and at worst pointlessly malicious. (When you kill somebody with a firearm in commission of a felony, I think it tends to go badly.) So I think that in that case, manslaughter is a low-ball.
If it was me, I would not risk my life over property. I don't think anyone is saying "everytime someone tries to take your things, the best course is to ATTACK!" But if someone chooses to, should they be criminally charged? That is the question, I think.
To be clear, I agree second degree murder is probably a reasonable "stretch goal." I don't think it's at all obvious from what facts I've seen, but it's not so far outside them that charging it is absurd on its face (as with first degree murder).
But you called second degree murder a "slam dunk." I see now you've walked that back. That's all I was looking for.
- John Stuart Mill
Depends on the situation.
The fact that its a dangerous situation regardless is why its discouraged. Untrained people engaging in a fight can end with some dire consequences, which TM and GZ demonstrated very clearly.
If someone steals your dollar and the only way to get it back is beat the piss out of them so you can take it out of their pocket without resistance, then well, I see that kind of thing being legal as a bad thing.
Unfortunately, that's also why trying to make laws on such a subjective subject such as "Was it worth it?" comes into play.
Yeah, leaving the scene of a shooting rather than waiting for the police is inconceivable to me, and frankly does go a long way towards that "depraved mind" thing.
Like, confronting somebody over their stereo volume? Reasonable...ish. Feeling reasonably threatened and responding with a concealed weapon? Maybe.
But then bailing from the scene? What? That alone is enough to throw all his other actions into question.
IANAL but premeditation doesn't require a long period of time. If I decide to shoot someone, go and grab my gun and kill then 10 seconds later that doesn't mean it wasn't premeditated. Its at the very least debatable.
And to bring this more on topic, even Florida says property doesn't justify self-defense
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
He also claimed they had a shotgun and the explicitly saw and they didn't and kept firing at the SUV as they tried to drive away to safety. Realistically they told him to go fuck himself and he decided they he'd show them. He actually killed the kid as they were trying to get away after an appreciable (noticed by witnesses) pause, which might be where the premeditation part comes from.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Of course this is all highly fact intensive and depending on those facts the case could be made for the murder charges or the case could change over to a valid self defense claim. Not knowing the facts beyond what the press has said I'm not about to say any of the charges are easy or difficult. Is there a video link or something where I can see what happened?
Side note: if first degree murder applies, second degree murder also applies as a lesser included offense.
Further side note: McDermott you only have a third of the second degree murder definition of depraved mind.
An act is “imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind” if it is an
act or series of acts that:
1. a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do
serious bodily injury to another, and
2. is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and
3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.
I'd say it is possible to have a depraved mind here, ill will, hatred, spite, or evil intent can apply, particularly if PantsB is right and there was a pause before the shooter killed the kid in the car.
They're "ands," not "ors," so at that point it seemed reasonable to pull that out specifically.
Edit: and I definitely think it CAN apply. I just don't see it as a "slam dunk," reasonable doubt is a motherfucker. And it's entirely orthogonal to "feeling threatened but not actually being threatened."
1) you can lose self defense because your feelings are likely not reasonable under Florida law. You have to reasonably believe that your life is in danger, but if you aren't actually being threatened, your beliefs are going to be hard to consider reasonable.
2)If you feel threatened without being threatened a skilled prosecutor would probe why that is and those answers can lead to evidence of a depraved mind. Like this: "So you felt threatened, but there wasn't a gun, that right?" "Yeah" "Okay so, why did you feel threatened?" answers to that can help the shooter or be really disastrous. Then I'd go "There was a [whatever number of seconds] pause before you fired the deadly shots into the car, why did you wait to fire into the car?" "Wasn't it odd that they weren't shooting back at you?" "Did you think about that while waiting to fire your gun at a couple teenagers?" "So you are claiming self defense but there wasn't a gun. What made these teenagers so threatening?"
Since it doesn't look like that is the case, I think the manslaughter charge is a fairly safe bet. Leaving the scene and not reporting that he fired his gun eight times into an occupied vehicle makes me doubt the self defense claim, but we know very little right now.
- John Stuart Mill
Also, I agree that the answers to questions regarding the justification could easily go sideways, and start to support a murder charge.
Its a troll or alt. Don't know which.
Pretty sure it's both. Especially given the choice of name.
I'd say charging him with second degree is a slam-dunk. First degree would be a stretch, although not impossible. When all is said and done, him actually being convicted of second degree isn't what I would call a slam dunk, but I certainly couldn't see the prosecutor going for anything less.
The delay in firing into the car until after it has left and no longer represents a threat (armed or not), as well as leaving the scene and not reporting the incident to the cops make a damn strong argument for ill will and undermine any argument for self-defense. The delay in firing could conceivably make an argument for premeditation, it wouldn't be the first time that a person who disengaged and chose to re-engage a short time later was charged with 1st. Were I the prosecutor, I'd charge 1st up front and aim for a plea to 2nd.
Realistically what happens is a jury gets annoyed because you make a shitty case and acquits the person because you made a shitty case.
Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman FOR EXAMPLE. Both juries likely would have agreed manslaughter was appropriate. But nope, gotta go for full on murder2+ to hope you can get a decade longer sentence on Florida's already stupidly long minimum sentences.
Murder 1 - a planned murder
Murder 2 - an accidental murder, but, you had intent to cause harm
Murder 3 (typically manslaughter in most states) - death caused completely by accident, but was caused by negligence (driving drunk, making shitty decisions, shaking your baby to get them to stop crying)
Murder 4 - indirect death (accomplice to a crime, also a form of manslaughter in most states)
So, going for murder 1 in a crime like shooting a car full of people in a gas station? Mmm, not so much. Murder 2? Yeah.
Going for murder 1 and pleading to murder 2 because you're an all-star prosecutor? The jury is just going to get pissed unless they, unanimously, absolutely hate the defendant.
There's levels of premeditation and 2nd degree usually falls under the "intent" category. you don't carefully plan on murdering someone but you exhibit malice and the intent to do so in your actions. His waiting then firing shows signs of a clear intention to do harm. He also probably falls under the depraved indifference definition where your actions are recklessly violent and show complete disregard for human life. Shooting at a non-threatening moving car full of people fits that definition in my book.
It's a bit easier to think of it the other way around. All murders are assaults with extra factors.
You would usually go for the highest conviction you can get. So Murder 1 is a result crime, with additional factors. It is an assault + intent to kill + result of death + premeditation (and depending on jurisdiction there can be a host of other factors that elevate to M1). If you think you can prove all those factors you prosecute under that. If it turns out you can prove the assault + intent to kill + result of death but fail to prove the extra necessary factors for M1, that's still a recipe for M2. If you remove the intent to kill or instead add a second ingredient like the successful application of a defense (ie provocation), then that comes out with a different result again.
Law: it's like baking cookies!
Dunn's case hardly fits that bill. I'd have a hard time believing they could frame "black kids with loud music" as enough to induce a murderous rage in anyone.
This is a good example of actually adding in an extra mitigating factor into Murder 2. In 'crimes of passion' you still killed with the intent, but you can successfully apply a partial defense of provocation. There are two main types of defense. Excusatory, and Justifying. Excusatory defenses, such as provocation (ie a crime of passion) mitigate the crime, but the law still holds you blameworthy of wrong doing, but the wrongdoing isn't so bad as to be labeled 'murder'. Justifying defenses are ones like Self-Defense, and in those cases the law justifies your actions to the point that it doesn't hold you blameworthy of wrong doing.
That's not accurate, if you read upthread you'll find the actual definitions. For one, there's no such thing as "murder 4"/fourth degree I'm pretty sure.
Murder 1 isn't a "planned" murder its a "premeditated" murder (or a murder in the course of a felony or defined set of felonies). Premeditation does not require an extended period of time, it can be merely a second or two.
Murder 2 is when you kill someone with an act that would be likely to kill them and without regard for human life (or accidentally kill someone while committing a felony or defined set of felonies).
Most states don't have a 3rd degree murder, but Florida does. Its accidentally killing someone while committing a non-violent non-drug felony.
General Manslaughter is not accidental death. Voluntary manslaughter is when you intentionally kill someone but there are mitigating circumstances. The classic example is killing in the heat of the moment/passion. You're thinking involuntary manslaughter, a lesser offense. That can be hitting someone in a car when driving recklessly or being so grossly negligent as to cause a death.
The reason people are discussing the pause its premeditation. It can be reasonably argued that even if the first set of shots were not premeditated, that pause meant he had to decide to keep shooting.
Think of Shawshank Redemption. Andy is convicted of killing his adulterous wife. Each lover was shot 4 times but the gun held only 6 bullets meaning the shooter reloaded. That reloading was enough for premeditation to be shown.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Mere reckless disregard is, I believe, manslaughter. Killing during a defined set of felonies (felony murder) is, I believe, first degree. The primary distinguishing element between second degree murder and manslaughter is malice. Or rather "depraved mind," which is reckless disregard combined with the ill will, hatred, evil intent, etc.
See, and this is where I guess I diverge from the usual prosecutorial mindset. I wouldn't want a plea on a charge that isn't an actual "slam dunk" for conviction. I don't think I could sleep at night if I did that too often, because eventually your overcharging is going to get people to plead to shit they didn't actually do. If there's any conceivable justification/mitigation, I wouldn't want a plea higher than manslaughter (which in this case seems to be a "slam dunk").
I mean, I think he very well might be guilty of second degree murder. I think a conviction on that is entirely possible. But I'd never want to see him go to prison for that without a jury verdict.
Murder 3 is typically considered manslaughter these days. Murder 2 is "murder by accident", Murder 1 is "Murder by design."
No need to be needless pedantic about the wording because you like to ruffle feathers by some archaic language constructors on some 3rd implication of planned's definition.
As a point of interest, most common law countries like to practice what is called 'fair labeling.' This is less criminal law and more criminal justice theory, but the idea is that beside the obvious 'punishment' aspect of any criminal sanctions, there's also a stigma attached to the conviction itself. Even if you get 0 days in prison, the label of what crime you're guilty of is still attached to you. Manslaughter as a term exists because of implicit recognition by the criminal justice system that, while a crime was committed, it wasn't as serious as to be called 'murder.' As the stigma attached to that term is rather more serious.
(Sorry for the necro, but thought this was the most relevant topic to post in instead of new threading).
Mmmmm....toasty.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Murder in the first degree requires premeditation. Which, much like with Zimmerman, was a dumb attempt. Second degree would have covered the situation much better.
pleasepaypreacher.net
pleasepaypreacher.net