I知 curious about the invol manslaughter charge and how they arrived at that decision. Perhaps someone familiar with the state statutes can elaborate?
I知 curious about the invol manslaughter charge and how they arrived at that decision. Perhaps someone familiar with the state statutes can elaborate?
I like my rifles like my women - short, light, fast, brown, and suppressed.
Formerly known as xpd54.
The opinions expressed in this post are my own and do not reflect the opinions or policies of my employer.
www.gunsnobbery.wordpress.com
The statute fits. Per the facts presented, she was a willing participant to the point she also pulled the trigger with the gun pointed at him. With a Murder charge you must prove intent. Given those facts, it would be extremely difficult to convince a jury his intent was to kill her. Manslaughter/criminal recklessness only requires intent to do the given act (ie, handle the gun in an unsafe manner) and doesn't require the prosecutor to prove a specific intent to hurt or kill the victim(s).
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
I知 just a little taken by the allegation that a single bullet had been placed in the cylinder and the trigger had been pulled 3 times prior to the supposed victim being shot. That seems to indicate an intention to carry this game forward until someone was dead.
I like my rifles like my women - short, light, fast, brown, and suppressed.
Well, it did say the cylinder was spun an additional time between the first and second trigger pulls. That would reset the odds. Not spinning it again between pull 2 and pull 3 does make the story lean toward your theory on intent, though. Regardless, anyone who [willingly] plays that "game" scores VERY high on metrics for idiot *and* asshole.
Gun play indicates ignorance tinged with careless stupidity. I think they were stupid.
Perhaps, but can you prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Can you prove his intent was to kill her?
When you charge a crime you have to be able to prove every element in the statute. Say you rob a gas station by passing a note that reads "I have a gun and will shoot you if you don't give me the money in the register". You don't display a gun. If I charge you with armed robbery, I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt you took money from the clerk, and I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt you threatened her with violence. What I can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt is you were actually armed, saying you are isn't enough to overcome reasonable doubt. I failed to prove one of the required elements and that will result in a "not guilty" verdict because while you committed a crime, it wasn't the one you were charged with. Exact same circumstance, but with a strong arm robbery charge, the result is a "guilty" verdict because that crime only requires the first two elements. You took something from the presence of a person and that you did to with violence or the threat of violence.
Same here. Murder requires a specific intent to kill, barring a death resulting from committing certain other crimes such as Robbery. You're going to need sufficient evidence to prove that element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, or you lose. The charges filed are appropriate from a legal standpoint, as the individual elements are readily provable.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.