Florida 'loud music' trial juror: 'I believed he was guilty'

[spookyturtle 9,465]

LOL Good one

Because that is the way the law works. They look at murder committed during a passionate argument way different than you plan to rob a store and kill the owner.

Is the person killed out of passion less dead than the store owner?

[B_J 2,752]

Why is murder two a "nicer" crime than murder one? Why is voluntary manslaughter "better" than murder two? If it's not self defense, then someone was killed that shouldn't have been killed. I fire into a car load of people but I accidentally kill someone?

I can see murder two because of the difficulty of deciding if it was premeditated. While I don't believe it for a second, if he really did think he saw a shotgun, then I can see manslaughter.

But a kid is dead who shouldn't be and he should have been found guilty of something for that.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

I can see murder two because of the difficulty of deciding if it was premeditated. While I don't believe it for a second, if he really did think he saw a shotgun, then I can see manslaughter.

But a kid is dead who shouldn't be and he should have been found guilty of something for that.

So all one has to do is make a claim like that and you can kill anyone. Cool. My boss doesn't like me, so when he was in the parking lot reaching in his pocket to get his keys, I thought I saw a gun so I shot him. Just think of the possibilities.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Is the person killed out of passion less dead than the store owner?

You will have to take this one with some Law Professor somewhere or debate in a grander circle than my pitiful soul.

I am not arguing if the law is correct , only that it is what it is?

We had a guy in my hometown, who had a wife cheating on him. When he found out he drove to her place of employment (she was doing the boss). The girl started to run. He pulled out a deer rifle and shot her dead, put the body in the car and drove into the woods.

He got manslaughter and did about 10-12 years of an 18 year stint.

The law takes into account state of mind. Also if you are white you can get extra points if the victim is a member of a protected class, because you might have hated them at the time of the crime.

I can see murder two because of the difficulty of deciding if it was premeditated. While I don't believe it for a second, if he really did think he saw a shotgun, then I can see manslaughter.

But a kid is dead who shouldn't be and he should have been found guilty of something for that.

and he was . He got 60 years and will spend the rest of his life in prison. He also going to be re trialed and if charged appropriately will probably get another big chunk of time.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

and he was . He got 60 years and will spend the rest of his life in prison. He also going to be re trialed and if charged appropriately will probably get another big chunk of time.

He was found guilty of attempting to murder the others - not guilty of actually murdering one.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

You will have to take this one with some Law Professor somewhere or debate in a grander circle than my pitiful soul.

I am not arguing if the law is correct , only that it is what it is?

We had a guy in my hometown, who had a wife cheating on him. When he found out he drove to her place of employment (she was doing the boss). The girl started to run. He pulled out a deer rifle and shot her dead, put the body in the car and drove into the woods.

He got manslaughter and did about 10-12 years of an 18 year stint.

The law takes into account state of mind. Also if you are white you can get extra points if the victim is a member of a protected class, because you might have hated them at the time of the crime.

and he was . He got 60 years and will spend the rest of his life in prison. He also going to be re trialed and if charged appropriately will probably get another big chunk of time.

So the law is saying if you are mentally distraught killing someone isn't as bad as if you plan to do it. I'll bet the dead person would still disagree.

All joking aside, sometimes the application of the law makes no sense to me. Dead is dead. Involuntary manslaughter I can understand, you punch someone, they fall and hit there head and die. You didn't intend to do that. But taking a gun to your wife's work and shooting her? That sounds premeditated to me.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I believe this fits or at least enough doubt was presented to make 3 people think it fit

Voluntary manslaughter occurs when one person kills another after adequate provocation, that is, there has been action that was sufficient to incite an ordinary person to sudden and intense passion such that he loses self-control. Although the person may have intended to kill the victim in a voluntary manslaughter situation, it is not voluntary manslaughter if the killing was pre-meditated.

Voluntary manslaughter may also occur when one person kills another without malice, which means that they did not intend to cause the death. A killing that would have been murder may be reduced to manslaughter if the defendant committed the killing because he mistakenly believed he needed to use deadly force to defend himself or another. The exact definition of voluntary manslaughter may vary somewhat between states.

Voluntary Manslaughter Based On Sudden Passion
When one person kills another after adequate provocation, a killing that would have originally been murder may be reduced to voluntary manslaughter. To be considered adequate, there are four requirements. First, the provocation must have been sufficient to incite an ordinary person to lose self control. However, it is not enough that the provocation was sufficient, the provocation must actually have caused the defendant to personally lose self control. In addition, very little time must have elapsed between the provocation and the killing.

The amount of time that passed between the provocation and the killing must have been so brief that an ordinary person would not have had time to regain his composure. Lastly, the defendant must personally have failed to compose himself between the provocation and the killing.

In most states, adequate provocation is limited to the passion aroused by situations like a threat of deadly force, or at least of physical force, or by finding a spouse in bed with another person. Oral threats alone are not usually considered adequate provocation for voluntary manslaughter. If the oral threats are combined with an assaultive or violent history with the victim, then providing the history could be sufficient for a voluntary manslaughter instruction.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

He was found guilty of attempting to murder the others - not guilty of actually murdering one.

So the one that is dead wasn't murdered, but he tried to kill the others. Finally, something that makes sense.

[B_J 2,752]

So all one has to do is make a claim like that and you can kill anyone. Cool. My boss doesn't like me, so when he was in the parking lot reaching in his pocket to get his keys, I thought I saw a gun so I shot him. Just think of the possibilities.

And I believe that you should be found guilty of murder 2 or manslaughter; unless you were planning this all along - then murder 1.

The possibilities don't look that great.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

I believe this fits or at least enough doubt was presented to make 3 people think it fit

Voluntary manslaughter occurs when one person kills another after adequate provocation, that is, there has been action that was sufficient to incite an ordinary person to sudden and intense passion such that he loses self-control. Although the person may have intended to kill the victim in a voluntary manslaughter situation, it is not voluntary manslaughter if the killing was pre-meditated.

Voluntary manslaughter may also occur when one person kills another without malice, which means that they did not intend to cause the death. A killing that would have been murder may be reduced to manslaughter if the defendant committed the killing because he mistakenly believed he needed to use deadly force to defend himself or another. The exact definition of voluntary manslaughter may vary somewhat between states.

Voluntary Manslaughter Based On Sudden Passion

When one person kills another after adequate provocation, a killing that would have originally been murder may be reduced to voluntary manslaughter. To be considered adequate, there are four requirements. First, the provocation must have been sufficient to incite an ordinary person to lose self control. However, it is not enough that the provocation was sufficient, the provocation must actually have caused the defendant to personally lose self control. In addition, very little time must have elapsed between the provocation and the killing.

The amount of time that passed between the provocation and the killing must have been so brief that an ordinary person would not have had time to regain his composure. Lastly, the defendant must personally have failed to compose himself between the provocation and the killing.

In most states, adequate provocation is limited to the passion aroused by situations like a threat of deadly force, or at least of physical force, or by finding a spouse in bed with another person. Oral threats alone are not usually considered adequate provocation for voluntary manslaughter. If the oral threats are combined with an assaultive or violent history with the victim, then providing the history could be sufficient for a voluntary manslaughter instruction.

So we're talking about football and get into a heated argument. I say that Peyton Manning is the biggest choker in the history of the game, but you being a big Manning fan lose control, pull out your 45, shoot me and that is ok, because America loves Peyton Manning and calling him a choker would be enough to incite an ordinary person.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

So the one that is dead wasn't murdered, but he tried to kill the others. Finally, something that makes sense.

Exactly! Now you're getting it.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Exactly! Now you're getting it.

So the one that is dead was black, so no crime and the other kids were white, attempted murder. I'm filling in for Marvin for a bit.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

So the one that is dead was black, so no crime and the other kids were white, attempted murder. I'm filling in for Marvin for a bit.

Were the other kids white?

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Were the other kids white?

I don't know, but if they were, that would be the reason.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Why now?

Because if others bring it up, it's not an issue. If I do, then all hell breaks loose.

So the one that is dead was black, so no crime and the other kids were white, attempted murder. I'm filling in for Marvin for a bit.

Thanks spooks, but all the kids were black.