Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
That would be annoying
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Yenrub
- Start date
Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
Yea... Your point? I was responding to someone that insinuated that none of this matters..
rick6668
Footballguy
Incorrect. Please read this articleHere's a link discussing the similarities between the cases.and if you shot him while he was unarmed in any of the states that dont have the stand your ground law you would spend the rest of your life behind barsI don't want to be in either of their situations.. If I was being followed by neighborhood watch, I'd either ignore them, or stop, introduce myself, and explain that I was no threat..i pray you`re never put into the situation that treyvon wasIt does matter who touched who first.. It also matters if Zimmerman was in fear of bodily injury.. It also matters if Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman and would not stop and Zimmerman was crying out for help..Yes, i know what happened that night. It doesnt matter who touched who first, they argued and an altercation ensued,one that could have and should have been advoided had zimmerman minded his own business. Everyone here agrees on the timelines so what dont we know? We even have a eyewitness who heard them talking loudly then fighting. What more do you need to know?Guilty of killing? I'll agree with that. But I don't know where that gets us. People don't necessarily go to jail just because they kill someone.And@ you knowing what happened that night.
If I am pinned on the ground and someone is bouncing my head off the concrete, and I have a gun.. Count him a doughnut..
Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
If he only would have know Zimmerman was carrying a gun, he probably wouldn't have attacked him.. And none of this would have happened..BTW, you can't say with any certainty that Trayvon wouldn't have taken something from someones home or car.. He could have been capable of breaking into someones house.. He has been found with stolen property before, and a "burglary tool"... Maybe Zimmerman stopped him from doing some burglary that night..I guess the same could be said about treyvon martin. He should`nt have been walking alone with someone like zimmerman in that area. If he only knew what was in store for him.
Do we have a :ducksforcover: smilie?
TexanFan02
Footballguy
Posts like that are why I have him on ignore. Oh, and posts like this:
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
You are wrong..A self defense claim without 'stand your ground' would come into play.. The only difference between 'Stand your ground' and 'Self Defense claim' from what I understand is the 'duty to retreat'.. You have to make a reasonable attempt to stop the altercation, and or retreat from it.. If you can not get away, and you feel your life is in danger, or fear serious bodily harm, you can use deadly force without the 'stand your ground law'.. Stand your ground only means you don't have the 'duty to retreat'..and if you shot him while he was unarmed in any of the states that dont have the stand your ground law you would spend the rest of your life behind barsI don't want to be in either of their situations.. If I was being followed by neighborhood watch, I'd either ignore them, or stop, introduce myself, and explain that I was no threat..If I am pinned on the ground and someone is bouncing my head off the concrete, and I have a gun.. Count him a doughnut..i pray you`re never put into the situation that treyvon wasIt does matter who touched who first.. It also matters if Zimmerman was in fear of bodily injury.. It also matters if Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman and would not stop and Zimmerman was crying out for help..Yes, i know what happened that night. It doesnt matter who touched who first, they argued and an altercation ensued,one that could have and should have been advoided had zimmerman minded his own business. Everyone here agrees on the timelines so what dont we know? We even have a eyewitness who heard them talking loudly then fighting. What more do you need to know?Guilty of killing? I'll agree with that. But I don't know where that gets us. People don't necessarily go to jail just because they kill someone.And
that works both ways christo jr. If you follow someone and engage them and it turns physical and you are armed and the person who you were following wasnt and you shoot them you go to jail. At least in MA. I dont know how it works down south in redneck central.
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
He was, he testified, aware that he was outnumbered, and that is key to this issue as a self-defense scenarioIncorrect. Please read this articleHere's a link discussing the similarities between the cases.and if you shot him while he was unarmed in any of the states that dont have the stand your ground law you would spend the rest of your life behind barsI don't want to be in either of their situations.. If I was being followed by neighborhood watch, I'd either ignore them, or stop, introduce myself, and explain that I was no threat..i pray you`re never put into the situation that treyvon wasIt does matter who touched who first.. It also matters if Zimmerman was in fear of bodily injury.. It also matters if Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman and would not stop and Zimmerman was crying out for help..Yes, i know what happened that night. It doesnt matter who touched who first, they argued and an altercation ensued,one that could have and should have been advoided had zimmerman minded his own business. Everyone here agrees on the timelines so what dont we know? We even have a eyewitness who heard them talking loudly then fighting. What more do you need to know?Guilty of killing? I'll agree with that. But I don't know where that gets us. People don't necessarily go to jail just because they kill someone.And
If I am pinned on the ground and someone is bouncing my head off the concrete, and I have a gun.. Count him a doughnut..
Boom Switch
Footballguy
I kinda hope the guy gets off, we havent had a good looting in the cities in awhile. Thats always good tv.... 
timschochet
Footballguy
Where have you been? I missed you. I really did.I kinda hope the guy gets off, we havent had a good looting in the cities in awhile. Thats always good tv....
Witz
Footballguy
Please link this law specifically as it relates to what you said preceding that comment in italics. Also be sure to note the section where it states it doesn't matter which individual instigates the physical action first.You are wrong..A self defense claim without 'stand your ground' would come into play.. The only difference between 'Stand your ground' and 'Self Defense claim' from what I understand is the 'duty to retreat'.. You have to make a reasonable attempt to stop the altercation, and or retreat from it.. If you can not get away, and you feel your life is in danger, or fear serious bodily harm, you can use deadly force without the 'stand your ground law'.. Stand your ground only means you don't have the 'duty to retreat'..and if you shot him while he was unarmed in any of the states that dont have the stand your ground law you would spend the rest of your life behind barsI don't want to be in either of their situations.. If I was being followed by neighborhood watch, I'd either ignore them, or stop, introduce myself, and explain that I was no threat..i pray you`re never put into the situation that treyvon wasIt does matter who touched who first.. It also matters if Zimmerman was in fear of bodily injury.. It also matters if Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman and would not stop and Zimmerman was crying out for help..Yes, i know what happened that night. It doesnt matter who touched who first, they argued and an altercation ensued,one that could have and should have been advoided had zimmerman minded his own business. Everyone here agrees on the timelines so what dont we know? We even have a eyewitness who heard them talking loudly then fighting. What more do you need to know?Guilty of killing? I'll agree with that. But I don't know where that gets us. People don't necessarily go to jail just because they kill someone.And
If I am pinned on the ground and someone is bouncing my head off the concrete, and I have a gun.. Count him a doughnut..
squistion
Footballguy
I didn't because of this:Where have you been? I missed you. I really did.I kinda hope the guy gets off, we havent had a good looting in the cities in awhile. Thats always good tv....
Fennis
Footballguy
They will be electing him to congress before its all over.Here ya go Zimmerman fans...make difference
http://usnews.msnbc....ocid=ansmsnbc11
donate somefor his defense
Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
lol
Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
You claim to have me on ignore, yet you read all my posts and I'm the closest thing to your thoughts while you post here.. I think you have an infatuation and the "I have him on ignore" schtick is just a cover..
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
there`s this thing called google...knock yourself outPlease link this law specifically as it relates to what you said preceding that comment in italics. Also be sure to note the section where it states it doesn't matter which individual instigates the physical action first.You are wrong..A self defense claim without 'stand your ground' would come into play.. The only difference between 'Stand your ground' and 'Self Defense claim' from what I understand is the 'duty to retreat'.. You have to make a reasonable attempt to stop the altercation, and or retreat from it.. If you can not get away, and you feel your life is in danger, or fear serious bodily harm, you can use deadly force without the 'stand your ground law'.. Stand your ground only means you don't have the 'duty to retreat'..and if you shot him while he was unarmed in any of the states that dont have the stand your ground law you would spend the rest of your life behind barsI don't want to be in either of their situations.. If I was being followed by neighborhood watch, I'd either ignore them, or stop, introduce myself, and explain that I was no threat..i pray you`re never put into the situation that treyvon wasIt does matter who touched who first.. It also matters if Zimmerman was in fear of bodily injury.. It also matters if Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman and would not stop and Zimmerman was crying out for help..Yes, i know what happened that night. It doesnt matter who touched who first, they argued and an altercation ensued,one that could have and should have been advoided had zimmerman minded his own business. Everyone here agrees on the timelines so what dont we know? We even have a eyewitness who heard them talking loudly then fighting. What more do you need to know?Guilty of killing? I'll agree with that. But I don't know where that gets us. People don't necessarily go to jail just because they kill someone.And
If I am pinned on the ground and someone is bouncing my head off the concrete, and I have a gun.. Count him a doughnut..
Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
Wrong again, but at least you are consistent..It doesn't matter who followed who, It matters who tried to stop the altercation.. Following and arguing and even a single punch or grab aren't enough to warrant a self defense claim.. You have to try to stop the altercation, and or retreat from it.. If that option has been exhausted, you are then within your rights to use force..In your town, I could follow you, insulting your mother and swearing at your child, you punch me and then mount me, and start slamming my head against the ground.. I could shoot you and walk free.. "Stand your ground" makes no difference in that situation..
Last edited by a moderator:
Witz
Footballguy
The old 'look it up on google if you don't believe me' response. Isn't the internet a grand place where folks can make things up in order to attempt to strengthen their position?there`s this thing called google...knock yourself outPlease link this law specifically as it relates to what you said preceding that comment in italics. Also be sure to note the section where it states it doesn't matter which individual instigates the physical action first.
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
Voluntary Manslaughter Massachusetts statutory law does not define voluntary manslaughter. Instead, Massachusetts case law provides the definition: "The unlawful killing of another, intentionally caused from a sudden transport of passion or heat of blood: (1) upon a reasonable provocation and without malice or upon sudden combat; or (2) from the excessive use of force in self-defense."The old 'look it up on google if you don't believe me' response. Isn't the internet a grand place where folks can make things up in order to attempt to strengthen their position?there`s this thing called google...knock yourself outPlease link this law specifically as it relates to what you said preceding that comment in italics. Also be sure to note the section where it states it doesn't matter which individual instigates the physical action first.
Voluntary manslaughter is another form of intentional homicide; however, voluntary manslaughter involves a killing without malice, which separates the crime from murder. Under voluntary manslaughter, the defendant did intend to kill the victim or inflict serious bodily harm, but due to the existence of some mitigating circumstance(s), the law infers that the element of malice does not exist. Therefore, the crime is reduced from murder to voluntary manslaughter.
In what kinds of circumstances does this happen? Usually, when the killing occurs out of passion or the heat of the moment that results from a "reasonable provocation" or a spontaneous fight. Voluntary manslaughter applies when the defendant's actions occur because of an event that causes him, in essence, to lose control – the self-control that would be expected of an ordinary, reasonable person. The provocation or event that produces such passion, anger, or fear must occur within a certain, limited period of time prior to the killing. Generally, this is interpreted as an amount of time within which a reasonable person would not have been capable of "cooling off".
Exactly what is and is not "adequate provocation", is an objective test of whether an ordinary person would have been provoked by the situation in question. Under Massachusetts law, in general, words alone do not constitute a sufficient legal basis for adequate provocation. (However, there are exceptions to this.) At the same time, a shove, a light blow or trespass are not sufficient provocation, either. More classic tests for adequate provocation have involved learning of, or witnessing, a spouse in the act of infidelity or adultery. Case law generally holds that suspicion alone that a spouse is committing adultery does not constitute sufficient provocation to qualify for voluntary manslaughter. However, observing one's spouse in the act of sexual infidelity, or even hearing such acts, may constitute adequate provocation at law. Lastly, voluntary intoxication will not lower a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter.
Aside from provocation, a loss of control that negates malice, can also occur as the product of a spontaneous fight. Massachusetts law considers a killing that resulted from sudden combat as not intentional, therefore not malicious and not murder, but voluntary manslaughter. Finally, while Massachusetts law allows people to use force to defend themselves from imminent harm, they cannot use excessive force. If such excessive force results in the death of their assailant, the person defending himself can be charged with voluntary manslaughter. The maximum sentence for a voluntary manslaughter conviction in Massachusetts is 20 years imprisonment.
rick6668
Footballguy
Why do you believe the defendant in this case and not the Cousin of the murdered boy who was there? Under oath, James Cervini claimed that he and Christopher were standing still with their hands up when Christopher was shot.People so easily want to discount what Zimmerman has to say before he even gets a chance to say it.He was, he testified, aware that he was outnumbered, and that is key to this issue as a self-defense scenarioIncorrect. Please read this articleHere's a link discussing the similarities between the cases.and if you shot him while he was unarmed in any of the states that dont have the stand your ground law you would spend the rest of your life behind barsI don't want to be in either of their situations.. If I was being followed by neighborhood watch, I'd either ignore them, or stop, introduce myself, and explain that I was no threat..i pray you`re never put into the situation that treyvon wasIt does matter who touched who first.. It also matters if Zimmerman was in fear of bodily injury.. It also matters if Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman and would not stop and Zimmerman was crying out for help..Yes, i know what happened that night. It doesnt matter who touched who first, they argued and an altercation ensued,one that could have and should have been advoided had zimmerman minded his own business. Everyone here agrees on the timelines so what dont we know? We even have a eyewitness who heard them talking loudly then fighting. What more do you need to know?Guilty of killing? I'll agree with that. But I don't know where that gets us. People don't necessarily go to jail just because they kill someone.And
If I am pinned on the ground and someone is bouncing my head off the concrete, and I have a gun.. Count him a doughnut..
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
you said i was incorrect, you didnt ask me who i thought was right or wrong. The guy claimed self defense because he was out numbered. Do i think he shot an unarmed kid? yes. Was he justified? that depends , he was obviously out numbered 3 to 1 so that ups the ante for being in fear.Why do you believe the defendant in this case and not the Cousin of the murdered boy who was there? Under oath, James Cervini claimed that he and Christopher were standing still with their hands up when Christopher was shot.People so easily want to discount what Zimmerman has to say before he even gets a chance to say it.He was, he testified, aware that he was outnumbered, and that is key to this issue as a self-defense scenarioIncorrect. Please read this articleHere's a link discussing the similarities between the cases.and if you shot him while he was unarmed in any of the states that dont have the stand your ground law you would spend the rest of your life behind barsI don't want to be in either of their situations.. If I was being followed by neighborhood watch, I'd either ignore them, or stop, introduce myself, and explain that I was no threat..i pray you`re never put into the situation that treyvon wasIt does matter who touched who first.. It also matters if Zimmerman was in fear of bodily injury.. It also matters if Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman and would not stop and Zimmerman was crying out for help..Yes, i know what happened that night. It doesnt matter who touched who first, they argued and an altercation ensued,one that could have and should have been advoided had zimmerman minded his own business. Everyone here agrees on the timelines so what dont we know? We even have a eyewitness who heard them talking loudly then fighting. What more do you need to know?Guilty of killing? I'll agree with that. But I don't know where that gets us. People don't necessarily go to jail just because they kill someone.And
If I am pinned on the ground and someone is bouncing my head off the concrete, and I have a gun.. Count him a doughnut..
Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
Did they have him pinned down, bouncing his head off the concrete?you said i was incorrect, you didnt ask me who i thought was right or wrong. The guy claimed self defense because he was out numbered. Do i think he shot an unarmed kid? yes. Was he justified? that depends , he was obviously out numbered 3 to 1 so that ups the ante for being in fear.Why do you believe the defendant in this case and not the Cousin of the murdered boy who was there? Under oath, James Cervini claimed that he and Christopher were standing still with their hands up when Christopher was shot.People so easily want to discount what Zimmerman has to say before he even gets a chance to say it.He was, he testified, aware that he was outnumbered, and that is key to this issue as a self-defense scenarioIncorrect. Please read this articleHere's a link discussing the similarities between the cases.and if you shot him while he was unarmed in any of the states that dont have the stand your ground law you would spend the rest of your life behind barsI don't want to be in either of their situations.. If I was being followed by neighborhood watch, I'd either ignore them, or stop, introduce myself, and explain that I was no threat..i pray you`re never put into the situation that treyvon wasIt does matter who touched who first.. It also matters if Zimmerman was in fear of bodily injury.. It also matters if Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman and would not stop and Zimmerman was crying out for help..Yes, i know what happened that night. It doesnt matter who touched who first, they argued and an altercation ensued,one that could have and should have been advoided had zimmerman minded his own business. Everyone here agrees on the timelines so what dont we know? We even have a eyewitness who heard them talking loudly then fighting. What more do you need to know?Guilty of killing? I'll agree with that. But I don't know where that gets us. People don't necessarily go to jail just because they kill someone.
And
If I am pinned on the ground and someone is bouncing my head off the concrete, and I have a gun.. Count him a doughnut..
Witz
Footballguy
Thank you for posting this.While this is good information, it doesn't really equate to this situation as you laid it out no? In addition, I was responding to your statement that if they did this they would go to jail (whereas your bolded statement just says they 'could' be charged, not that they would always be charged nor would they always be convicted - I'd be curious on the percentage of those cases that resulted in convictions). That's all I was getting out.Voluntary Manslaughter Massachusetts statutory law does not define voluntary manslaughter. Instead, Massachusetts case law provides the definition: "The unlawful killing of another, intentionally caused from a sudden transport of passion or heat of blood: (1) upon a reasonable provocation and without malice or upon sudden combat; or (2) from the excessive use of force in self-defense."The old 'look it up on google if you don't believe me' response. Isn't the internet a grand place where folks can make things up in order to attempt to strengthen their position?there`s this thing called google...knock yourself outPlease link this law specifically as it relates to what you said preceding that comment in italics. Also be sure to note the section where it states it doesn't matter which individual instigates the physical action first.
Voluntary manslaughter is another form of intentional homicide; however, voluntary manslaughter involves a killing without malice, which separates the crime from murder. Under voluntary manslaughter, the defendant did intend to kill the victim or inflict serious bodily harm, but due to the existence of some mitigating circumstance(s), the law infers that the element of malice does not exist. Therefore, the crime is reduced from murder to voluntary manslaughter.
In what kinds of circumstances does this happen? Usually, when the killing occurs out of passion or the heat of the moment that results from a "reasonable provocation" or a spontaneous fight. Voluntary manslaughter applies when the defendant's actions occur because of an event that causes him, in essence, to lose control – the self-control that would be expected of an ordinary, reasonable person. The provocation or event that produces such passion, anger, or fear must occur within a certain, limited period of time prior to the killing. Generally, this is interpreted as an amount of time within which a reasonable person would not have been capable of "cooling off".
Exactly what is and is not "adequate provocation", is an objective test of whether an ordinary person would have been provoked by the situation in question. Under Massachusetts law, in general, words alone do not constitute a sufficient legal basis for adequate provocation. (However, there are exceptions to this.) At the same time, a shove, a light blow or trespass are not sufficient provocation, either. More classic tests for adequate provocation have involved learning of, or witnessing, a spouse in the act of infidelity or adultery. Case law generally holds that suspicion alone that a spouse is committing adultery does not constitute sufficient provocation to qualify for voluntary manslaughter. However, observing one's spouse in the act of sexual infidelity, or even hearing such acts, may constitute adequate provocation at law. Lastly, voluntary intoxication will not lower a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter.
Aside from provocation, a loss of control that negates malice, can also occur as the product of a spontaneous fight. Massachusetts law considers a killing that resulted from sudden combat as not intentional, therefore not malicious and not murder, but voluntary manslaughter. Finally, while Massachusetts law allows people to use force to defend themselves from imminent harm, they cannot use excessive force. If such excessive force results in the death of their assailant, the person defending himself can be charged with voluntary manslaughter. The maximum sentence for a voluntary manslaughter conviction in Massachusetts is 20 years imprisonment.
Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
Captain Knuckles.. You disagree?Wrong again, but at least you are consistent..It doesn't matter who followed who, It matters who tried to stop the altercation.. Following and arguing and even a single punch or grab aren't enough to warrant a self defense claim.. You have to try to stop the altercation, and or retreat from it.. If that option has been exhausted, you are then within your rights to use force..In your town, I could follow you, insulting your mother and swearing at your child, you punch me and then mount me, and start slamming my head against the ground.. I could shoot you and walk free.. "Stand your ground" makes no difference in that situation..
You're missing a step. There are occasions when it's not excessive to use deadly force.Voluntary Manslaughter Massachusetts statutory law does not define voluntary manslaughter. Instead, Massachusetts case law provides the definition: "The unlawful killing of another, intentionally caused from a sudden transport of passion or heat of blood: (1) upon a reasonable provocation and without malice or upon sudden combat; or (2) from the excessive use of force in self-defense."The old 'look it up on google if you don't believe me' response. Isn't the internet a grand place where folks can make things up in order to attempt to strengthen their position?there`s this thing called google...knock yourself outPlease link this law specifically as it relates to what you said preceding that comment in italics. Also be sure to note the section where it states it doesn't matter which individual instigates the physical action first.
Voluntary manslaughter is another form of intentional homicide; however, voluntary manslaughter involves a killing without malice, which separates the crime from murder. Under voluntary manslaughter, the defendant did intend to kill the victim or inflict serious bodily harm, but due to the existence of some mitigating circumstance(s), the law infers that the element of malice does not exist. Therefore, the crime is reduced from murder to voluntary manslaughter.
In what kinds of circumstances does this happen? Usually, when the killing occurs out of passion or the heat of the moment that results from a "reasonable provocation" or a spontaneous fight. Voluntary manslaughter applies when the defendant's actions occur because of an event that causes him, in essence, to lose control – the self-control that would be expected of an ordinary, reasonable person. The provocation or event that produces such passion, anger, or fear must occur within a certain, limited period of time prior to the killing. Generally, this is interpreted as an amount of time within which a reasonable person would not have been capable of "cooling off".
Exactly what is and is not "adequate provocation", is an objective test of whether an ordinary person would have been provoked by the situation in question. Under Massachusetts law, in general, words alone do not constitute a sufficient legal basis for adequate provocation. (However, there are exceptions to this.) At the same time, a shove, a light blow or trespass are not sufficient provocation, either. More classic tests for adequate provocation have involved learning of, or witnessing, a spouse in the act of infidelity or adultery. Case law generally holds that suspicion alone that a spouse is committing adultery does not constitute sufficient provocation to qualify for voluntary manslaughter. However, observing one's spouse in the act of sexual infidelity, or even hearing such acts, may constitute adequate provocation at law. Lastly, voluntary intoxication will not lower a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter.
Aside from provocation, a loss of control that negates malice, can also occur as the product of a spontaneous fight. Massachusetts law considers a killing that resulted from sudden combat as not intentional, therefore not malicious and not murder, but voluntary manslaughter. Finally, while Massachusetts law allows people to use force to defend themselves from imminent harm, they cannot use excessive force. If such excessive force results in the death of their assailant, the person defending himself can be charged with voluntary manslaughter. The maximum sentence for a voluntary manslaughter conviction in Massachusetts is 20 years imprisonment.
Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
What he posted was someone's (Who knows who? because he didn't provide a link) interpretation and definition of Manslaughter.. And you're right, it does not say in his post that you'd go to jail for shooting someone who was beating the #### out of you..Thank you for posting this.While this is good information, it doesn't really equate to this situation as you laid it out no? In addition, I was responding to your statement that if they did this they would go to jail (whereas your bolded statement just says they 'could' be charged, not that they would always be charged nor would they always be convicted - I'd be curious on the percentage of those cases that resulted in convictions). That's all I was getting out.Voluntary Manslaughter Massachusetts statutory law does not define voluntary manslaughter. Instead, Massachusetts case law provides the definition: "The unlawful killing of another, intentionally caused from a sudden transport of passion or heat of blood: (1) upon a reasonable provocation and without malice or upon sudden combat; or (2) from the excessive use of force in self-defense."The old 'look it up on google if you don't believe me' response. Isn't the internet a grand place where folks can make things up in order to attempt to strengthen their position?there`s this thing called google...knock yourself outPlease link this law specifically as it relates to what you said preceding that comment in italics. Also be sure to note the section where it states it doesn't matter which individual instigates the physical action first.
Voluntary manslaughter is another form of intentional homicide; however, voluntary manslaughter involves a killing without malice, which separates the crime from murder. Under voluntary manslaughter, the defendant did intend to kill the victim or inflict serious bodily harm, but due to the existence of some mitigating circumstance(s), the law infers that the element of malice does not exist. Therefore, the crime is reduced from murder to voluntary manslaughter.
In what kinds of circumstances does this happen? Usually, when the killing occurs out of passion or the heat of the moment that results from a "reasonable provocation" or a spontaneous fight. Voluntary manslaughter applies when the defendant's actions occur because of an event that causes him, in essence, to lose control – the self-control that would be expected of an ordinary, reasonable person. The provocation or event that produces such passion, anger, or fear must occur within a certain, limited period of time prior to the killing. Generally, this is interpreted as an amount of time within which a reasonable person would not have been capable of "cooling off".
Exactly what is and is not "adequate provocation", is an objective test of whether an ordinary person would have been provoked by the situation in question. Under Massachusetts law, in general, words alone do not constitute a sufficient legal basis for adequate provocation. (However, there are exceptions to this.) At the same time, a shove, a light blow or trespass are not sufficient provocation, either. More classic tests for adequate provocation have involved learning of, or witnessing, a spouse in the act of infidelity or adultery. Case law generally holds that suspicion alone that a spouse is committing adultery does not constitute sufficient provocation to qualify for voluntary manslaughter. However, observing one's spouse in the act of sexual infidelity, or even hearing such acts, may constitute adequate provocation at law. Lastly, voluntary intoxication will not lower a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter.
Aside from provocation, a loss of control that negates malice, can also occur as the product of a spontaneous fight. Massachusetts law considers a killing that resulted from sudden combat as not intentional, therefore not malicious and not murder, but voluntary manslaughter. Finally, while Massachusetts law allows people to use force to defend themselves from imminent harm, they cannot use excessive force. If such excessive force results in the death of their assailant, the person defending himself can be charged with voluntary manslaughter. The maximum sentence for a voluntary manslaughter conviction in Massachusetts is 20 years imprisonment.
Last edited by a moderator:
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
you keep saying zimmerman had his head slammed into the ground , but as your leader christo keeps saying we havent heard zimmermans side of the story. You`re as guilty as us treyvon supporters of fabricating the missing minute of what happened and who actually started the struggle between zimm and trey. For all you know they had words and then someone pushed the other and they started wrestling. Zimm could have hit his head falling backwards and then he reached for his gun and trey tried to prevent zimm from pointing at at him and lost that advantage and was eventually shot to death. Its as probable as what you keep saying happened.Captain Knuckles.. You disagree?Wrong again, but at least you are consistent..It doesn't matter who followed who, It matters who tried to stop the altercation.. Following and arguing and even a single punch or grab aren't enough to warrant a self defense claim.. You have to try to stop the altercation, and or retreat from it.. If that option has been exhausted, you are then within your rights to use force..In your town, I could follow you, insulting your mother and swearing at your child, you punch me and then mount me, and start slamming my head against the ground.. I could shoot you and walk free.. "Stand your ground" makes no difference in that situation..
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
There are a lot of things to consider with the given scenario "can I shoot an unarmed person if they want to fight me?" You have to decide what you want to do and be prepared for the consequences plain and simple.If you think doing 3 to 5 years hard time in a state penitentiary for manslaughter is no problem, then by all means shoot that unarmed guy who picked a fight with you because he feels you slighted him somehow.Thank you for posting this.While this is good information, it doesn't really equate to this situation as you laid it out no? In addition, I was responding to your statement that if they did this they would go to jail (whereas your bolded statement just says they 'could' be charged, not that they would always be charged nor would they always be convicted - I'd be curious on the percentage of those cases that resulted in convictions). That's all I was getting out.Voluntary Manslaughter Massachusetts statutory law does not define voluntary manslaughter. Instead, Massachusetts case law provides the definition: "The unlawful killing of another, intentionally caused from a sudden transport of passion or heat of blood: (1) upon a reasonable provocation and without malice or upon sudden combat; or (2) from the excessive use of force in self-defense."The old 'look it up on google if you don't believe me' response. Isn't the internet a grand place where folks can make things up in order to attempt to strengthen their position?there`s this thing called google...knock yourself outPlease link this law specifically as it relates to what you said preceding that comment in italics. Also be sure to note the section where it states it doesn't matter which individual instigates the physical action first.
Voluntary manslaughter is another form of intentional homicide; however, voluntary manslaughter involves a killing without malice, which separates the crime from murder. Under voluntary manslaughter, the defendant did intend to kill the victim or inflict serious bodily harm, but due to the existence of some mitigating circumstance(s), the law infers that the element of malice does not exist. Therefore, the crime is reduced from murder to voluntary manslaughter.
In what kinds of circumstances does this happen? Usually, when the killing occurs out of passion or the heat of the moment that results from a "reasonable provocation" or a spontaneous fight. Voluntary manslaughter applies when the defendant's actions occur because of an event that causes him, in essence, to lose control – the self-control that would be expected of an ordinary, reasonable person. The provocation or event that produces such passion, anger, or fear must occur within a certain, limited period of time prior to the killing. Generally, this is interpreted as an amount of time within which a reasonable person would not have been capable of "cooling off".
Exactly what is and is not "adequate provocation", is an objective test of whether an ordinary person would have been provoked by the situation in question. Under Massachusetts law, in general, words alone do not constitute a sufficient legal basis for adequate provocation. (However, there are exceptions to this.) At the same time, a shove, a light blow or trespass are not sufficient provocation, either. More classic tests for adequate provocation have involved learning of, or witnessing, a spouse in the act of infidelity or adultery. Case law generally holds that suspicion alone that a spouse is committing adultery does not constitute sufficient provocation to qualify for voluntary manslaughter. However, observing one's spouse in the act of sexual infidelity, or even hearing such acts, may constitute adequate provocation at law. Lastly, voluntary intoxication will not lower a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter.
Aside from provocation, a loss of control that negates malice, can also occur as the product of a spontaneous fight. Massachusetts law considers a killing that resulted from sudden combat as not intentional, therefore not malicious and not murder, but voluntary manslaughter. Finally, while Massachusetts law allows people to use force to defend themselves from imminent harm, they cannot use excessive force. If such excessive force results in the death of their assailant, the person defending himself can be charged with voluntary manslaughter. The maximum sentence for a voluntary manslaughter conviction in Massachusetts is 20 years imprisonment.
State prison is full of people who made the wrong decision in when and under what circumstances to use their firearm. They aren't bad people, they just made a poor choice when they thought that using their gun would be on solid ground.
You can sit on the witness stand crying all day long saying how that scary looking guy who turned out was only two years younger than you and considered to be about average size and shape could have hit you in the temple and killed you... may have been able to strike you in the trachea and crush your larynx and all sorts of hypothetical outcomes until you are blue in the face. At the end of the day... the law and the courts "generally" frown on those who pull a gun and shoot an unarmed person who was foolish enough/drunk enough to pick a fight with someone they didn't know was armed.
Now, with that said, are there circumstances where shooting an unarmed person is excusable? Absolutely, but they are relatively rare and few in the numbers of situations. Your hypothetical explanations of "well he could have hit me here and that may have done this to me" is not going to be a satisfactory answer to a grand jury or a jury of your peers.
Getting a broken nose and some bruised ribs or a black eye or maybe a tooth knocked out is "generally" not considered to be a life threatening injury or even a serious crippling injury no matter how much you say that hypothetically you could have gotten a detached retina from the black eye, or you could have choked to death if you swallowed that broken tooth.
These are the facts... You have a gun! The other guy doesn't! You know you have a "stacked deck"... the other guy doesn't know you have a gun until you pull it out and shoot him with it! He believed he was fighting another unarmed guy!
Bullies, drunk or otherwise who like to fight people, don't pick fights with people they knew beforehand to have a gun! Therefore the prosecutor in the criminal case or the attorneys for his estate in the wrongful death case will argue the "unarmed victim" you killed may have been drunk, and may have been a bully... but he thought he was fighting a man "on common ground" and it did not warrant being shot down in a fixed and unfair fight! (May not be 1st degree murder, but probably good enough to send you away for a few years for involuntary manslaughter!)
The courts will hold you to a higher standard of care to avoid the situation, walk away and maybe even going to extrordanary means in not bringing your gun out even if the guy manages to hit you a few times.
Again, are there circumstances where shooting an unarmed person justifiable? YES! But you are on very shakey ground. If you are going to claim there was a "disparity of force" you should have some very compelling reasons that are clear and obvious to the court or grand jury. (Hypothetical explainations are really not going to be acceptable.) Disparity of Force is not just a loose term to throw out in court. You must be able to clearly show the factors that pertain to that disparity in order to convince a jury to excuse you for taking the life of an unarmed person. There has to be some accountability for taking someones life.
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
Enlighten me.people may use force to defend themselves from imminent harm, if they use excessive force that results in the death of their attacker, they have committed voluntary manslaughterYou're missing a step. There are occasions when it's not excessive to use deadly force.Voluntary Manslaughter Massachusetts statutory law does not define voluntary manslaughter. Instead, Massachusetts case law provides the definition: "The unlawful killing of another, intentionally caused from a sudden transport of passion or heat of blood: (1) upon a reasonable provocation and without malice or upon sudden combat; or (2) from the excessive use of force in self-defense."The old 'look it up on google if you don't believe me' response. Isn't the internet a grand place where folks can make things up in order to attempt to strengthen their position?there`s this thing called google...knock yourself outPlease link this law specifically as it relates to what you said preceding that comment in italics. Also be sure to note the section where it states it doesn't matter which individual instigates the physical action first.
Voluntary manslaughter is another form of intentional homicide; however, voluntary manslaughter involves a killing without malice, which separates the crime from murder. Under voluntary manslaughter, the defendant did intend to kill the victim or inflict serious bodily harm, but due to the existence of some mitigating circumstance(s), the law infers that the element of malice does not exist. Therefore, the crime is reduced from murder to voluntary manslaughter.
In what kinds of circumstances does this happen? Usually, when the killing occurs out of passion or the heat of the moment that results from a "reasonable provocation" or a spontaneous fight. Voluntary manslaughter applies when the defendant's actions occur because of an event that causes him, in essence, to lose control – the self-control that would be expected of an ordinary, reasonable person. The provocation or event that produces such passion, anger, or fear must occur within a certain, limited period of time prior to the killing. Generally, this is interpreted as an amount of time within which a reasonable person would not have been capable of "cooling off".
Exactly what is and is not "adequate provocation", is an objective test of whether an ordinary person would have been provoked by the situation in question. Under Massachusetts law, in general, words alone do not constitute a sufficient legal basis for adequate provocation. (However, there are exceptions to this.) At the same time, a shove, a light blow or trespass are not sufficient provocation, either. More classic tests for adequate provocation have involved learning of, or witnessing, a spouse in the act of infidelity or adultery. Case law generally holds that suspicion alone that a spouse is committing adultery does not constitute sufficient provocation to qualify for voluntary manslaughter. However, observing one's spouse in the act of sexual infidelity, or even hearing such acts, may constitute adequate provocation at law. Lastly, voluntary intoxication will not lower a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter.
Aside from provocation, a loss of control that negates malice, can also occur as the product of a spontaneous fight. Massachusetts law considers a killing that resulted from sudden combat as not intentional, therefore not malicious and not murder, but voluntary manslaughter. Finally, while Massachusetts law allows people to use force to defend themselves from imminent harm, they cannot use excessive force. If such excessive force results in the death of their assailant, the person defending himself can be charged with voluntary manslaughter. The maximum sentence for a voluntary manslaughter conviction in Massachusetts is 20 years imprisonment.
If the death of the attacker was caused by force that was not excessive they have not committed manslaughter.Enlighten me.people may use force to defend themselves from imminent harm, if they use excessive force that results in the death of their attacker, they have committed voluntary manslaughterYou're missing a step. There are occasions when it's not excessive to use deadly force.Voluntary Manslaughter Massachusetts statutory law does not define voluntary manslaughter. Instead, Massachusetts case law provides the definition: "The unlawful killing of another, intentionally caused from a sudden transport of passion or heat of blood: (1) upon a reasonable provocation and without malice or upon sudden combat; or (2) from the excessive use of force in self-defense."The old 'look it up on google if you don't believe me' response. Isn't the internet a grand place where folks can make things up in order to attempt to strengthen their position?there`s this thing called google...knock yourself outPlease link this law specifically as it relates to what you said preceding that comment in italics. Also be sure to note the section where it states it doesn't matter which individual instigates the physical action first.
Voluntary manslaughter is another form of intentional homicide; however, voluntary manslaughter involves a killing without malice, which separates the crime from murder. Under voluntary manslaughter, the defendant did intend to kill the victim or inflict serious bodily harm, but due to the existence of some mitigating circumstance(s), the law infers that the element of malice does not exist. Therefore, the crime is reduced from murder to voluntary manslaughter.
In what kinds of circumstances does this happen? Usually, when the killing occurs out of passion or the heat of the moment that results from a "reasonable provocation" or a spontaneous fight. Voluntary manslaughter applies when the defendant's actions occur because of an event that causes him, in essence, to lose control – the self-control that would be expected of an ordinary, reasonable person. The provocation or event that produces such passion, anger, or fear must occur within a certain, limited period of time prior to the killing. Generally, this is interpreted as an amount of time within which a reasonable person would not have been capable of "cooling off".
Exactly what is and is not "adequate provocation", is an objective test of whether an ordinary person would have been provoked by the situation in question. Under Massachusetts law, in general, words alone do not constitute a sufficient legal basis for adequate provocation. (However, there are exceptions to this.) At the same time, a shove, a light blow or trespass are not sufficient provocation, either. More classic tests for adequate provocation have involved learning of, or witnessing, a spouse in the act of infidelity or adultery. Case law generally holds that suspicion alone that a spouse is committing adultery does not constitute sufficient provocation to qualify for voluntary manslaughter. However, observing one's spouse in the act of sexual infidelity, or even hearing such acts, may constitute adequate provocation at law. Lastly, voluntary intoxication will not lower a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter.
Aside from provocation, a loss of control that negates malice, can also occur as the product of a spontaneous fight. Massachusetts law considers a killing that resulted from sudden combat as not intentional, therefore not malicious and not murder, but voluntary manslaughter. Finally, while Massachusetts law allows people to use force to defend themselves from imminent harm, they cannot use excessive force. If such excessive force results in the death of their assailant, the person defending himself can be charged with voluntary manslaughter. The maximum sentence for a voluntary manslaughter conviction in Massachusetts is 20 years imprisonment.
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
my wiring is great , thanks for asking.
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
ok, and how that pertains to this case is beyond meIf the death of the attacker was caused by force that was not excessive they have not committed manslaughter.Enlighten me.people may use force to defend themselves from imminent harm, if they use excessive force that results in the death of their attacker, they have committed voluntary manslaughterYou're missing a step. There are occasions when it's not excessive to use deadly force.Voluntary Manslaughter Massachusetts statutory law does not define voluntary manslaughter. Instead, Massachusetts case law provides the definition: "The unlawful killing of another, intentionally caused from a sudden transport of passion or heat of blood: (1) upon a reasonable provocation and without malice or upon sudden combat; or (2) from the excessive use of force in self-defense."The old 'look it up on google if you don't believe me' response. Isn't the internet a grand place where folks can make things up in order to attempt to strengthen their position?there`s this thing called google...knock yourself outPlease link this law specifically as it relates to what you said preceding that comment in italics. Also be sure to note the section where it states it doesn't matter which individual instigates the physical action first.
Voluntary manslaughter is another form of intentional homicide; however, voluntary manslaughter involves a killing without malice, which separates the crime from murder. Under voluntary manslaughter, the defendant did intend to kill the victim or inflict serious bodily harm, but due to the existence of some mitigating circumstance(s), the law infers that the element of malice does not exist. Therefore, the crime is reduced from murder to voluntary manslaughter.
In what kinds of circumstances does this happen? Usually, when the killing occurs out of passion or the heat of the moment that results from a "reasonable provocation" or a spontaneous fight. Voluntary manslaughter applies when the defendant's actions occur because of an event that causes him, in essence, to lose control – the self-control that would be expected of an ordinary, reasonable person. The provocation or event that produces such passion, anger, or fear must occur within a certain, limited period of time prior to the killing. Generally, this is interpreted as an amount of time within which a reasonable person would not have been capable of "cooling off".
Exactly what is and is not "adequate provocation", is an objective test of whether an ordinary person would have been provoked by the situation in question. Under Massachusetts law, in general, words alone do not constitute a sufficient legal basis for adequate provocation. (However, there are exceptions to this.) At the same time, a shove, a light blow or trespass are not sufficient provocation, either. More classic tests for adequate provocation have involved learning of, or witnessing, a spouse in the act of infidelity or adultery. Case law generally holds that suspicion alone that a spouse is committing adultery does not constitute sufficient provocation to qualify for voluntary manslaughter. However, observing one's spouse in the act of sexual infidelity, or even hearing such acts, may constitute adequate provocation at law. Lastly, voluntary intoxication will not lower a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter.
Aside from provocation, a loss of control that negates malice, can also occur as the product of a spontaneous fight. Massachusetts law considers a killing that resulted from sudden combat as not intentional, therefore not malicious and not murder, but voluntary manslaughter. Finally, while Massachusetts law allows people to use force to defend themselves from imminent harm, they cannot use excessive force. If such excessive force results in the death of their assailant, the person defending himself can be charged with voluntary manslaughter. The maximum sentence for a voluntary manslaughter conviction in Massachusetts is 20 years imprisonment.
at least witz is staying on point.
Last edited by a moderator:
Your hypothetical had nothing to do with this case. Rather, you said: If you follow someone and engage them and it turns physical and you are armed and the person who you were following wasnt and you shoot them you go to jail. At least in MA."Which, now that we've taken a look at the law in MA, turns out to not necessarily be true.ok, and how that pertains to this case is beyond meIf the death of the attacker was caused by force that was not excessive they have not committed manslaughter.Enlighten me.people may use force to defend themselves from imminent harm, if they use excessive force that results in the death of their attacker, they have committed voluntary manslaughterYou're missing a step. There are occasions when it's not excessive to use deadly force.Voluntary Manslaughter Massachusetts statutory law does not define voluntary manslaughter. Instead, Massachusetts case law provides the definition: "The unlawful killing of another, intentionally caused from a sudden transport of passion or heat of blood: (1) upon a reasonable provocation and without malice or upon sudden combat; or (2) from the excessive use of force in self-defense."The old 'look it up on google if you don't believe me' response. Isn't the internet a grand place where folks can make things up in order to attempt to strengthen their position?there`s this thing called google...knock yourself outPlease link this law specifically as it relates to what you said preceding that comment in italics. Also be sure to note the section where it states it doesn't matter which individual instigates the physical action first.
Voluntary manslaughter is another form of intentional homicide; however, voluntary manslaughter involves a killing without malice, which separates the crime from murder. Under voluntary manslaughter, the defendant did intend to kill the victim or inflict serious bodily harm, but due to the existence of some mitigating circumstance(s), the law infers that the element of malice does not exist. Therefore, the crime is reduced from murder to voluntary manslaughter.
In what kinds of circumstances does this happen? Usually, when the killing occurs out of passion or the heat of the moment that results from a "reasonable provocation" or a spontaneous fight. Voluntary manslaughter applies when the defendant's actions occur because of an event that causes him, in essence, to lose control – the self-control that would be expected of an ordinary, reasonable person. The provocation or event that produces such passion, anger, or fear must occur within a certain, limited period of time prior to the killing. Generally, this is interpreted as an amount of time within which a reasonable person would not have been capable of "cooling off".
Exactly what is and is not "adequate provocation", is an objective test of whether an ordinary person would have been provoked by the situation in question. Under Massachusetts law, in general, words alone do not constitute a sufficient legal basis for adequate provocation. (However, there are exceptions to this.) At the same time, a shove, a light blow or trespass are not sufficient provocation, either. More classic tests for adequate provocation have involved learning of, or witnessing, a spouse in the act of infidelity or adultery. Case law generally holds that suspicion alone that a spouse is committing adultery does not constitute sufficient provocation to qualify for voluntary manslaughter. However, observing one's spouse in the act of sexual infidelity, or even hearing such acts, may constitute adequate provocation at law. Lastly, voluntary intoxication will not lower a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter.
Aside from provocation, a loss of control that negates malice, can also occur as the product of a spontaneous fight. Massachusetts law considers a killing that resulted from sudden combat as not intentional, therefore not malicious and not murder, but voluntary manslaughter. Finally, while Massachusetts law allows people to use force to defend themselves from imminent harm, they cannot use excessive force. If such excessive force results in the death of their assailant, the person defending himself can be charged with voluntary manslaughter. The maximum sentence for a voluntary manslaughter conviction in Massachusetts is 20 years imprisonment.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
whatever you say mr.rightYour hypothetical had nothing to do with this case. Rather, you said: If you follow someone and engage them and it turns physical and you are armed and the person who you were following wasnt and you shoot them you go to jail. At least in MA."Which, now that we've taken a look at the law in MA, turns out to not necessarily be true.ok, and how that pertains to this case is beyond meIf the death of the attacker was caused by force that was not excessive they have not committed manslaughter.Enlighten me.people may use force to defend themselves from imminent harm, if they use excessive force that results in the death of their attacker, they have committed voluntary manslaughterYou're missing a step. There are occasions when it's not excessive to use deadly force.Voluntary Manslaughter Massachusetts statutory law does not define voluntary manslaughter. Instead, Massachusetts case law provides the definition: "The unlawful killing of another, intentionally caused from a sudden transport of passion or heat of blood: (1) upon a reasonable provocation and without malice or upon sudden combat; or (2) from the excessive use of force in self-defense."The old 'look it up on google if you don't believe me' response. Isn't the internet a grand place where folks can make things up in order to attempt to strengthen their position?there`s this thing called google...knock yourself outPlease link this law specifically as it relates to what you said preceding that comment in italics. Also be sure to note the section where it states it doesn't matter which individual instigates the physical action first.
Voluntary manslaughter is another form of intentional homicide; however, voluntary manslaughter involves a killing without malice, which separates the crime from murder. Under voluntary manslaughter, the defendant did intend to kill the victim or inflict serious bodily harm, but due to the existence of some mitigating circumstance(s), the law infers that the element of malice does not exist. Therefore, the crime is reduced from murder to voluntary manslaughter.
In what kinds of circumstances does this happen? Usually, when the killing occurs out of passion or the heat of the moment that results from a "reasonable provocation" or a spontaneous fight. Voluntary manslaughter applies when the defendant's actions occur because of an event that causes him, in essence, to lose control – the self-control that would be expected of an ordinary, reasonable person. The provocation or event that produces such passion, anger, or fear must occur within a certain, limited period of time prior to the killing. Generally, this is interpreted as an amount of time within which a reasonable person would not have been capable of "cooling off".
Exactly what is and is not "adequate provocation", is an objective test of whether an ordinary person would have been provoked by the situation in question. Under Massachusetts law, in general, words alone do not constitute a sufficient legal basis for adequate provocation. (However, there are exceptions to this.) At the same time, a shove, a light blow or trespass are not sufficient provocation, either. More classic tests for adequate provocation have involved learning of, or witnessing, a spouse in the act of infidelity or adultery. Case law generally holds that suspicion alone that a spouse is committing adultery does not constitute sufficient provocation to qualify for voluntary manslaughter. However, observing one's spouse in the act of sexual infidelity, or even hearing such acts, may constitute adequate provocation at law. Lastly, voluntary intoxication will not lower a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter.
Aside from provocation, a loss of control that negates malice, can also occur as the product of a spontaneous fight. Massachusetts law considers a killing that resulted from sudden combat as not intentional, therefore not malicious and not murder, but voluntary manslaughter. Finally, while Massachusetts law allows people to use force to defend themselves from imminent harm, they cannot use excessive force. If such excessive force results in the death of their assailant, the person defending himself can be charged with voluntary manslaughter. The maximum sentence for a voluntary manslaughter conviction in Massachusetts is 20 years imprisonment.
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
'Matthias said:oh c'mon. christo shtick is terrible and frustrating but he's aware of what he's doing. carolina hustler is completely different.now if you'll excuse me, i gotta go take a shower. defending christo is unclean work.
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
my point was if this shooting happened in MA things would be very different for mr. zimmermanYour hypothetical had nothing to do with this case. Rather, you said: If you follow someone and engage them and it turns physical and you are armed and the person who you were following wasnt and you shoot them you go to jail. At least in MA."Which, now that we've taken a look at the law in MA, turns out to not necessarily be true.ok, and how that pertains to this case is beyond meIf the death of the attacker was caused by force that was not excessive they have not committed manslaughter.Enlighten me.people may use force to defend themselves from imminent harm, if they use excessive force that results in the death of their attacker, they have committed voluntary manslaughterYou're missing a step. There are occasions when it's not excessive to use deadly force.Voluntary Manslaughter Massachusetts statutory law does not define voluntary manslaughter. Instead, Massachusetts case law provides the definition: "The unlawful killing of another, intentionally caused from a sudden transport of passion or heat of blood: (1) upon a reasonable provocation and without malice or upon sudden combat; or (2) from the excessive use of force in self-defense."The old 'look it up on google if you don't believe me' response. Isn't the internet a grand place where folks can make things up in order to attempt to strengthen their position?there`s this thing called google...knock yourself outPlease link this law specifically as it relates to what you said preceding that comment in italics. Also be sure to note the section where it states it doesn't matter which individual instigates the physical action first.
Voluntary manslaughter is another form of intentional homicide; however, voluntary manslaughter involves a killing without malice, which separates the crime from murder. Under voluntary manslaughter, the defendant did intend to kill the victim or inflict serious bodily harm, but due to the existence of some mitigating circumstance(s), the law infers that the element of malice does not exist. Therefore, the crime is reduced from murder to voluntary manslaughter.
In what kinds of circumstances does this happen? Usually, when the killing occurs out of passion or the heat of the moment that results from a "reasonable provocation" or a spontaneous fight. Voluntary manslaughter applies when the defendant's actions occur because of an event that causes him, in essence, to lose control – the self-control that would be expected of an ordinary, reasonable person. The provocation or event that produces such passion, anger, or fear must occur within a certain, limited period of time prior to the killing. Generally, this is interpreted as an amount of time within which a reasonable person would not have been capable of "cooling off".
Exactly what is and is not "adequate provocation", is an objective test of whether an ordinary person would have been provoked by the situation in question. Under Massachusetts law, in general, words alone do not constitute a sufficient legal basis for adequate provocation. (However, there are exceptions to this.) At the same time, a shove, a light blow or trespass are not sufficient provocation, either. More classic tests for adequate provocation have involved learning of, or witnessing, a spouse in the act of infidelity or adultery. Case law generally holds that suspicion alone that a spouse is committing adultery does not constitute sufficient provocation to qualify for voluntary manslaughter. However, observing one's spouse in the act of sexual infidelity, or even hearing such acts, may constitute adequate provocation at law. Lastly, voluntary intoxication will not lower a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter.
Aside from provocation, a loss of control that negates malice, can also occur as the product of a spontaneous fight. Massachusetts law considers a killing that resulted from sudden combat as not intentional, therefore not malicious and not murder, but voluntary manslaughter. Finally, while Massachusetts law allows people to use force to defend themselves from imminent harm, they cannot use excessive force. If such excessive force results in the death of their assailant, the person defending himself can be charged with voluntary manslaughter. The maximum sentence for a voluntary manslaughter conviction in Massachusetts is 20 years imprisonment.
I keep forgetting we're in the "what I say may really not be what I mean" thread.
squistion
Footballguy
No one is forcing you to keep posting.
timschochet
Footballguy
At least you're trying though.
Your right about that.
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
Under current Massachusetts law, there are no protections for lawful citizens who use force to defend themselves, or others, outside of their dwelling...not sure how much clearer this could be.
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
seriously? Are you saying a reasonable person doesnt already know from the 911 calls and the witness accounts what happened to trey? An unarmed teen was shot to death by an armed wannabe cop who was paranoid.That scenerio i posted above is in my reasonable mind, what happened based on the witness that said he saw and heard trey and george talking, then arguing , then fighting closely (wrestling)before the gun went off. Anyone who has followed this case had the timelines down to the minutes, so what is it we dont actually know? what trey and zimm were thinking? not every thought but using 911 calls we know pretty much know what zimm was thinking and if we go by treys GF we know what trey was thinking also. Throw in the lack of blood and injuries on zimm and the fact that some of the cops on the scene wanted to charge zimmerman with manslaughter its pretty clear what went on that night.So keep playing defense lawyer and try to dispel common logic and sense.
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
boy, you`re a real piece of work
Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
I'd agree that your scenario is possible. But what does that had to do with you saying without the "Stand your ground" law, that Zimmerman would be convicted of murder (or manslaughter)? There is a scenario, even in your state, where Zimmerman could have shot in self defense and not caught a charge, much less conviction..you keep saying zimmerman had his head slammed into the ground , but as your leader christo keeps saying we havent heard zimmermans side of the story. You`re as guilty as us treyvon supporters of fabricating the missing minute of what happened and who actually started the struggle between zimm and trey. For all you know they had words and then someone pushed the other and they started wrestling. Zimm could have hit his head falling backwards and then he reached for his gun and trey tried to prevent zimm from pointing at at him and lost that advantage and was eventually shot to death. Its as probable as what you keep saying happened.Captain Knuckles.. You disagree?Wrong again, but at least you are consistent..It doesn't matter who followed who, It matters who tried to stop the altercation.. Following and arguing and even a single punch or grab aren't enough to warrant a self defense claim.. You have to try to stop the altercation, and or retreat from it.. If that option has been exhausted, you are then within your rights to use force..In your town, I could follow you, insulting your mother and swearing at your child, you punch me and then mount me, and start slamming my head against the ground.. I could shoot you and walk free.. "Stand your ground" makes no difference in that situation..
