Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
Disgusting, but not surprising.
Disgusting, but not surprising.
Yes, but one of Leviathan's minions has beentaken,so right or wrong satisfaction must be had and the peasantry must be reminded of the heirarchy, you know.I am disappointed, but I am not surprised. I expected it the moment the judge allowed lesser included offenses, instead of it being capital murder or nothing.
Voluntary Manslaughter in VA requires both malice and intent. In light of the testimony and evidence, there was no malice. This would have been perfect for a directed verdict of not guilty.
SNIP Voluntary Manslaughter in VA requires both malice and intent. In light of the testimony and evidence, there was no malice. This would have been perfect for a directed verdict of not guilty.
SNIP While I can't find the citation (Citizen probably has it) there is a SCOTUS decision that speaks to the issue of a citizen shooting a LEO. I do not remember if that was the point of the case or just something in the discussion on the way to the decision.
Te absolvo.Hawkflyer wrote:SNIP While I can't find the citation (Citizen probably has it) there is a SCOTUS decision that speaks to the issue of a citizen shooting a LEO. I do not remember if that was the point of the case or just something in the discussion on the way to the decision.
Nescio quid dicas.
All I have is Bad Elk, and, if I recall, that dealt with the homicide of an LEO during a warrantless arrest, not an arrest or search on a flawed warrant.
I understood--perhaps wrongly, that the mans door had been battered in, and at least one of the people were actually inside the house when the shots took place...One completely or all completely? Not as I understand it.
Frederick, 29, is accused of shooting Detective Jarrod Shivers on Jan. 17 while Shivers and more than a dozen other officers executed a drug search warrant, police said. Shivers was standing at the steps of Frederick's front door when he was shot, police said.
I substituted "malice" for "impassioned".KBCraig wrote:SNIP Voluntary Manslaughter in VA requires both malice and intent. In light of the testimony and evidence, there was no malice. This would have been perfect for a directed verdict of not guilty.
Thinking malice and intent would add up to murder, to this layman, I made a quick check.
Here is what I found:
Malice . . . is unnecessary in manslaughter cases and is the touchstone by which murder and manslaughter cases are distinguished.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=va&vol=2468002&invol=1
I'm not sure I follow...my .45 doesn't know the difference in shoot to stop and shoot to kill, are you saying that the law does recognize such a difference?That's why you shoot to stop and not to kill. If you are legally in a situation where it's lawful to shoot to stop and your target gets killed then it's still lawful. The jury must have been convinced that he wanted to kill the intruder.