I got jumped

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

If you have the intent to kill and there are less forceful options reasonably available to you to protect yourself then you're guilty of premeditated murder.

Spot on. Premeditation means purposeful or knowing intent to kill. It can only be reduced to manslaughter by provocation that places you in an enraged state, so you had no intent, but was merely reflexive. Hardly any court would say that breaking and entering is enough for provocation.

See what watching Law&Order can get you?

There's a whole generation of sofa lawyers around now.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Frogger

If you have the intent to kill and there are less forceful options reasonably available to you to protect yourself then you're guilty of premeditated murder.

Sorry thats not premeditated unless you think that I read the future, know that you're going to break in, and kill you.

What if I dont kill you with a gun? What if I stick a knife under your ribs into your heart? What if I dont bother with a weapon at all? Of course there's more risk to me but its the same result.

[Sten Sture]

Haven't you seen any of those Halloween movies? You gotta shot a bad guy, like 20 times, or they attack you when you turn around!


I sure as hell would shoot an intruder in the back without warning. I've got a family and limited hand-to-hand skills.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
*gives Spencer a big manly hug*

I'm not sure how to take that One of the best soldiers I knew was an Aussie infantry Captain.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Frogger


Or give the impression that I might do so?

Great.

I think its a pretty good assumption that if you're breaking into my house in the middle of the night that you're not delivering flowers.

[KrazyHorse]

Sorry thats not premeditated unless you think that I read the future, know that you're going to break in, and kill you.

Read Imran's comment. Premeditation hinges on the intent to kill. It need not be formed a year, day, hour or even a minute prior to the act. It simply needs to be in the mind of the criminal at the moment he commits his crime. And he's an actual law student. They teach you about intent in the first few days there...

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


This is almost a direct quote from a John Wayne movie - showing the huge influence Wayne had on American men.

Thats Marrion Morrison to you matey! Dont I recall an incident with you chasing a car with some idiots while your kids were with you?

[Imran Siddiqui]

There's a whole generation of sofa lawyers around now

Of course a jury might simply reject premeditation (because they sympathize with the killer) and go to the default, which is 2nd Degree Murder. It would definetly not be manslaughter, because provocation requires (in common law states) either 1) battery or a fight, 2) adultery, 3) illegal arrest. States that follow the MPC would go for manslaughter for a severe emotional disturbance.

No matter what why you slice it, killing a person breaking and entering before he even notices you would be dealt with some serious jail time (and most likely a murder conviction).

[Sten Sture]

So get a good lawyer!!

Just because you shoot somebody and they die doesn't prove intent.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Just because you shoot somebody and they die doesn't prove intent.

That isn't the argument. The argument is shooting someone after you've realized the situtation and determined that you will shoot the person. That IS intent (the requisit mens rea, if you will).

However, it can be mitigated if you were under severe emotional distress (which basically means in a fight or seeing your SO committing adultery).

Basically there is no way that you will avoid jail time, even if the jury ignores the law and decides it is voluntary manslaughter.

[KrazyHorse]

Firing the gun while it is pointed at somebody provides a prima facia (can't spell the things I hear on TV) case for intent. You have to prove that there was another reason you pulled the trigger than an intent to kill, or that killing was the minimum necessary force reasonably available to the shooter.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Frogger

Sorry thats not premeditated unless you think that I read the future, know that you're going to break in, and kill you.

Read Imran's comment. Premeditation hinges on the intent to kill. It need not be formed a year, day, hour or even a minute prior to the act. It simply needs to be in the mind of the criminal at the moment he commits his crime. And he's an actual law student. They teach you about intent in the first few days there...

Yes, I think that may be a correct definition. The question is whether: a southern prosecutor would be stupid enough to bring such a case and whether a southern jury would convict. The answer to both is no.

I have no way of knowing whether that person breaking into my house is armed, is the night stalker, or what. Personally, I'll shoot first and deal with the 'law' later at least I'll be alive to do so.

[Imran Siddiqui]

prima facie, Frogger, which means enough to go to the jury.

You do pick up a lot on Law and Order .

And crouching behind something pointing at the burgler and then pulling the trigger is enough for intent... and it'll definetly be 2nd degree murder, at least.

[Sten Sture]

So is there any defense? What if you think they have a gun? Or if they say something threatening? Or if they are approaching a child?


I guess I would still take the risk of jail time over getting overpowered and watching somebody hurt my kids...

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

No matter what why you slice it, killing a person breaking and entering before he even notices you would be dealt with some serious jail time (and most likely a murder conviction).

Perhaps you're forgetting the old man in Houston who shot a tourist on his front porch who was trying to ask for directions. There was no prosecution because none was possible. Textbook law is one thing, the application of the law is another.