Hello everybody

[Ben Kenobi]

I wonder what the law states in Wyoming, for the case in question? In this situation we have the defense lawyer, the prosecutor, the judge, and the defendants all agreeing it was murder. But some mentally retarded kid living in Texas thinks they're wrong, it must be manslaughter.

Both groups have equal probabilities of being right...if only we had access to public laws on the internet. If only we could apply common sense and rationality to this situation.

The difference between you and me is that I learned something I didn't know before. Thanks Flubber!

[Asher]

It's hard for me to learn something I didn't know before when the distinction was clear to me as a child.

The difference between you and me is intelligence, empathy, compassion, and humanity.

[Asher]

Also endowment.

[Flubber]

Australia law here

best explanation I have found so far-- again -- all jurisdictions will differ

What constitutes the crime of murder? The basic elements of murder by The FindLaw Team
There probably aren’t many criminal offences that attract more attention than murder, with the crime being both compelling, yet frightening. At its most basic level, murder is defined as the intent to kill or do grievous bodily harm to another person resulting in death.

Murder as a basic principle
Firstly, murder can be proven in four ways:

killing with the intent to kill
killing with the intent of inflicting grievous bodily harm
reckless murder
killing while committing a crime of violence (felony murder).
Most States in Australia have a statutory definition of murder, and in the absence of an explicit definition of murder, we can look to the common law to give guidance on what are the constitute parts to the offence.

Using the definition found in s 18(1)(a) of New South Wales’ Crimes Act as a starting off point, reckless murder is defined as:

“Murder shall be taken to have been committed where the act of the accused, or thing by him or her omitted to be done, causing the death charged, was done or omitted with reckless indifference to human life, or with intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm upon some person, or done in an attempt to commit, or during or immediately after the commission, by the accused, or some accomplice with him or her…”

The basic principle of murder involves two overarching components: the act or omission causing death (actus reus), as well as intention and recklessness (mens rea).

The intention to kill
In order for a person to be found guilty of murder, a person must have committed the act which causes death, along with having the intention and the foresight that their conduct might kill another person. Essentially, the intention to kill must demonstrate that the person has knowledge that death may probably be the consequence of the act.

Recklessness causing death
Many States consider that recklessness causing death, as sufficient in proving mens rea for murder. For recklessness causing death to be successful, there must be proof of the actual state of mind of a person and there is a probable consequence of death resulting from the act in question. Furthermore, there also must be indifference from the person committing the act on whether death will be the result.

The intention of inflicting grievous bodily harm
Similar to the other elements, an intention of inflicting grievous bodily harm is enough for the offence of murder to be proven. However, a jury may also decide whether or not a person intended, or foresaw, that death would be the result from the acts.

Felony murder
Previously, the common law defined felony murder as: a person who has killed during the commission of a felony by use of personal violence is guilty of murder, if the use of violence inadvertently results in the death of another person.

However, most States have moved away from the former common law definition of felony murder because the intention to do grievous bodily harm is generally considered as sufficient in regards to murder.

[Flubber]

The difference between you and me is that I learned something I didn't know before. Thanks Flubber!

Hmmm ben -- Is this your way of admitting you were wrong???

[Ben Kenobi]

Hmmm ben -- Is this your way of admitting you were wrong???

Yep, I learned something new. I didn't know that implied malice was sufficient to move it up. Makes sense to me.

[Ben Kenobi]

The difference between you and me is intelligence, empathy, compassion, and humanity. (and endowment)

One of us feels the need to post it.

[Asher]

every post contains it.

[Flubber]

If only we could apply common sense and rationality to this situation.

Wyoming Criminal Code 6-2-101

6-2-101.� Murder in the first degree; penalty.



(a)� Whoever purposely and with premeditated malice, or in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any sexual assault, sexual abuse of a minor, arson, robbery, burglary, escape, resisting arrest, kidnapping or abuse of a child under the age of sixteen (16) years, kills any human being is guilty of murder in the first degree.

THey had them cold on robbery murder. Arguably on kidnapping (maybe not)


They also get him on malice-- Manslaughter is a killing without malice in Wyoming and a planned and lengthy beating demonstrated malice

So in Wyoming they had them on murder on the now admitted "facts"-- any gay panic defense was proibably an attempt to get into the "heat of the moment" defences but thats really hard to accomplish when there are multiple blows and then leaving someone attached to a fence

[Ben Kenobi]

Wyoming isn't urban. Tying them up to a fence is a death sentence.

[regexcellent]

Parts of Wyoming are urban. Most of New York isn't urban, but most people in New York live in urban areas.

[giblets]

Which is why it's the Catholics who are getting their windows smashed in for opposition to gay marriage. If it were about 'religious freedom', then it's proponents wouldn't be forcing Catholics to make the decision between their faith and their work. This is also why 'conscience protections' are opposed by gay marriage folks, because you can't have someone with the temerity to actually disagree with gay marriage and not get destroyed.

I really am not sure what you're talking about here. But I'm guessing that you're claiming that some extremist is representative of everyone who supports legalization of same sex marriage. Which is, of course, ludicrous.

[Flubber]

Yep, I learned something new. I didn't know that implied malice was sufficient to move it up. Makes sense to me.

It makes great sense-- otherwise-- If I wanted to kill you and took a shot at your head and missed but killed the guy standing next to you, I would only be guilty of attempted murder and manslaughter. (and if I could show I only intended you bodily harm, I might skate on the attempted murder ( this typically requires a specific intent to kill))

Its one of the quirks in most jurisdictions that there are fact situations where if the victim lives, you are not guilty of attempted murder but if they die, you are guilty of murder

[DaShi]

Parts of Wyoming are urban. Most of New York isn't urban, but most people in New York live in urban areas.

I know. It's Hicksville out there. Literally.

[Egbert]

How does a "hello" thread turn into a 677 post thread of pointless arguments about gay rights, pandas, the Canuck constitution and whatever else?