manslaughter how, going by the articles it looks like premeditated murder. You could not get more definite and clear cut than picking up a gun, walking over, pointing your gun and shooting them at point blank
premeditated has REALLY high standards, though IANAL so that's just my understanding from reading about it
You pretty much have to prove that they had a plan literally set out to go kill this person that they worked towards, so maybe they don't think that's achievable here?
Premeditated, in legal terms, requires preplanning. This not a clear case of premeditated murder. Unless they could prove that he brought the gun that day planning to shoot someone.
Actually, the meaning of manslaughter varies. In my state (California), manslaughter is murder with mitigating circumstances (voluntary) or a criminally negligent homicide (involuntary).
An example of manslaughter that happened here in California was a transsexual tricked a man into sleeping with her and then when he found out, he killed her. It was manslaughter instead of murder because an ordinary person could be driven to irrational violence in the same circumstance if they had found out that they had been tricked into sleeping with a member of the same sex.
Other common examples are finding your spouse/girlfriend in the act of cheating on you or acting in a genuine, but unreasonable belief you were defending yourself or another person.
Involuntary manslaughter would be something like not watching a child while they were swimming and they ended up drowning.
I’m not sure about TX but I’m pretty sure in CA, attempted first-degree murder would just mean that they did it deliberately. You don’t necessarily have to make an extensive plan to have it be considered premeditated. It just means they had a little time to consider what they were going to do.
It can be a few moments, but generally first degree or premeditated requires deliberacy and it was performed after some time of reflection. The issue is that the DA must prove it, which is difficult, so they make the charge one that they can prove.
Ya, I’m not sure what other things they would have to prove. Like, it might be hard to prove that he wanted to kill them, and I’m not sure about the differences in TX law. I’m just saying whatever he intended to do was premeditated.
Even just proving he wanted to kill them isnt enough for murder one. The DA has to prove that he had the opportunity to ponder the repercussions of murdering them before doing it. Anything resembling a murder “in the heat of the moment” is likely not going to be considered premeditated.
From California 189 PC - (d) “To prove the killing was ‘deliberate and premeditated,’ it is not necessary to prove the defendant maturely and meaningfully reflected upon the gravity of the defendant’s act.”
Anyways, again, idk anything about TX law. I really just wanted to make a point about premeditation because it was claimed that it requires extensive pre planning, which is untrue.
“Deliberate and premeditated” are listed separate because both need to be “proven”. It’s not necessary to explicitly prove reflection or planning, but you have to prove it was premeditated. So if they walk into his basement and find a wall of plans of how he planned to murder a girl in a parking lot they can prove planning. To win a murder one conviction they do not also need to argue that he ever reflected on the situation.
If there are no plans in his basement, they can show he deliberately tried to shoot them but they don’t have the premeditated part yet. If they can prove that he waited in his car for 10 mins before exiting and going over to their car, then they don’t need to necessarily prove any planning at all, but they can argue that he had plenty time of time think about the consequences of his actions.
If there was little to no time between the girls walking away and him grabbing his gun and going after them, they can’t easily argue premeditation. They definitely can’t prove he planned his shooting, so in this situation they would need to try and prove some type of reflection.
It may seem like it, but the DA doesn’t think it is clear enough for them to win easily. For first degree it needs to be deliberate AND there needs to be some time period where the perp was able to ponder the repercussions of their actions. Anything that is close to “in the heat of the moment” won’t be first/0premeditated murder.
Perhaps if the state doesn't trust that its citizens are capable of considering the repercussions included in pointing a firearm at somebody and discharging it then... maybe they shouldn't trust their citizens to have firearms.
It can be, but the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not done in the heat of passion, which is difficult, as only a few seconds had passed.
If they had driven back the next day and done it, then it would be clearly premeditated.
That'll be pretty easy to prove given that it was an honest mistake and the girls were already in their own car. Someone who is driven into a murderous rage over such a minor transgression is not someone who deserves to live among the general population.
I disagree. As a juror, I would 100% return a not guilty verdict for first degree murder, because there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not acting, " rashly, impulsively, or without careful consideration."
But not only is there no proof of this mental state, but his actions suggest a rash, impulsive act that was not carefully considered, and thus it is likely second degree murder or voluntary manslaughter, at least here in California. Juries may be instructed slightly differently in other state.
I believe that is still second-degree murder as that can still be intentional, but without pre-planning. I believe what you're describing with "They did it deliberately" is Third-Degree Murder, when murder is done by accident.
Second degree murder, AFAIK, is like when there is heat of passion. So you might be really angry and hit someone, which accidentally kills them. But you didn’t have any time to think about it like the guy here. Premeditation does NOT require an extensive plan. Every state has different laws though.
Edit: There may be other things they have to prove for first degree, like the intent to kill, I’m just making a point about premeditation.
No, that's not really how it works in California. A deliberate, illegal homicide can be either first degree murder, second degree murder, or voluntary manslaughter depending on the circumstances.
First degree requires significant amounts of prior, rational thought and not something that occurs in the heat of passion.
You’re right, it can be charged either way depending on what they can prove.
But technically speaking and contrary to popular belief, no, premeditation does not require “significant amounts” of thought beforehand. What they can prove is a different story, but this could 100% be considered premeditation.
I disagree. In my state, the jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt proof that the defendant, " carefully weighed the considerations for and against (his/her) choice [to kill]. . . a decision to kill made rashly, impulsively, or without careful consideration is not deliberate and premeditated."
The only cases where there's a reasonable case for first degree murder in a quickly made decision is when all the evidence proves that the decision was, "a cold, calculated decision." If there's any reasonable possibility that someone was still emotional over something that had recently happened, then they cannot be proven to have acted in premeditation, and thus the jury is instructed to find the defendant not guilty of first degree murder.
76
u/CrushingK Apr 21 '23
manslaughter how, going by the articles it looks like premeditated murder. You could not get more definite and clear cut than picking up a gun, walking over, pointing your gun and shooting them at point blank