Does the argument that a gun shot by the accused was not meant to be fatal for the victim make a difference in the conviction?
Of course it was meant to be fatal, I shot them didn't I... If I didn't want it to be fatal I wouldn't of shot them, dead people can't lie or change they're story, it was self defense, now that makes a difference
In the sentence.
It makes a difference, but you still get 25+ years to life.
It's manslaughter instead of murder.
If you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger its dealt force regardless.
I don't think it would make a difference on weather they were convicted or not but could make a difference on what they are charged with or convicted of.
Ah, yes. I had no idea how to word what I was thinking. Thank you (:
You can put this same question and replace gun with car.
It's probably a good idea to not try and Dick Cheney someone...
Hahahha it censored Dick Cheney.
Like premeditated vs accident?
I didn't mean to back into your car, but I'm still responsible for the damage. Same thing. I didn't mean to kill you, but either way, you're dead and I am responsible. Unless I am a child or otherwise incapacitated.
I don't know, but I DO know that it doesn't make a difference to the victim...
Reading about Mr Spooner struck my curiosity.
Reading that story, I have no doubt he meant to kill the kid. If not with the first shot that did, then with the second that missed or the third that jammed. This one is no accident or manslaughter, it's straight-up premeditated murder.
Honestly I think it depends in the person shooting, for example let's say a string of burglaries and a dad buys his first gun, and ends up shooting the burglar and killing him, hey he just wanted to protect his family, now let's say the same scenario
But instead of someone who never used a gun before, we have a skilled marksman who when face with the robber could easily take him down with a nonlethal shot, but decides to put one right between the burglar eyes, does it change then?
Very true. I would have never thought to look at that angle.
Thanks I tend to over think things at times :D
I'm jealous, in this case at least. I'm sure it can be a pain when it comes to relationships.
What relationships xD
Ouch! Well any social relations.
Ya I'm just not good with people in general lol
You learn to live with it lol
Difference in sentencing maybe.
What you intended to happen is no excuse for what actually happened.
Actually, intent is kind of a big part of first degree murder.
But it doesn't change if he's guilty or not.
It might make a difference in the crime they're charged with, negligent homicide, manslaughter, or murder, but intent shouldn't make a difference in whether they're guilty. If it's your bullet, you're responsible for where it goes and what it does.
Could mean the difference between murder and negligent homicide.
Tough to prove. Need more than just the defendants word.
Negligent homicide would mean an accidental gunshot.
That makes it manslaughter, doesnt it. The problem is that there is no way of proving whether or not someone intended to kill or wound the victim.
Is that both when provoked and unprovoked?
Unprovoked, but if you were provoked then you should have nothing to worry about because you have a right to defend yourself, its just that now you have blood on your hands
Interesting, thank you. (: