Daniel Shavers killer walks free.

[Mountain Man]

Reasonable doubt doesn't have much to do with it.

Do you really not know what the phrase "reasonable doubt" means in legal matters?

And you wonder why I laugh at your self-proclaimed legal expertise.

[Obsidian]

There must be other factors, such as malice[.]

I literally quoted the law for you. It doesn't require that. And even if it did, shooting someone with a gun would qualify as "malice." The term that you keep alluding to isn't even "malice," anyway, but this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malice_aforethought

Do you really not know what the phrase "reasonable doubt" means in legal matters?

And you wonder why I laugh at your self-proclaimed legal expertise.

You're making an ass out of yourself.

Exceptions include self-defense, accidental killing without criminal intent while engaged in a lawful activity, any spontaneous or negligent killings which fall under the category of manslaughter."

We're not talking about exceptions. Self-defense requires proof, most importantly, that the fear of bodily injury was REASONABLE. That's simply an objective, legal judgment. A jury doesn't get to have "reasonable doubt" about whether something is reasonable. The self-defense was either reasonable, or it isn't. Can you really not understand this, or are you just so pissed off at me for calling you out that you're not willing to admit what I'm saying?

[Mountain Man]

I literally quoted the law for you.

No, you quoted only the portion of the law that appeared to support your argument and ignored everything else in the statute. That sort of argument might work at the diploma-mill where you bought your "law license", but it won't work in a real courtroom -- or in a TheologyWeb debate for that matter.

A jury doesn't get to have "reasonable doubt" about whether something is reasonable.

Seriously?

Source: Cornell University Law School

The due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments “[protect] the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.” “The reasonable doubt standard plays a vital role in the American scheme of criminal procedure. It is a prime instrument for reducing the risk of convictions resting on factual error. The standard provides concrete substance for the presumption of innocence—that bedrock ‘axiomatic and elementary’ principle whose ‘enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.”’

https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/h...rag7_user.html

© Copyright Original Source

[Obsidian]

of every FACT necessary

The facts are not in dispute, so reasonable doubt is not applicable to what we're discussing.

[Mountain Man]

Let me spell it out clearly for you:

The officer was charged with murder. The evidence showed that the suspect reached for an area of his body where one traditionally keeps a weapon even though he had been repeatedly warned to keep his hands visible. This was sufficient to give the jury reasonable doubt that the officer committed murder.

I'm thinking either you really don't have a law degree, or it's worth less than the paper it's printed on.

[Cow Poke]

Let me spell it out clearly for you:

The officer was charged with murder. The evidence showed that the suspect reached for an area of his body where one traditionally keeps a weapon even though he had been repeatedly warned to keep his hands visible. This was sufficient to give the jury reasonable doubt that the officer committed murder.

Those are the facts, yes. Regardless of all the confusion and shoddy or unprofessional police work, there was legal justification to see this as "a righteous shooting".

I'm thinking either you really don't have a law degree, or it's worth less than the paper it's printed on.

I hate (as do many others who have posted here) the manner in which this whole thing happened, but the law is the law and facts are facts.

[Mountain Man]

I hate (as do many others who have posted here) the manner in which this whole thing happened, but the law is the law and facts are facts.

I've said the same thing myself. My only point is that the officer didn't commit murder. I have never attempted to justify or excuse his conduct in general.

[Cow Poke]

I've said the same thing myself. My only point is that the officer didn't commit murder. I have never attempted to justify or excuse his conduct in general.

Agreed.

[Cow Poke]

I've said the same thing myself. My only point is that the officer didn't commit murder. I have never attempted to justify or excuse his conduct in general.

This kinda reminds me of a trial on which I served as jury foreman. A Black man was accused of raping a white woman. During the course of the testimony, it was revealed that this same woman had had consensual sex with this same man at least two dozen times prior to the rape. Some of the little old ladies on the jury couldn't get past that issue. They were so focused on this 'white trash having sex with a black' man that they couldn't see that, when she was screaming 'no', and he hit her on the head with a pipe wrench, that that was, indeed, rape.

We can't let the overall messiness of a case obstruct the legal issues.

[Sparko]

I LITERALLY just quoted the applicable law for you, and that's what it says. And yet you continue to spout your ignorance. Incredible.



No, second degree murder does NOT have to be intentional. Do you not understand what the word "or" means? It can be intentional OR knowing (which isn't a whole lot different from intentional, anyway).



Self-defense is an exception to the rule. Self-defense requires that the decision to kill must have resulted from reasonable fear (as I've been saying). Reasonable doubt doesn't have much to do with it. Even if you believe that the officer is afraid, the key issue is that you must still judge whether his fear was "reasonable."

13-404. Justification; self-defense

A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.

wow. No it says the person must be reasonable. And that is not part of the statute we are even discussing. sheesh. And you mention you have a Law License? what does that even mean? Are you claiming to be a lawyer? Because if so, I feel really sorry for your clients.

[One Bad Pig]

wow. No it says the person must be reasonable. And that is not part of the statute we are even discussing. sheesh. And you mention you have a Law License? what does that even mean? Are you claiming to be a lawyer? Because if so, I feel really sorry for your clients.

Competent lawyers wouldn't argue from Wikipedia.

[Obsidian]

Let me spell it out clearly for you:

The officer was charged with murder. The evidence showed that the suspect reached for an area of his body where one traditionally keeps a weapon even though he had been repeatedly warned to keep his hands visible. This was sufficient to give the jury reasonable doubt that the officer committed murder.

Murder, for this type of case, is defined as killing someone while acting knowingly. It is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the man died, that the defendant shot him five times, and that he knew five shots were likely to be severely dangerous or fatal. Therefore, those elements are satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt.

It is a defense to murder if you act in self-defense. To act in self-defense, you must 1) actually fear imminent bodily injury, AND 2) the fear must be reasonable. Even granting part 1, still part 2 is not satisfied. And reasonable doubt doesn't have anything to do with it. (In some states, the jury would be instructed that if they have any reasonable doubt about whether the defendant was actually in fear, that would satisfy part 1, but part 1 isn't what we're arguing about.)

You say, "Let me make it clear for you," and then you proceed to blur all the issues and then insult someone who clearly has more knowledge about this than you do.

wow. No it says the person must be reasonable.

It's the same thing.

And that is not part of the statute we are even discussing.

It's the part of the statute that I've been discussing for the past SEVERAL DAYS, because it's the only part of the statute that's genuinely in dispute. No one seems to be able to grasp it.

Competent lawyers wouldn't argue from Wikipedia.

I'm not the one who keeps bringing up the topic that is the subject of the Wikipedia page. Quit being a jackass.

[Sparko]

Murder, for this type of case, is defined as killing someone while acting knowingly. It is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the man died, that the defendant shot him five times, and that he knew five shots were likely to be severely dangerous or fatal. Therefore, those elements are satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt.

It is a defense to murder if you act in self-defense. To act in self-defense, you must 1) actually fear imminent bodily injury, AND 2) the fear must be reasonable. Even granting part 1, still part 2 is not satisfied. And reasonable doubt doesn't have anything to do with it. (In some states, the jury would be instructed that if they have any reasonable doubt about whether the defendant was actually in fear, that would satisfy part 1, but part 1 isn't what we're arguing about.)

You say, "Let me make it clear for you," and then you proceed to blur all the issues and then insult someone who clearly has more knowledge about this than you do.



It's the same thing.



It's the part of the statute that I've been discussing for the past SEVERAL DAYS, because it's the only part of the statute that's genuinely in dispute. No one seems to be able to grasp it.



I'm not the one who keeps bringing up the topic that is the subject of the Wikipedia page. Quit being a jackass.

Obsidian you have shown that you are completely clueless when it comes to the law or how to even read it. You claim to have a "law license" -- can you explain what that means? What job do you have with this "law license?"

[Cow Poke]

Obsidian you have shown that you are completely clueless when it comes to the law or how to even read it. You claim to have a "law license" -- can you explain what that means? What job do you have with this "law license?"

I think you misunderstand - it's not a "law" license, it's an "lol" license.

[Sparko]

I think you misunderstand - it's not a "law" license, it's an "lol" license.

I predict he will ignore or handwave my post away.