Tom was at a party and got into a fight. He was struck in the back of a head with a bottle and needed to go to the hospital to get 5 stitches. The next morning he vowed to get revenge on the man that hit him. He found out Oscar had hit him. Tom stole his father's shotgun and went to his friends house to learn how to use it. Tom's girlfriend drove the car while Tom rode in the backseat with the shotgun. When they were out front of Oscar's house, Tom claims the shotgun accidentally fired. The shot killed a 4 year old girl. Im in a Business Law class and Im on the prosecution team and need to prove this was murder. I believe it is manslaughter so im having problems finding an angle to prove murder. Any suggestions or Ideas would be a great help.Thanks
2006-10-05 03:52:06 · 12 answers · asked by Jason 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Its a murder. Manslaughter requires heat of passion. Here, there has been a cooling off period. There is also clear & obvious premeditation-Tom deliberatley stole the gun, deliberately learned how to use it, & deliberalitely went to Oscars house with the intent of shooting Oscar. This isn't a murder/manslaughter problem, it is a transfer of intent problem since Tom didn't shoot Oscar but shot the 4 year old instead. You have to argue that Tom's intent to kill Oscar makes him equally guilty of the murder of the 4 year old under the transfer of intent doctrine.
2006-10-05 10:28:49 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well, I am not a lawyer, but I think it has alot to do with the laws of that state. My personal feeling is that it would be aggravated manslaughter, Tom put the little girl in danger by his reckless behavior. That being said he did not have the intent to hurt the girl, but the girl did end up dead by his actions. Also, alot of states have laws regarding using a firearm while committing a felony, so no matter where he is Tom and maybe his girlfriend are looking at doing some time. For Tom I don't think he should do less than 10, and the girlfriend should get a couple of years she was driving a guy around who was going to commit a murder.
2006-10-05 11:03:24 · answer #2 · answered by Frank R 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Well, he went there with an intention to murder or cause harm, even though not to the girl, but still... It is not like he was just driving by the house and this accident happened.
Also, he claims the gun accidentally fired, but it is only his words. Maybe he fired intentionaly to harm somebody in the house, and the girl got in the way.
2006-10-05 10:57:56 · answer #3 · answered by Kaytee 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Murder has intent. This man did not know the girl. If you can argue that this was murder you will be an astounding attorney! If it was indeed an accident that the guy went off this man was out with the gun and had the intent on killing (Oscar.) The fact that the gun accidentally went off will only offset the charge to involuntary manslaughter
2006-10-05 10:57:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Tom had the intent to kill, and that intent carries over into the accidental killing of the girl, making it murder and not manslaughter.
2006-10-05 10:55:13 · answer #5 · answered by LoneStar 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No one rides in the backseat of a car with a loaded shotgun unless they intend to murder someone. Unless of course they are the stupidest hunter alive. Was it hunting season? Were there any places to hunt nearby or did they have supplies in the car that showed an intent to hunt?
2006-10-05 10:56:46 · answer #6 · answered by El Pistolero Negra 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Manslaughter is usually defined as an accidental or unintentional death at the hands of another. However, if the incident occured during the commission of another felony it us almost always considered as murder, albeit 2nd or 3rd degree but still murder, at least in CA.
2006-10-05 10:56:43 · answer #7 · answered by kveldulfgondlir 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Isn't it a matter of intent. The defendent went out armed and intending to do harm to another person. He intended to commit murder, and did so. He just hit the wrong person. He is guilty of murder.
2006-10-05 10:56:43 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
Murder is an intentional act he had the gun and it fired but he had not intended to kill the little girl. In my mind if I was on your jury it would be manslaughter. I agree the man loaded the kill with the intent to kill Oscar but I have not seen any evidence that he intended on killing the child or anyone else. Good luck and be glad I am not on the jury.
2006-10-05 11:01:47 · answer #9 · answered by blueblossom33 3 · 0⤊ 4⤋
carrying the gun with intent to kill? Neither was it out of self defense.
2006-10-05 10:54:23 · answer #10 · answered by leikevy 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋