first degree murder, second degree murder or manslaughter?

Question

okay, i'm in law school and i am working on a tough question for my assignment. It's about murders and killings..here's the question i'm stuck on. I just needed opinions:

*A guy enters a party very drunk with a gun in his hand. One of the security guards name steve attacks him, trying to get the weapon out of his hand. The drunk guy hits steve with the gun..The other security guard name Paul comes and sees what's going on. In defense of Steve, Paul tries to shoot the drunk guy...but misses... and hits steve instead..Paul got so enraged he shot the drunk guy 5 times---killing him instintly

-Is this first degree murder or second degree murder or manslaughter?

Answer 1

I would go with none of the above. Self defense would be the real issue. If you have to pick between the three, I would opt for 2ND Degree murder. Manslaughter would not apply as manslaughter is the unlawful killing of one human by another without express or implied intent to do injury. Clearly injury was intended. There is no premeditation that is needed for 1st degree murder as it happened in the heat of the moment.

Answer 2

Manslaughter is usually the lowest level of culpability in killing someone. Manslaughter is usually accidental, although with some degree of negligence, such as drunk driving. Murder indicates some degree of intent to harm or kill. Second degree usually indicates that the culprit was engaged in illegal activity involving at least a degree of violence such that a reasonable person would know that someone could get hurt. Often it is the intent that someone does get hurt, such as assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm or assault with a deadly weapon. However, the culprit doesn't really mean to kill their victim, just to teach them a lesson or scare them. Then, when the victim dies, they get charged with second degree murder because they did intend to do harm and because of that harm, the person died. They have added a new crime, called felony murder where if a person dies as the result of the commission of a felony, then the murderer should have known that such a consequence was possible and it goes down like first degree. First degree indicates an intent to kill. This is where we talk about premeditated murder. The culprit planned the action that resulted in the victim's death. This brings the stiffest penalty because it is a crime that society cannot tolerate in any degree. Homicide is a general term that covers all the crime categories, meaning simply man killing. The hom- stands for man and the -icide stands for kill.

Answer 3

It should be manslaughter or a form of self defence as he was trying to save a fellow security guard , but 5 shots. He would be charged with second degree murder unless this drunk dude shot back.Law says you can't shoot someone 5 times because of a rage.The security guard wasn't drunk, he was fully aware of the situation.This drunk man was not in a correct state of mind and may not have been thinking, he didn't kill anyone.

Answer 4

Well I'm sure you know that first degree is a carefully planned murder.
second degree murder is killing someone without the planning.
Manslaughter is protecting himself.

He was not protecting himself anymore when he missed the drunk guy. He was pissed cause he missed him and got Steve. And he didn't plan to do this either. I would say second degree. I'm sure that if this were a real trial, all three options would be carefully questioned.

Good luck on your assignment

Answer 5

It would be normally be second degree murder, because it was not plotted out. If the security guard Paul had killed Steve, it would be manslaughter, and if the drunk went in PLANNING to kill someone and succeeded, then it would be first degree. This varies from state to state, and country to country, though.

Answer 6

It can either be manslaughter or second degree murder. But according to it's definition: MANSLAUGHTER - The unlawful killing of a human being without malice or premeditation, either express or implied.

Also, According to this situation:
The killing of an officer by resistance to him while acting under lawful authority is murder; but if the officer be acting under a void or illegal authority, or out of his jurisdiction, the killing is manslaughter, or excusable homicide, according to the circumstances of the case.

When death ensues from the performance of a lawful act, it may, in consequence of the negligence of the offender, amount to manslaughter.

The provocation which reduces the killing from murder to manslaughter is an answer to the presumption of malice which the law raises in every case of homicide; it is therefore no answer when express malice is proved and to be available the provocation must have been reasonable and recent, for no words or slight provocation will be sufficient, and if the party has had time to cool, malice will be inferred.

Answer 7

If the drunk dude still had the gun in his hand and still constituted a threat, it's justifiable homicide. It would only be a criminal homicide, either the 2nd degree or the manslaughter charge, if the drunk had dropped the gun and was no longer a threat after Paul shot Steve.

Answer 8

Murder,Second Degree.

Answer 9

It would be reasonable to argue that Paul used an appropriate amount of force to eliminate the threat of deadly physical force. It would be none of the above...or are these the only answers available? If so, then Murder 2 would be the answer. The intent was there, it wasnt negligent or reckless, but it wasnt preplanned or a hit for hire. SO it would be Murder 2.

Answer 10

What state, what country? For most states/countries, Paul would be charged with second-degree murder. Because it's a heat of the moment sort of thing, it's hard to show that the killing is premeditated.