murder, manslaughter or defense?

Question

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

*A guy enters a party very drunk with a gun in his hand and fires 2 shots in the air. 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---killing him instintly..Paul got so enraged he shot the drunk guy 5 times---also killing him instintly . a 14 year old girl standing close by was shot in the arm by a stray bullet

-Is the drunk guy's death first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter or self defense?

does paul get charged with killing steve and injuring the young girl?

Answer 1

2nd degree murder for the drunk guy.

Paul should get charged for killing Steve and injuring the young girl because he was negligent by firing a gun in a crowded area. Paul should of used due force and another means of subduing the drunk guy without discharging his weapon. If the drunk guy was shooting at Steve then Paul had the right and responsibility to shoot the drunk guy but not at the risk of bystanders. He was reckless every time he fired his weapon.

Manslaughter on Steve and assault with a deadly weapon on the girl.

Answer 2

hello fellow law student! I have that final on Monday.

First thing you do is go to the earliest event and evaluate the actus reus and mens rea and determine which acts were lawful.

drunk guy:
voluntary intoxication
impute culpability recklessness, knowing, or purposeful
recklessly endangering another person MPC 211.2
also look at terroristic threats 211.3

Steve:
assault on drunk guy 211.1
defense of others justification defense 3.05
Steve reasonably believes that force is justified and that it is immediately necessary. It does not matter if it actually is, just from an objective standard a reasonable person in his cricumstances would have believed as he did. Steve is justified because the Drunk guy's act was unlawful

Drunk guy:
Assault on Steve 211.1
does not get self defense justification defense because Steve was justified. You only get it in response to unlawful force.

Paul:
manslaughter of steve 210.3
culpability = reckless, Paul was neither practically certain he would kill Steve nor did he intend to kill him. However he should have been aware of a risk of a substantial likleihood that it would have happened.
defenses:none, there is no justification for killing Steve, nor one of the traditional excuses (invol tox, de minimis, entrapment, insanity etc.), Paul was reckless

Paul attempted murder of drunk guy with shot that hits steve:
intentional, does not succeed
defenses:
defense of others
was it immediately necessary from an objective stand point?
arguable jury question could go either way
was deadly force justified?
yes, he had a gun

Paul 2nd shot murder or manslaughter
culpability?
he was intentional and purposeful, but also enraged
enraged usually gets you manslaughter but.
210.2(b) reckless under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. Firing at both people although first was not intentional is reckless disregard.
Charge murder
Defense:
defense of others
again ask was it immediately necessary after Steve was killed? maybe, now no one was going to stop the drunk guy, and Paul was only purposeful and knowing as to killing the drunk guy.

Everything hinges on whether Paul was justified in the first shot that hit Steve. I think this is pretty reckless, and therefore unlawful, so this would not have been justified. The subsequent shots on the drunk guy were not in response to him as a threat but in response to killing steve. If you find otherwise, that's fine.

If you found that Paul was guilty of murder above for having extreme indifference for human life, then that culpability carries over to the girl and you charge him with aggravated assault under 211.1 (2)(a). If you did not find him with extreme indifference then you can find him reckless in firing 5 shots with a deadly weapon, in a crowded area (he should have know that it was a reasonable likelihood that someone would be injured
no defenses as to the girl

I would not write the earliers stuff and explain the statutes, just mention them. It is important to characterize whose acts were lawful. Stick to the statutory analysis of Paul's actions and make conclusions for the others. You need those conclusions to do Paul, but the question asks you about Paul.

Answer 3

I'll give it a shot, though to answer your hypo accurately we really need to know the jurisdiction, and the definitions of murder 1, murder 2, and manslaughter.

1) Drunk guys death-

intentional? yes.

Justifiable (i.e. self-defense or defense of others)? Maybe, depends on whether drunk guy still has the weapon.

If not justifiable? mitigating circumstances would probably drop the act to second degree murder. Manslaughter is normally used to describe (and is often statutorily defined) as actions that are reckless or show a depraved indifference to the safety of others. Here we have agreed that we have an intentional act.

2. Does Paul get charged for Killing Steve? No, no intent is present and he is justified in his use of DEADLY force. Remember most jurisdictions don't allow for the use of deadly force unless certain criteria are met. In other words, if drunk guy only had fists, Paul may not be justified in using deadly force.

3. Does Paul get charged for injuring young girl? If our answer to #1 is that he is guilty of a crime, then yes. Intent is transferred.

Answer 4

The drunk guy is murder in the first, but unsure if Paul would get the death penalty.

The number of rounds fired into his body demonstrates excessive use of force and the intent to kill, not stop the situation.

Steve's death would have been listed as manslaughter as far as Paul is concerned, but he could probably beat that one. The drunk guy (if he wasn't dead) would have been charged with multiple counts of reckless endangerment and could even be charged with manslaughter, as it was his actions that created the situation.

The 14 year old girl that was injured would get Paul convicted on charges of reckless endangerment and assault with a deadly weapon.

Answer 5

I think you would have a case of accidental death (Steve) and a case of involuntary manslaughter (the drunk). Can a person be charged for being a lousy shot? I suppose he could and would be charged with IM because he acted in the heat of passion, without malice or forethought...it was not a premeditated act.

I'm no expert in law...I admit that. It sounds like there are too many variables here for me to give you even a semi-accurate answer. There would be extenuating circumstances...many of them.

Good luck.

Answer 6

There is no crime for the death of the drunk guy because he was shooting in the party and he must be neutralized. Thus, Paul cannot be charged of any crime because he was only depending a stranger in the person of Steve. Under the Penal Law, defense of a stranger is valid justifying cause to rid Paul of any crime.

Regarding the injury to the young girl, Paul cannot be charged of any crime because he was also depending Steve as a stranger and his act was legitimate under the law.

Answer 7

depends on state statute.

But, he should be charged with 2nd degree murder in my state for killing the drunk.
And first degree assault on shooting the girl.

Answer 8

Poor drunk guy. 90% is, he probably didn't know what what going on.

Answer 9

i'd say justified self defense