Picture this:
A woman is pulled over on a routine traffic stop. She has had too much to drink. When she tests positive and the cop is about to arrest her, she reaches for his holster. The cop fires shots at her. She does not survive.
Her husband finds out about what happened. That night, he goes to the cop's house, bringing his gun. As soon as the cop answers, the widower fires six shots at the cop's head, killing him on the spot. This happens right in front of the cop's wife, his preschool-aged daughter, and his baby son.
The widower turns himself in to police, believing he did the right thing. His defense attorney says he was justified, because the officer killed the one he loved, so he had it coming. The prosecutor says he is guilty of murder and should serve the life sentence (His state does not have the death penalty)
You be the jury...Whose killing was justified, and whose was murder?
2007-07-07 11:55:55 · 13 answers · asked by mikeburmeister@sbcglobal.net 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Cop killing the woman was justified.
Husband is a murderer and in jail for life.
2007-07-07 11:59:52 · answer #1 · answered by Tom S 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
This is a very simple question from a legal standpoint.
The cop was not justified in killing the drunk woman. The officer had numerous alternate methods for handling her. Had the cop not been killed, the cop should have been charged with murder, or at least excessive use of force resulting in death (negligent homicide).
However, the widower was also not justified in hunting the cop.
The widower could claim temprorary insanity to mitigate his guilt and hope for voluntary manslaughter instead of murder, however this is unlikely because the widower had a cooling off period prior to killing the cop.
2007-07-07 20:21:58 · answer #2 · answered by http://www.wrightlawnv.com 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The first is not murder, by definition. The second, however, is 1st degree murder. The first is, legally speaking, an act of self defense. The second is 1st degree murder because the husband did not act immediately upon finding out about the murder. He took the time to prepare (collect the gun and go to the officer's home), which means he purposely killed the cop.
2007-07-07 19:27:14 · answer #3 · answered by cyanne2ak 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If the woman tried to take MY gun, I would be justified in shooting her. I am not an officer and don't currently own a gun. The widower was NOT defending himself nor did he have reason to believe he was in danger. Therefore his act was one of REVENGE, not defense. As such, he committed murder. The Officers wife just witnessed a stranger killing her husband and would have been justified in killing that man had she been able.
2007-07-07 19:55:27 · answer #4 · answered by STEVEN F 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
IMHO, neither was justified. The cop over reacted. The woman had been drinking. Her judgment was impaired, obviously, since she reached for his holster. Since the cop shot her, I'll assume she did not get his gun. Shooting her for only reaching for his holster was over the top. Not justified.
Her husband, although upset and feeling justified, took the law into his own hands. Not a good thing to do. Although very difficult to do, he should have filled charges, or filled a civil suit, against the cop.
Both shootings were murder.
2007-07-07 19:17:52 · answer #5 · answered by Levi 1 · 1⤊ 3⤋
In each person there is good and bad. it is what we act on that defines who we are. When a person chooses to shoot and kill another person they are breaking the law. our feelings are prohibited because law is only about facts. fact is 1. a woman was driving drunk and she chose to reach for the gun in a polices holster, the cop acted on protecting himself, just as he was taught to do when he took the job. 2. her husband chooses to go to the policemans house and shoot him.
I think there are some crooked police but in the case its sad that a policeman had to die for doing his job. police don;t shoot to kill. they have a split second to make a decision, in that split second they aim to protect themselves.They have no idea of the intentions of the person who has just reach for their gun. It was a mistake that many people don't understand. but in the husbands case he had more than a split second to make his decision. He commited a crime. Given he he planned the murder, he will probably get a very heavy sentence. prabably life
2007-07-07 20:34:14 · answer #6 · answered by Eden 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think the woman's killing was justified and the cop's killing was murder
2007-07-07 19:00:42 · answer #7 · answered by SubwayGirl 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Well, the Husband did kill the officer, but if you dig down ral deep and the root cause you might get a different answer....
we will work backwards
Man Kills Cop....why
because.. Cop killed wife....why
because...Wife reached for cops gun....why
because She was being arrested...why
because She was drunk and driving...why
because her husband is a jerkoff......
Nope, its still the Husands fault.
2007-07-07 19:14:34 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The cop killing the woman was justified because it seemed as though she was going to try to kill him.
The husband killing the cop is not justified as revenge is not justifiable.
2007-07-07 19:04:57 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Easy... the cop was correct in killing a deranged and dangerous drunk.... the husband was guilty of murder even if the cop had been in error....
2007-07-07 19:02:01 · answer #10 · answered by lordkelvin 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋