What is the right term in law for unintended crime, like injury,murder etc.?

Question

What would be the right term in law if anybody injures or kills anybody unintentionally, specially for self-defence, or by unexpected circumstances that someone didn't plan beforehand and can't control it. Is it same as "Unintended consequence". In wikipedia the term doesn't mean what I'm really looking for. So, please help me to get a clear idea about this.

Thanks a lot in advance. Cheers.....

Answer 1

Manslaughter.

Involuntary manslaughter if the death was unintentional but caused through recklessness or criminal negligance.

Misdemeanor manslaughter if death was caused while carrying out a misdemeanor crime.

In cases of self defense a person can either be charged with murder or voluntary or involuntary manslaugher, depending on the circumstances, i.e was death truly neccessary for self preservation or did the party overreact.

Because our laws are so convoluted there is also justifiable homocide. In cases of self-defense, the defendant should generally obey a duty to retreat if it is possible to do so (except from one's home or place of business). In the states of Florida and Louisiana, and other Castle Doctrine states, there is no duty to retreat. Preemptive self-defense, cases in which one kills another on suspicion that the victim might eventually become dangerous, is considered criminal, no matter how likely it is that one was right. Justifiable homicide is a legal gray area, and there is no real legal standard for a homicide to be considered justifiable. The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the defendant had no alternative method of self-defense or defense of another than to kill the attacker.

Answer 2

I noticed you brought that up on Patient PAws question about this. I am confused though, is it for SELLING 50 dogs, or BREEDING 50 dogs (as in 50 b*tches or a mix). WOuld you be OK with the cap on a number of dogs you can own, or not counting co-ownership (though that could mean that puppy mills would just have 100 owners of the dogs and they could be called boarding facilities) The laws already on the books are too vague and expensive to enforce, and while I will admit I don't know specifics about the laws we have it seems like capping the number of dogs is an easy way to monitor things other than specific laws about conditions that can be more easily avoided. I think that a reaonable cap is a good idea, though like you point out what is reasonable is up for discussion. How many puppies can a responsible breeder be connected to in a year? 100? 150? FInd some number less than the worst of the worst puppy mills but above the good breeders. It isn't a magic cure, just a start. I think the real answer to stopping puppy mills is for people to stop buying, but laws certainly would speed up the process. I was just thinking about all the arguments for laws with animals. People say we need to fucus on our problems but with animals the sad part is they have easy solutions! If people would only get pets they could afford and leave breeding to the people who know what they are doing, there would be no need for shelters and those resources coudld be put to work on arguably more important but much more complicated problems! I would like to see something done, I know that nothing will make this just go away but I think SOME step is necessary. And if nothing else, talking about this law is helping educate people about puppy mills, so be thankful for that part of it at least. Pets are a luxury, why do we even need to waste money on these issues!? It sickenss me that people are so irresponsible we need to be baysat like that.

Answer 3

Legitimate self-defence is self-defence, assuming no other less lethal choice was available.

Unexpected results are not the same as unforseeable results. I remember a teen-ager being prosecuted for a degree of homicide because he stole a stop sign. Is it forseeable that in that instance someone may drive through where the sign would normally have stopped him and be involved in a fatal accident? Yes. Was it intended? No.

Answer 4

self defence - self explanatory

criminal negligence causing death - like driving carelessly and causing a death

there is also the necessity defence - ie. breaking into a home in the woods because you are lost and it is -40 degrees...you could argue necessity as a defence to a charge of break and enter.

Answer 5

For killing a person, I think the term is manslaughter. Homicide probably would be good too. The term murder means intentional death, like premeditation.

Answer 6

If someone doesn't plan in advance, it will usually be second-degree. In the case of the death of a person, it is manslaughter.

Answer 7

Unpremeditated?? Or simply accidental?

Answer 8

involuntary manslaughter

Answer 9

negligence

Answer 10

manslaughter or negligent homicide.