1.First and foremost, threat has to be imminent. Killing someone when you are not in fight or flight/self dense mode, is second degree murder. IF the defense could convince a jury it was accidental, then it may be reduced to third degree/manslaughter. However that's not always the way it goes. Looking at many modern Castle Doctrine cases - you would receive second degree murder as it was not accidental (you could have avoided it, done something different as there was no imminent threat), however it was not premeditated.
Killing someone whom you know, were married to/had a relationship with and who you confronted face to face before pulling the trigger while they were unarmed and defense-less, is most likely not accidental. And the problem with using "Battered Woman Syndrome" by the defense is that it can only be applied by the defendant first admitting to the killing. Now consider that the defendant not only took responsibility for it, they also confessed that it was also intentional. This would be extremely risky and a move most defense attorneys would avoid if possible. The defendant already lost manslaughter options, and at a minimum is facing second degree - that's IF they have a sympathetic judge/jury.
A good prosecutor would then identify the key points of the relationship, pointing out the past domestic violence as a catalyst and a motive for the shooting.
Furthermore, the prosecutor would show that defendant was spiteful, vindictive and sadistic in that they manipulated the scene (making the victim his favorite meal) by luring the victim, and then taunted them before killing them in a very personal, close encounter which was completely unnecessary and unprovoked at that time. Finally, a prosecution would end the their statement by reminding the judge/jury of how callous the defendant was in the sharing of the events - exhibiting an uncanny arrogance in that they wouldn't be going to prison for murder.
In an appropriate non media kangaroo court room, this would be a shut and close case of intentional homicide of the highest nature.
As for your comment on past cases - you'd have to be specific. We know that while they are the exceptions and not the rule, it is happening more often where women are being handed reduced sentences by female judges who cannot properly interpret the law and/or have a personal bias in the case. And while that is an issue on it's own, I am not surprised that many of women defendants are being advised to admit to voluntary manslaughter in order to have a quick trial and not risk further penalty such as second/first degree. The courts like it because it's quick and the media likes it because it's a win for women (in some twisted way).
However it's still a shortcut and is a perfect example of a legal system at work, instead of a justice system at work. It's politics, not principle.
2. In a high pressure situation where a firearm is involved, unnecessarily adding another human element and/or weapon to the scenario would be considered wreckless endangerment. Use a simple example - if there's a fight in the street that results in the brandishing of weapons, though no firing has taken place (say it's a matter of posturing), and then you as a third party go grab a gun, return to the scene and in doing so, the violence escalates, you can be sure that you will be getting charged.
If for you not taking such action, things may have not reached a point where someone was shot/and or killed.
Additionally a good prosecutor would be able to show that the individual is also a potential accomplice, as she has a relationship(one bordering romantic or at least 'involved') with the defendant whom would in this case be Rayland. Now, whether that would stick is up for debate, though the point is that she certainly wouldn't go without being questioned at a minimum about her involvement.
Both of these very real incidents get completely glossed over and they act as if she is the victim and had no other choice.
3.I did not express concern that two past lovers are incapable of still being friendly or caring for one another. What I said was, when you break into someone's home in the middle of the night, and no one seems to mind, how is that realistic? And furthermore, they seem to be further OK with you sticking around to lay out some story which they listen to in it's entirety not once seeming aggravated or irate over your action(s)? No, 9/10 you would have been run off by the husband or had the police called.
This was a ridiculous scene setup so they could introduce a character flaw of him being an angry individual.
Thank you for responding, though it looks as if the viewer has to wear TV tinted glasses or adopt Hollyweird beliefs on what is actually realism, in order to enjoy or stomach the show.
reply
share
DrZaat
9 years ago
"[T]he problem with using "Battered Woman Syndrome" by the defense is that it can only be applied by the defendant first admitting to the killing. Now consider that the defendant not only took responsibility for it, they also confessed that it was also intentional. This would be extremely risky and a move most defense attorneys would avoid if possible. The defendant already lost manslaughter options, and at a minimum is facing second degree...."
The first result of an internet search [http://sixthformlaw.info/01_modules/mod3a/3_31_voluntary/03_vol_mans_dim_res_bws.htm] notes several women who were found not guilty via arguments of being battered and of resultant diminished capacity or had their charges reduced to manslaughter and time served. I imagine that a thorough search would have uncovered more such cases.
"[T]he prosecutor would show that defendant was spiteful, vindictive and sadistic in that they manipulated the scene (making the victim his favorite meal) by luring the victim...."
That's an assumption which would need to be proven. It could just as well be that cooking his favorite meal was simply another in a long line of vain attempts to appease her brutal husband. However, watching him begin to eat, she realized that, no matter what she cooked for him, no matter what she did to try to please him, his vicious beatings of her would only end when her life ended--or his. In that moment, she snapped, grabbed the gun, and shot her violent tormenter.
"...it is happening more often where women are being handed reduced sentences by female judges who cannot properly interpret the law and/or have a personal bias in the case."
This is ludicrous, and perhaps says more about you than about the judges in such cases.
As for your second point, again, the circumstances look quite different to me [and certainly bear little resemblance to your hypothetical street encounter]. Boyd entered Ava's house[!], armed and with violent intent. Clearly, Ava was under duress when she called Raylan and invited him over--at the prompting of an armed Boyd. I don't know about you, but if an armed man threatening violence entered my home and got the drop on me, I would be looking for an opportunity to turn things around. The opportunity arose when Boyd, intent on forcing Raylan to respond to Boyd's stacked challenge, left Ava able to grab the rifle. Instead of shooting Boyd immediately--which clearly would have been "justified," she covered him with the weapon, leaving no choice for a "reasonable" man but to back down. Boyd's hubris would not allow him to do so, thus he went for his gun and Raylan shot him. It would take a seriously twisted interpretation of the facts to find Ava or Raylan culpable for the result.
As for number three, I find it humorous that Boyd's intrusion into Ava's home counts for nothing with you, but Raylan's entering of Winonoa's home is such a big deal. I can think of people whose entrance into my home in the middle of the night would be recognized by me as a sign that something was deeply troubling them and would elicit some measure of compassion on my part. Such a reaction is certainly not unthinkable, nor restricted to the realm of "Hollyweird."
However, I feel like I'm wasting my time. You seem to have your mind made up. I fear that Justified is not for you, and that you would not enjoy it. Go ahead and find something else.
reply
share
Justice68
9 years ago
All you found was a few exceptions to the rule. Though I wouldn't be surprised it becomes more popular. As I said, more and more cases are mishandled and laws misinterpreted by power tripping and biased judges. Does the controversial behavior and decisions of the SCOTUS in the last decade ring a bell?
Or how about in other countries that have taken liberalism too far and up with ludicrous results such as this :
http://www.nationalturk.com/en/susan-falls-found-not-guilty-of-murdering-husband-on-a-current-affair-73042345
"That's an assumption which would need to be proven. It could just as well be that cooking his favorite meal was simply another in a long line of vain attempts to appease her brutal husband. However, watching him begin to eat, she realized that, no matter what she cooked for him, no matter what she did to try to please him, his vicious beatings of her would only end when her life ended--or his. In that moment, she snapped, grabbed the gun, and shot her violent tormenter. "
What planet do you live on where you think that's acceptable? If that was the actual case, then the prosecutor would absolutely ruin her and nail a first degree murder sentence.
You can't just kill people because of past transgressions. You also conveniently skipped over the comments about imminent threat.
"As for your second point, again, the circumstances look quite different to me [and certainly bear little resemblance to your hypothetical street encounter]. Boyd entered Ava's house[!], armed and with violent intent. Clearly, Ava was under duress when she called Raylan and invited him over--at the prompting of an armed Boyd. I don't know about you, but if an armed man threatening violence entered my home and got the drop on me, I would be looking for an opportunity to turn things around."
Much like the aforementioned domestic murder cases being wrongly reduced to manslaughter, another great example of a legal system replacing the just system, is when Castle Doctrine gets twisted around and used against the home owner. In your scenario, there's a great chance you'd be facing some serious heat if you were found to have fired first without 100% proof that there was imminent threat. A man sitting at your table, with a gun is a case of armed invasion. A man sitting at your table with a gun held to your head and confirmed threats, is armed assault.
"The opportunity arose when Boyd, intent on forcing Raylan to respond to Boyd's stacked challenge, left Ava able to grab the rifle. Instead of shooting Boyd immediately--which clearly would have been "justified,"
Oh you think so? You seen how the police are treated these days in regards to firing on civilians? At no point did Rayland ask Boyd to put away the firearm, heck he didn't even announce himself as an officer and state his business at the home. Rayland tried to handle it in his own way, and maybe it would have deescalated the situation and Boyd left. That didn't happen did it..and why? Because the silly girl grabbed a shotgun, with the same arrogance that she shot her husband and then forced an escalation. It was now Boyd who was fearing for his safety and there was more imminent threat to him than there was to her. She had the gun armed, aimed and pointed at him.
"As for number three, I find it humorous that, I find it humorous that Boyd's intrusion into Ava's home counts for nothing with you, but Raylan's entering of Winonoa's home is such a big deal. I can think of people whose entrance into my home in the middle of the night would be recognized by me as a sign that something was deeply troubling them and would elicit some measure of compassion on my part. Such a reaction is certainly not unthinkable, nor restricted to the realm of "Hollyweird."
Boyd's intrusion doesn't mean any thing to me. It wasn't signficant in any way. The two have nothing to do with one another.
1. Rayland entered Winonoa's home - breaking and entering.
2. He did it in the middle of the night - how wise is that, especially for an officer of the law? Shouldn't he know better. Did he want to get attacked or shot?
3. They are divorced..for a reason, there's nothing presented to the audience that indicates they have any type of after-divorce relationship.
4. In the end the scene was a ridiculous effort to shoe horn in a revelation that his character is 'angry' or has some flaw. Crap writing.
It's good of you to respond, however you're wrong about every thing. You need to brush up on your knowledge of law and quit thinking the junk on TV is how it really goes down.
And I was looking for a more objective view point. Clearly you're so invested in the show, your willing to try and explain a warped version of reality to solve it's short comings.
reply
share