Meanwhile in Minnesota

Then say that you consider it life with his age beforehand. Second degree murder carries a maximum penalty of 40 years in Minnesota. As far as the outcome is concerned, most likely he'll get what is essentially life in prison, but legally it's almost impossible that he will unless the charges get upped to first-degree

Heat of passion is a state of mind. Simply because immediate danger is gone doesn't mean a person's mental state immediately changes. The comments he made after the fact in interviews and statements do not necessarily represent exactly what he was thinking; he could just as well be rationalizing the actions he took that he wasn't actually thinking about when he did them. He obviously had intent, that being one of the requirements for voluntary manslaughter.

 

Too lazy to correct all of that. I'm sure that his lawyer will use that argument as well and fail.

 

People have gotten off worse charges with shittier defenses.

 

Just because it can happen doesn't mean it will. We expect the trial to be just and all furry feeling.

 

Honestly, this case is more of a pro argument for liberal gun laws than against. Who wants to be defenseless when some burglars chase you into your own basement.

 

Likewise, just because it might not happen doesn't mean it won't. I didn't say he's guaranteed to reduce both charges to voluntary manslaughter, I said that there's a good chance of it.

 

The "Twinkie defense" that you're referred clearly states in the first passage that it's based off a misunderstanding of the defendant's argument. The argument was used to convince the jury that he had no intent to kill (hence, it went directly from premeditated first-degree to manslaughter).

In this recent case, the guy is bragging about wanting to make sure that the teens were dead (i.e. intent to kill). You can argue that he has a more deep, complex mental issue (and it usually only prevents the death penalty), but "diminished mind" or "heat of the moment" arguments are out of the window.

 

because what i do when i hear gun shots is go down the stairs where my friend went but hasnt come back up from

this story is 100% true isaw it on the internet

 

Exactly. He has intent to kill. Which is why voluntary manslaughter is possible. INvoluntary manslaughter requires that there was no intent. Intent is only about intending to kill someone, regardless of whether it was unprovoked or done during heat of passion.

And the Twinkie defense comment was me pointing out that people have used stupider defenses to evade worse charges.

 

But is it still passion when you're going for 'a good clean finishing shot'?

There's a reason that people tell you to 'take a walk' when you're angry. Emotions (read: passion) are caused by chemicals which stop being released as time goes on. Sitting in a chair waiting to kill someone else sounds like time to chill.

That doesn't make it any less fallacious...

 

Do you know that there is something between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter? The comments that intent to kill means voluntary manslaughter are very puzzling, especially when voluntary manslaughter usually implies NO intent to kill.

 

I think we can agree that there was no premeditation, but he intended to kill. So we're looking at 2nd degree murder or manslaughter. I think the difference between those is the effect of passion.

Being burglarized might put someone a little off their game. And since this guy obviously had some prior anxieties about his security, I'm not sure his lethal actions didn't occur as a result of incredible stress.

So is the stress of home invasion enough to cause significant mental disturbance?

 

And his actions during the killings and explanation of a carefree executions tells us that he was not anxieties at all during the execution. I don't think you guys are reading the same article. What COULD of have happened for voluntary manslaughter and what the shooter is admitting himself in the article are incompatible.

 

If I am sitting in my basement with the knowledge that there is a person that just broke into my house and the idea that they might have a weapon with them, personally I would not be chilling out. Sitting in a chair for a few minutes does not lessen the tension of a situation, if anything it increases it when fear and doubt begin to set in.

He said he was sure that the lawyer would argue voluntary manslaughter and would fail. I was pointing out that it's improbable that anyone could be absolutely certain as to what would happen, by referencing another case where someone made an argument that many people thought was bad, but still was considered good enough to reduce first degree down to manslaughter. I apologize if that wasn't clear.

First degree murder means it was planned ahead of time. Second degree murder means there was intent, it was unprovoked and not premeditated. Voluntary manslaughter means that there was intent to kill, but it was due to provocation or happened during heat of passion/irresistible impulse. Intent to kill does not rule out voluntary manslaughter, it includes it. Involuntary manslaughter means there was no intent, which is what you're thinking of.

Then we deal with that the only source of information is the shooter himself, clearly an unreliable narrator. His remarks aren't necessarily what he thought at the time, they could just as well be what he thinks about his actions.

The end result is that we're arguing law when the only information available isn't even reliable.

 

Fixed that for you.

First, he is describing the incidents with a clear impression that he was fine and within lawful bounds to finish them off. Either we aren't reading the same story or we just have dramatically different interpretations of his own words.

Secondly, and most importantly, why the fuck would you discount the ONLY SOURCE that is making the case AGAINST HIMSELF. Common sense tells us that, at minimum, you should at least take the criminal own's admissions at face value. It's like Bob Marley telling us that he killed the deputy and you're like "well he was the shooter himself, we obviously can't treat his confession as a reliable source."

Your "theorycrafting" makes more sense now that you told us you took out all of the facts from the story.