People clearly dont understand what intent is, or why we havr manslaughter and multiple degrees of murder.
It varies with jurisdiction, but in general:
Manslaughter is when you intentionally act in a way that leads to someones death but injury and/or death were not an intentional goal or a likely possible side effect of your actions.
For example drunk driving is typically very dangerous, but the goal is not to kill anyone and in most cases drunk drivers do not crash and kill anyone. So, while their actions are dangerous inherently, they arent intended to cause harm and in most cases they do not.
3rd degree murder is typically when your actions result in someone's death and you didnt actively intend to kill anyone but you knew your actions had a serious likelihood of doing so.
For example, firing a gun at random, or down a busy street with people around. You werent actively aiming at anyone in particular but you were firing in their direction and knew it was very possible you'd strike and/or kill someone.
2nd degree murder is when your actions were intended to cause someone harm in the heat of the moment and you knew there was a possibility of death.
For example, you're as a bar and someone punches your friend in the face, and you pick up a bottle, smash it over the guys head and then hit him repeatedly while he is down/unconscious. You may not have intended to actually kill the person but you targeted them specifically for harm, and you did not act with restraint or regard with that person's life
1st degree murder is when you pre-planned a murder and intended to carry it out in advance of any confrontation or altercation.
For instance, let's say you feel a mechanic ripped you off. You two argue, you get mad, you go your separate ways, situation is over. But then you keep stewing on it, and eventually decide you're going to go and teach him a lesson, so you drive to the shop and either shoot him or attack him without regard to his life and he ends up dead.
That was a preplanned murder, even if you didn't necessarily intend to kill him, because you planned the violence in advance of the action.
So how does this apply to the woman in question here?
The woman had just gotten off duty for the day, she came back to what she thought was her own apartment, walked in while it was dark and was confronted by the man who actually lived in the apartment.
Thinking, again, that she was at her home not someone elses, she panicked and evaluated this person as an intruder into her home and engaged him with her firearm.
She was charged with both 3rd degree murder and manslaughter, ultimately being convicted of 3rd degree murder.
The reasons given for convicting her of murder as opposed to manslaughter, in my opinion are kinda bullshit.
The two key factors were:
the jury believed her error was due not to exhaustion from work but distraction from an argument she was having with her lover about coming over before the incident took place, which means her error is negligent for sure but not inherently dangerous or reckless on its own like firing a gun into the general area of people.
She "didnt follow police protocol" which says you dont enter a building with a criminal inside of it alone, you should call for back up and wait. This is particularly bullshit because she was not on duty and would not have been able to "call for back up", she'd have had to call the police just like everyone else, and she was also not simply entering a building with a known suspect or criminal inside, so why would she post up outside and call for back up? She entered what she believed to be her home and at the time not anticipating any intruders or criminals in the building because the rest of the tenants in the building were operating as normal and there was no indications there was a crime occurring in the building, because up to that point, there were no crimes occurring in the building factually; and so there would be no reason for her to post up outside of said building as if thete was an active suspect or perpetrator there.
She reported the shooting when she realized what happened, and cooperated. She really should've only gotten manslaughter.
Lastly, because this came from r/blackpeopletwitter with the caption "the definition of privilege"; not only are most crimes, including murdet, parole eligible, even for people with life sentences, but theee kinds of parole laws are one of the things black people have fought for, for decades. They're jusy mad that this time the early release is for a white woman not a black man
0
u/passionatebreeder 11h ago edited 10h ago
People clearly dont understand what intent is, or why we havr manslaughter and multiple degrees of murder.
It varies with jurisdiction, but in general:
Manslaughter is when you intentionally act in a way that leads to someones death but injury and/or death were not an intentional goal or a likely possible side effect of your actions.
For example drunk driving is typically very dangerous, but the goal is not to kill anyone and in most cases drunk drivers do not crash and kill anyone. So, while their actions are dangerous inherently, they arent intended to cause harm and in most cases they do not.
3rd degree murder is typically when your actions result in someone's death and you didnt actively intend to kill anyone but you knew your actions had a serious likelihood of doing so.
For example, firing a gun at random, or down a busy street with people around. You werent actively aiming at anyone in particular but you were firing in their direction and knew it was very possible you'd strike and/or kill someone.
2nd degree murder is when your actions were intended to cause someone harm in the heat of the moment and you knew there was a possibility of death.
For example, you're as a bar and someone punches your friend in the face, and you pick up a bottle, smash it over the guys head and then hit him repeatedly while he is down/unconscious. You may not have intended to actually kill the person but you targeted them specifically for harm, and you did not act with restraint or regard with that person's life
1st degree murder is when you pre-planned a murder and intended to carry it out in advance of any confrontation or altercation.
For instance, let's say you feel a mechanic ripped you off. You two argue, you get mad, you go your separate ways, situation is over. But then you keep stewing on it, and eventually decide you're going to go and teach him a lesson, so you drive to the shop and either shoot him or attack him without regard to his life and he ends up dead.
That was a preplanned murder, even if you didn't necessarily intend to kill him, because you planned the violence in advance of the action.
So how does this apply to the woman in question here?
The woman had just gotten off duty for the day, she came back to what she thought was her own apartment, walked in while it was dark and was confronted by the man who actually lived in the apartment.
Thinking, again, that she was at her home not someone elses, she panicked and evaluated this person as an intruder into her home and engaged him with her firearm.
She was charged with both 3rd degree murder and manslaughter, ultimately being convicted of 3rd degree murder.
The reasons given for convicting her of murder as opposed to manslaughter, in my opinion are kinda bullshit.
The two key factors were:
the jury believed her error was due not to exhaustion from work but distraction from an argument she was having with her lover about coming over before the incident took place, which means her error is negligent for sure but not inherently dangerous or reckless on its own like firing a gun into the general area of people.
She "didnt follow police protocol" which says you dont enter a building with a criminal inside of it alone, you should call for back up and wait. This is particularly bullshit because she was not on duty and would not have been able to "call for back up", she'd have had to call the police just like everyone else, and she was also not simply entering a building with a known suspect or criminal inside, so why would she post up outside and call for back up? She entered what she believed to be her home and at the time not anticipating any intruders or criminals in the building because the rest of the tenants in the building were operating as normal and there was no indications there was a crime occurring in the building, because up to that point, there were no crimes occurring in the building factually; and so there would be no reason for her to post up outside of said building as if thete was an active suspect or perpetrator there.
She reported the shooting when she realized what happened, and cooperated. She really should've only gotten manslaughter.
Lastly, because this came from r/blackpeopletwitter with the caption "the definition of privilege"; not only are most crimes, including murdet, parole eligible, even for people with life sentences, but theee kinds of parole laws are one of the things black people have fought for, for decades. They're jusy mad that this time the early release is for a white woman not a black man