so, get this.
in the court of law, it’s very important to understand heavily that there are laws for everything. what you eat, drink, sleep, dream, it’s all incorporated into a law in one way or another. without it, there would be unstoppable and illogical mayhem and chaos.
the extent of the laws go as far as a person being alive to a person that took their last breath, and i can’t tell you how extreme they can go.
you’ve been collecting empty alcohol bottles because you and your best friend are going to go out to the desert and shoot them. you’re experienced so it’s not like it’s anything dangerous.
once you get there, you’ve had a few beers, nothing out of the ordinary, but then your friend wants to make a post on social media, so jokingly, he gets in front of you, you’re holding the gun and their phone ready to take a picture. all of a sudden you lose your grip, and your friend pitched the idea so suddenly that you completely forgot to turn off the safety. so your finger, in an attempt to tighten your grip the phone, accidentally mimetically tightens the action on the gun, and you fire it directly at your friend, shooting them in the chest, killing them.
what did you commit?
this is where the law comes into play, because we have to decide what type of offense you committed.
did your act cause the person’s death? yes.
did the death occur during the commission of a crime? you wouldn’t say yes because you weren’t actually committing a crime. so then you’d have to ask, did you have intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm or recklessly disregard great risk to human life? now, here’s the question, because no you didn’t have intent, but you did recklessly disregard the risk to human life in general. damn, all because of a useless snapchat.
so, the answer is yes.
from there, we have to figure out if the act was in response to adequate provocation which basically means, was there time in between the killing. did you go to the store, give yourself time to think, or make a long timelapse in between the killing and what you were doing beforehand? well, i mean, i guess not since there was no time that took place between when it happened and how. so, since the answer is no, did you act with criminal negligence?
remember what negligence is; duty, breach, causation, and damages.
your duty was to, if anything, put the safety on the gun so it could not go off mistakenly. then, since you did not, you breached that duty. in conclusion, you’ve caused a death of a person, and, of course, the damages are inevitable. so, did you act with criminal negligence? the answer would be yes.
after all of this, it becomes involuntary manslaughter.
that’s only one of four categories for death.
voluntary manslaughter, which would mean that in spite of everything that occurred within the event, you had a lapse of time in between when you killed him to what happened next, or possibly before.
then we have murder, which would be if you recklessly disregarded great risk to human life, but you did not have adequate provocation. because, even still, you disregarded the risk to human life.
now let’s say you didn’t recklessly disregard risk, but you did not act with criminal negligence either.
now we have no homicide liability, but, unfortunately, in this instance, that would never be a plea or appeal you could rightfully and logically try to defend.
understanding the levels of killing is about as crucial as understanding the laws set in place for literally everything else a person does while they’re living.
and with that, i must go again, because i can’t talk too much about murder, or else someone may get an idea… because, (shonda rimes Scandal intro plays in the background) there’s always a way……
to get away with murder.