Wimp prosecutor?

[The Lurker Below]

This story is about a guy who beat another man to death, as people watched on. According to some eyewitnesses when other people tried to intervene the murderers friends held them back. After three months review the prosecutor finally charged the murderer with involuntary manslaughter. In our judicial system this will be plead out to aggravated assault - no time served, just probation, in order to save the courts and county money.

According to eyewitnesses the attack lasted nearly a full minute. The dead man was unconscious from the first hit. When you continue to beat on an unconscious man, to me, that's at least second degree murder. Then the system creates some degree of manslaughter plea. That actually means a few months time served behind bars. I'm calling our prosecutor a wimp for the poo charges he filed.

So my question is, what kind of sentencing would this crime bring in your jurisdiction?

http://www.kansascity.com/2014/02/21/4839703/independence-man-charged-in-december.html

[Kagemusha]

To me that is manslaughter. Man died because of the violence projected towards him by other individual. The killer did not seem have planned to kill the victim, so it is not a murder. So to me this case was a manslaughter.

[Kadagar_AV]

To me that is manslaughter. Man died because of the violence projected towards him by other individual. The killer did not seem have planned to kill the victim, so it is not a murder. So to me this case was a manslaughter.

Sweden is very lax, but even here that would be second degree murder. First degree murder is if it's planned.

[Beskar]

To me that is manslaughter. Man died because of the violence projected towards him by other individual. The killer did not seem have planned to kill the victim, so it is not a murder. So to me this case was a manslaughter.

Manslaughter would be none-planned circumstances and you ended up dying from the result, it wasn't intended.

If I was laying unconscious on the floor, I am 'already out', continuing now involves going beyond self-defense/punishing/revenge of the moment and goes into the murder category. It also sounds like the individual goes others involved to keep people away from beating this unconscious person to death.

[Kagemusha]

Sweden is very lax, but even here that would be second degree murder. First degree murder is if it's planned.
'
We have very simplified judicial terms terms when it comes to killing people. Maybe it is a language issue? We only have murha = murder, tappo = manslaughter, surma = old term not much used anymore and kuolemantuottamus = involuntary manslaughter.

[Kadagar_AV]

'
We have very simplified judicial terms terms when it comes to killing people. Maybe it is a language issue? We only have murha = murder, tappo = manslaughter, surma = old term not much used anymore and kuolemantuottamus = involuntary manslaughter.

1 degree murder (planned in cold blood)
2 degree murder (unplanned)
manslaughter (You SHOULD have known better)
causing someone else's death (You probably didn't know better)

I think this system makes sense. I guess this COULD be manslaughter, I am absolutely no legal expert. However, if you continue to beat a guy after he is knocked out it sure as hell seem like unplanned murder.

[Kagemusha]

1 degree murder (planned in cold blood)
2 degree murder (unplanned)
manslaughter (You SHOULD have known better)
causing someone else's death (You probably didn't know better)

I think this system makes sense. I guess this COULD be manslaughter, I am absolutely no legal expert. However, if you continue to beat a guy after he is knocked out it sure as hell seem like unplanned murder.

In the terms you are using. I think the 2nd degree sounds right to me. But i am no expert either in legal affairs.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I agree, this sounds more like second degree murder - mainly because he didn't just punch the guy once and then let up.

CR

[Sarmatian]

Without knowing more details, it's hard to classify. It could be a manslaughter, if the intention was just to beat him up real good and it might be be classed as a 2nd degree murder. It's up to the prosecution. Maybe it's better to err on the side of caution in cases such as this.

[ICantSpellDawg]

"Generally, an intention to cause great bodily harm is considered indistinguishable from an intention to kill, as is an act so inherently dangerous that any reasonable person would realize the likelihood of fatality."

Any type of fighting as an adult could so easily result in serious bodily harm or death - we aren't action hero's, people die from falling in the bathtub. Anyone recklessly engaging in an an assault, past the point of consciousness, could be tried for murder (of first or second degree), especially if they were the initial aggressor and/or threats were made. If they were the initial defender, they could get off if their life was in danger, but if that cannot be substantiated (maybe the squabble started as a slap fest and ended as a ground and point to the death) they could go down for manslaughter.

This is why I believe in carrying a gun. I am a little guy with health issues and if a big guy starts attempting to assault me, technology could allow me to overcome his power in order to protect myself from serious bodily harm or death. There is no such thing as a fist fight in adulthood. Obviously this means that I am as timid as can be and look to de-escalate even embarrassing assaults on my character and manliness in order to avoid potentially deadly conflict.

If you are the kind of guy who, armed with a gun, would go after people for the volume of their stereo or because they didn't hold the door, you are an insane person and you should realize that you are no longer in grade school. Healthy firearm carry requires timidity And de-escalation of all conflict even if embarrassing.

[The Lurker Below]

Without knowing more details, it's hard to classify. It could be a manslaughter, if the intention was just to beat him up real good and it might be be classed as a 2nd degree murder. It's up to the prosecution. Maybe it's better to err on the side of caution in cases such as this.

I agree that it's better to err on the side of caution. I am just disappointed with the prosecutor because her role in this err to push for the highest possible conviction, the defense attorney then pushes for the lowest possible conviction, and the judgment (erring on the side of caution) ends up being somewhere in between. This prosecutor failed her role in the process.