To bad umkay is so busy with her threads to post here.
Not guilty. If the story is accurate no there is no guilt.
Factually, that’s not entirely true. The Constitution gives you the right, as a juror, to vote not only on the facts of the law, but also your conscience with regard to the law itself. The concept is called Jury Nullification. www.fija.org
“As a layman, I also have no way of actually knowing how severe your injuries actually are or if they’re survivable. As I’m not omniscient, I have no way of knowing how long it will or won’t take help to arrive.”
“And they have asked you for help in ending it.” Based on their likewise incomplete knowledge. If the neighbor’s decision was medically informed, it would be one thing, but in your scenario, the neighbor is injured with no way of knowing whether her injuries are life threatening. All she really knows is that she’s in pain and immobilized. The fact that she’s asking the first person she sees to kill her rather than to get help would have made me think she wasn’t of thinking straight (understandable, given the pain and the sudden shock of the accident) and would make me more sure that grabbing the gun and shooting her was the wrong thing to do.
Looking at the scenario as a juror rather than as the defendent, there’s not enough information to reach a verdict. I’m assuming there were no witnesses other than the defendent. Does the prosecution buy his story? If not, what’s their version of it? Was there any motive for him to want his neighbor dead? Does all the evidence support Jack’s story? What’s the exact definition of murder under the applicable laws? Would manslaughter describe the scenario better? (If so, woudl convicting Jack of the lesser crime be an option?) What arguments were presented for and against Jack’s guilt?
Since there are too many questions unanswered to be able to come up with a serious legal verdict, the poll really just boils down to “Do you think Jack was in the right to shoot Jill?” As I said above, he was not.
This should probably be its own thread but I agree with Homie on this one. I wouldn’t find someone guilty of a law I felt was unjust.
What makes you such an expert on whether someone is going to die? If I told you someone just got shot kn the back of the head at close range with a standard -caliber handgun (ie, not a 22), I’d bet you’d say they were definitely going to die. But Gabby Gifford’s is alive now.
Guilty of something but not 2nd degree murder. There is typically a “malicious intent” element to 2nd degree murder in most states and I see that as wholly lacking here. Manslaughter or something of that nature, absolutely. I wouldn’t be happy to vote guilty, but as a juror my job is to come to a verdict under the law. But yeah, the 2nd Degree Murder charge is absolutely inappropriate at least in my home state:
He shouldn’t have shot her like that. He should have fired a warning shot first, just to let her know he was serious. Then, if it absolutely couldn’t be helped, he should have tried to shoot her in the leg or something, just to disable her long enough for him to get away.
Under the law, he’s guilty.
I believe in jury nullification, however, and would acquit anyway.
Nope - he shot her then called … Phones are up - it sounds as if he never checked - what now?
Guilty
In NY he’s not guilty of second degree murder, so presuming not presented with other lesser charges, than not guilty.
Here in order for it to be second-degree murder it either has to happen during the commission of a felony (no), displayed depraved in difference to human life (no) or intentionally causes the death of another person (yes).
However, there are two exceptions. One is if the defendant acted “under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse” which I think would be an easy case for his lawyer to make OR “defendant’s conduct consisted of causing or aiding, without the use of duress or deception, another person to commit suicide” which might also be a legitimate argument.
Note in that case he’d be on the hook for second-degree manslaughter. I’m not saying Jack acted appropriately, (he should have called 911) and isn’t guilty of something, but if he did it in NY it isn’t second-degree murder if I’m on the jury.
Assuming it can be proven that she was caught up in the machine before he ever got there, I would say not guilty of murder. Guilty of manslaughter though.
What are the judge’s instructions for the elements of second degree murder?
For Jack, this isn’t a theoretical “will someone caught in a thresher die?” question, he’s right there, looking at the severity of the injury, and knows how long an ambulance will take to get there. Gabby Giffords was shot in an area where life saving efforts could begin quite quickly, and “shot in the head” could mean anything from a graze, to having half your brain liquified.
I’d probably have to decide for myself given the evidence whether I thought there was a chance in hell for Jill to live through her accident. No chance in hell means I try to excuse him of the shooting by any means possible. Other crimes, (let’s say an illegal weapon) he’ll have to pay for. A reasonable chance to live, I think he’s got to be convicted.
This is a hypothetical. Every aspect of the hypothetical is specified in such a way as to preclude the possibility of survival. It is entirely possible for such a scenario to exist in real life. A situation in which you know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the person asking you to euthanize them will, in fact, die. You have no way to prevent their death. They are in agony.
Let’s drop the hypothetical and state that any reasonable person would come to the conclusion that Jill is going to die from her injury. You can not prevent it. Your options do not include saving her life or waiting for anyone else to. Jill is going to die by your hand, or suffer excruciating pain for several hours and die anyway.
Does your opinion change under those circumstances, or not?
You are asking a different question than the OP asked. The OP asked whether or not the guy was guilty, not what I would do in the situation.
I said “guilty” because he obviously intentionally killed someone (I was assuming there’s no exception in the law like that pointed out above re: assisting someone to commit suicide). I’m really not sure what I would actually do in that situation.
Okay, I’m asking a different question than the OP asked. Will you answer it?
Edit: I glossed over your non-answer of “I don’t know what I would do.” Of course you don’t. None of us know what we would actually do. Surely you could come up with a philosphical answer to what you think is the right thing to do under those circumstances.
No, I can’t actually. I’m not into talking about “right” and “wrong” as if those terms were divorced from what I would do in the situation. When I read someone say “x is the right thing to do,” I mentally translate that as “I would do x in that situation.”
So, with your hypo, I really don’t know what I would do. I would really need all of the facts that I would know in a real situation to be able to really think about it as if it were a real situation.
Also, the big difference between a hypo and the real world is that in the real world it is never possible to be 100% certain x is true (where x is “help can’t arrive in time” or “the person will die”). Saying “assume it is 100% the case that x is true” doesn’t even really make the hypo easier to answer–it’s like saying “assume water isn’t wet.” You are taking a fundamental part of reality (i.e., uncertainty) and not allowing me to consider it. I don’t see how this helps anything.
I don’t think I’m fighting the hypo here, I’m just demonstrating how thinking about a hypo isn’t sufficient for me to feel like I’m really in that situation and need to make a decision.
Based on the evidence provided I’d contribute to a hung jury.
I’m still trying to figure out what farm equipment one can use during an emergency ice storm that can get one mauled so seriously.
I voted not guilty. Jack may be guilty of something, but it doesn’t sound like second-degree murder to me so if that’s the charge then I don’t think he’s guilty.
I just tried to check the legal definition of manslaughter in my state, and was rather surprised to learn that it isn’t defined in my state – we’re one of eight where manslaughter is a common law crime and is not defined by statute.