quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Voluntary Manslaughter: Definition
Voluntary manslaughter is commonly defined as an intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill, such as a killing that occurs in the "heat of passion." The circumstances leading to the killing must be the kind that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed; otherwise, the killing may be charged as a first-degree or second-degree murder.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. In the heat of the moment, Dan picks up a golf club from next to the bed and strikes Victor in the head, killing him instantly.

Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as: 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. At a stoplight the next day, Dan sees Victor riding in the passenger seat of a nearby car. Dan pulls out a gun and fires three shots into the car, missing Victor but killing the driver of the car.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Pardon me, but BamaD seems to say the old guy's actions were not justified. Unless I missed his post where he clearly stated it was not second degree murder, then I fail to see the argument.

Now each state has different qualifiers, so in terms I am familiar with, here are the facts as I see them.

1) After leaving the area to go retrieve his gun, and not calling the police, he was at the very least guilty of attempted manslaughter.

2) Once he returned and fired his weapon on unarmed people who constituted no threat, it became attempted assault with a deadly weapon, dont matter if it was on his property or not, he was not in any apparent danger.

3) Once he killed someone, he was guilty of at a minimum of manslaughter, 2nd degree murder was a good possibility, and since he went and got his gun, some could make an argument for 1st degree, since if he did not plan to use the gun, he would not have needed it.

Now, I aint a lawyer, never claimed to be, I was a law enforcement officer for a couple of years.

I know if it were on my property, since it is clearly posted, I can order people off the property, if they do not leave, I can call the sheriff, if they make any threatening moves, i can display a firearm and detain them.

Only if they attempt to harm me in any way, in which my life is in jeopardy, can I use deadly force, and then I better have witnesses or at the very least, video evidence that is unaltered (recovered by law enforcement from the recording device) failing that, even God appearing on my behalf would still be a fight to prove I was in the right.

I have both of my properties monitored by private security, my home by my cable provider and the hunting property by a friend who has use of it during hunting season, in lieu of hunting lease fees.

Added to the above is the simple fact that my larger property is useless except for hunting, the state game warden actively patrols it, as well as periodic patrols by the local sheriff.

Now to worry the conspiracy theorists and the "government is out to take our guns and everything" groups, the State Wildlife officers that patrol that area of the county have keys to the main gate, and the gate at the old missile installation, as do the local sheriff.

And all of the above is necessary because it is illegal to put up very tall fences that would keep large predators inside the property in case some idiot ignores the "No Trespassing" signs and gets on the property. I mean large land owners in Africa have that option, without the high fences....

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Pardon me, but BamaD seems to say the old guy's actions were not justified. Unless I missed his post where he clearly stated it was not second degree murder, then I fail to see the argument.

Now each state has different qualifiers, so in terms I am familiar with, here are the facts as I see them.

1) After leaving the area to go retrieve his gun, and not calling the police, he was at the very least guilty of attempted manslaughter.

2) Once he returned and fired his weapon on unarmed people who constituted no threat, it became attempted assault with a deadly weapon, dont matter if it was on his property or not, he was not in any apparent danger.

3) Once he killed someone, he was guilty of at a minimum of manslaughter, 2nd degree murder was a good possibility, and since he went and got his gun, some could make an argument for 1st degree, since if he did not plan to use the gun, he would not have needed it.

Now, I aint a lawyer, never claimed to be, I was a law enforcement officer for a couple of years.

I know if it were on my property, since it is clearly posted, I can order people off the property, if they do not leave, I can call the sheriff, if they make any threatening moves, i can display a firearm and detain them.

Only if they attempt to harm me in any way, in which my life is in jeopardy, can I use deadly force, and then I better have witnesses or at the very least, video evidence that is unaltered (recovered by law enforcement from the recording device) failing that, even God appearing on my behalf would still be a fight to prove I was in the right.

I have both of my properties monitored by private security, my home by my cable provider and the hunting property by a friend who has use of it during hunting season, in lieu of hunting lease fees.

Added to the above is the simple fact that my larger property is useless except for hunting, the state game warden actively patrols it, as well as periodic patrols by the local sheriff.

Now to worry the conspiracy theorists and the "government is out to take our guns and everything" groups, the State Wildlife officers that patrol that area of the county have keys to the main gate, and the gate at the old missile installation, as do the local sheriff.

And all of the above is necessary because it is illegal to put up very tall fences that would keep large predators inside the property in case some idiot ignores the "No Trespassing" signs and gets on the property. I mean large land owners in Africa have that option, without the high fences....

quote:

Pardon me, but BamaD seems to say the old guy's actions were not justified. Unless I missed his post where he clearly stated it was not second degree murder, then I fail to see the argument.

quote:

The shooting was set off by the victim's action regardless of how you view his intent.
None of this negates his guilt but it sure will muddy the waters if they focus on murder.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Pardon me, but BamaD seems to say the old guy's actions were not justified. Unless I missed his post where he clearly stated it was not second degree murder, then I fail to see the argument.

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4508560

Him saying manslaughter is more appropriate.

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4508573

Posting of Missouri second degree law

quote:

The shooting was set off by the victim's action regardless of how you view his intent.
None of this negates his guilt but it sure will muddy the waters if they focus on murder.

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4508592

The "shooter" grabs a gun then shoots at people, including the victim, and its the victim's actions that caused all this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Guy without rock stepping toward angry guy with gun who has already fired shots equates to terminally stupid.

Nope,,, didnt miss it.. I have no issue with it.

I do see a man shooting already at unarmed people. One armed himself after the shots. Another stepped in between to prevent an escalation, and it got worse.

There were two pissed off men... the third....the calm one.... died.

There was no way that was going to calm things down.

And you would have just walked off leaving one with rocks in his hands and the other holding a gun?

I would have had those people back on the boats before he came back with a gun.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Guy without rock stepping toward angry guy with gun who has already fired shots equates to terminally stupid.

Nope,,, didnt miss it.. I have no issue with it.

I do see a man shooting already at unarmed people. One armed himself after the shots. Another stepped in between to prevent an escalation, and it got worse.

There were two pissed off men... the third....the calm one.... died.

There was no way that was going to calm things down.

And you would have just walked off leaving one with rocks in his hands and the other holding a gun?

I would have had those people back on the boats before he came back with a gun.

What happened to your love of SYG?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Pardon me, but BamaD seems to say the old guy's actions were not justified. Unless I missed his post where he clearly stated it was not second degree murder, then I fail to see the argument.

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4508560

Him saying manslaughter is more appropriate.

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4508573

Posting of Missouri second degree law

quote:

The shooting was set off by the victim's action regardless of how you view his intent.
None of this negates his guilt but it sure will muddy the waters if they focus on murder.

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4508592

The "shooter" grabs a gun then shoots at people, including the victim, and its the victim's actions that caused all this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Pardon me, but BamaD seems to say the old guy's actions were not justified. Unless I missed his post where he clearly stated it was not second degree murder, then I fail to see the argument.

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4508560

Him saying manslaughter is more appropriate.

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4508573

Posting of Missouri second degree law

quote:

The shooting was set off by the victim's action regardless of how you view his intent.
None of this negates his guilt but it sure will muddy the waters if they focus on murder.

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4508592

The "shooter" grabs a gun then shoots at people, including the victim, and its the victim's actions that caused all this?

Tazzy, he has said nothing justified the killing, however, if the people would have left the area when they were first told to, which in my opinion, would have been a matter of common sense to do so, would it not?

When told a second time after the shot in the air was fired, and a shot fired in the general direction of one of the party, would it have not been prudent to heed the angry crazy guys words and get the hell out of there?

This clearly indicates there were two opportunities for the party to extract themselves safely from the confrontation, and one for the crazy old guy to come to his senses and call the fucking police like he should have done and not gone hell bent for leather back to the area with a fucking gun.

From my perspective, there is culpability everywhere you look, by not leaving they effectively forced the batshit crazy old guy to so something stupid, by getting his gun, the batshit crazy guy proved he had intent to use the damn thing.

All things considered everyone involved qualifies as terminally stupid and for a Darwin Award. The rafters for not leaving when they had the chance, and the crazy pissed off old guy for getting the gun and not calling 911.

I can see the questions concerning 2nd degree murder, I can also see where a valid argument could be for premeditated murder since the geezer went to get his gun. That, in my opinion, indicates intent to do something, and since it was a gun he grabbed, it sure as hell did not involve no harm.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


Virtually any opinion other than Crocker getting off can be supported.
That or kendoms opinion that the rafters should have beaten Crocker to death.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


Virtually any opinion other than Crocker getting off can be supported.
That or kendoms opinion that the rafters should have beaten Crocker to death.

Would that last be 'vehicular' homicide?

quote:

Tazzy, he has said nothing justified the killing, however, if the people would have left the area when they were first told to, which in my opinion, would have been a matter of common sense to do so, would it not?

quote:

When told a second time after the shot in the air was fired, and a shot fired in the general direction of one of the party, would it have not been prudent to heed the angry crazy guys words and get the hell out of there?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I would have had those people back on the boats before he came back with a gun.

What happened to your love of SYG?

First you complain because I point out extenuating circumstances and now you complain because I am not saying he is totally innocent?
Pick a side but you only get one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Tazzy, he has said nothing justified the killing, however, if the people would have left the area when they were first told to, which in my opinion, would have been a matter of common sense to do so, would it not?

I never said he said the killing was justified.

How did the people know this was the property owner? They didnt.

How did the people know they were on private property? They didnt, in fact, they werent.

So its your contention that anyone can run them off property the public is allowed to access at any time simply because they were told.

Why did they have to retreat?

quote:

When told a second time after the shot in the air was fired, and a shot fired in the general direction of one of the party, would it have not been prudent to heed the angry crazy guys words and get the hell out of there?

Not to sure I would turn my back on someone with a gun, to be honest. Better to stand my ground where I can watch.

quote:

No, it is my contention that if some crazy old guy shows up yelling at me to get off his property or he will do something or he goes to leave saying he will be back, the prudent idea is to get the hell out of there. If there is any chance that the situation might go from merely a yelling match to something that could end up with someone in the hospital or dead, discretion is the better part of valor.

quote:

As you pointed out, the state maintains that part of the shoreline is public access and thus people have the right to use it.

As has been pointed out, property law in reference to the bank of a river is a grey area in the state of Missouri. From what I have been able to learn, there is no clear definition as to where the public right of way ends when it comes to individual property rights.

One neighbor stated the problem was so bad that he basically gave up using the probable reason he bought the property in the first place, the river frontage.

From what I gather, despite the fact that the frontage was in part, public access, the state of Missouri did not make an effort to clean that area clean, leaving it up to the property owners.

I hate cleaning up a mess made by someone else. I dont know anyone that does, even in the groups that adopt a section of the highway.

quote:

So we have a guy that takes pride on how his property looks, stated by one of his neighbors, who has repeatedly cleaned the trash left by inconsiderate assholes who have no respect for something that does not belong to them (a problem all to common in this country) who finally hit his breaking point.

Hell, given that information, some bright gifted legal mind could make an argument for temporary insanity. Hell there are a couple of high dollar lawyers who have been in the news the last few years who would do just that, and maybe even win the case.

quote:

To use your argument, they did not know he was the land owner, but they did not know he wasn't. Furthermore, short of trying to conceal some illegal operation such as a pot field, or meth lab or since it is Missouri, a moon shine still, what conceivable reason would someone have to lie about being the property owner?

quote:

Seriously, give me one good reason to doubt the word of a man claiming to be the property owner telling me to get the hell off his property.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Tazzy, he has said nothing justified the killing, however, if the people would have left the area when they were first told to, which in my opinion, would have been a matter of common sense to do so, would it not?

I never said he said the killing was justified.

How did the people know this was the property owner? They didnt.

How did the people know they were on private property? They didnt, in fact, they werent.

So its your contention that anyone can run them off property the public is allowed to access at any time simply because they were told.

Why did they have to retreat?

quote:

When told a second time after the shot in the air was fired, and a shot fired in the general direction of one of the party, would it have not been prudent to heed the angry crazy guys words and get the hell out of there?

Not to sure I would turn my back on someone with a gun, to be honest. Better to stand my ground where I can watch.

No, it is my contention that if some crazy old guy shows up yelling at me to get off his property or he will do something or he goes to leave saying he will be back, the prudent idea is to get the hell out of there. If there is any chance that the situation might go from merely a yelling match to something that could end up with someone in the hospital or dead, discretion is the better part of valor.

Instead someone or a number of people decided to turn it into a pissing contest, and someone died.

In this situation you have an old guy, maybe a bit on the batshit crazy side, who is tired of cleaning up the mess left on his, or what he perceives is his property by people using the river. His anger basically builds with each incident that he perceives as a violation of his property rights.

As you pointed out, the state maintains that part of the shoreline is public access and thus people have the right to use it.

As has been pointed out, property law in reference to the bank of a river is a grey area in the state of Missouri. From what I have been able to learn, there is no clear definition as to where the public right of way ends when it comes to individual property rights.

One neighbor stated the problem was so bad that he basically gave up using the probable reason he bought the property in the first place, the river frontage.

From what I gather, despite the fact that the frontage was in part, public access, the state of Missouri did not make an effort to clean that area clean, leaving it up to the property owners.

I hate cleaning up a mess made by someone else. I dont know anyone that does, even in the groups that adopt a section of the highway.

So we have a guy that takes pride on how his property looks, stated by one of his neighbors, who has repeatedly cleaned the trash left by inconsiderate assholes who have no respect for something that does not belong to them (a problem all to common in this country) who finally hit his breaking point.

Hell, given that information, some bright gifted legal mind could make an argument for temporary insanity. Hell there are a couple of high dollar lawyers who have been in the news the last few years who would do just that, and maybe even win the case.

Now to put it bluntly, someone tells me to get off their land, unless I know for a fact they are not the land owner, I am going to leave.

To use your argument, they did not know he was the land owner, but they did not know he wasn't. Furthermore, short of trying to conceal some illegal operation such as a pot field, or meth lab or since it is Missouri, a moon shine still, what conceivable reason would someone have to lie about being the property owner?

Add to that, if it is drug related, we would not be discussing an old guy shooting one person, we would be discussing the multiple murders or the fact a group of people rafting down a river in Missouri went missing.

Seriously, give me one good reason to doubt the word of a man claiming to be the property owner telling me to get the hell off his property.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Tazzy, he has said nothing justified the killing, however, if the people would have left the area when they were first told to, which in my opinion, would have been a matter of common sense to do so, would it not?

I never said he said the killing was justified.

How did the people know this was the property owner? They didnt.

How did the people know they were on private property? They didnt, in fact, they werent.

So its your contention that anyone can run them off property the public is allowed to access at any time simply because they were told.

Why did they have to retreat?

quote:

When told a second time after the shot in the air was fired, and a shot fired in the general direction of one of the party, would it have not been prudent to heed the angry crazy guys words and get the hell out of there?

Not to sure I would turn my back on someone with a gun, to be honest. Better to stand my ground where I can watch.

quote:

One AM I was on my porch an a guy came sneaking up on me along the bushes.
By what you just said I needed to find the deed to my house before he needed to leave my property.
He claimed to be a drug dealer making a delivery.
Every time he spoke he used it to work closer to me.
I "persuaded" him to leave, last I saw of him he was running down the street yelling 'I didn't mean no harm".
By your explanation until I produced a deed he had no reason to leave, this would have gotten him shot because my gun was in my hand but out of site.