![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Jan. 14th, 2010 04:39 pmStolen from Postbourgie: The accused in the killing of George Tiller is being allowed to attempt to construct a "voluntary manslaughter" defense.
George Tiller was the doctor who was shot in the foyer of his church by an anti-abortion activist. The prosecution had asked the judge to rule that the defense not be allowed to use the "voluntary manslaughter" defense, which is quoted as being "the honest but unreasonable belief" that the force used was necessary in defense of another person.
(Actually I'm not sure what that means - is that carte blanche to go and shoot someone you believe to be (for example) stalking your brother with intent to kill them? Or just stalking them? Just curious. Or is it more if you managed to accidentally kill someone while trying to stop them attacking someone else? Wouldn't that just be manslaughter? This legislation has me confused. Actually the postbourgie article defines it better, and it seems more like the "Provocation" defence which was recently chucked out here, not least because of the Julie Ramage case.)
I'm not sure that this defense could be used for "the unborn" - are "the unborn" a legal entity in Kansas? - in order to plead guilty to a lesser charge, but apparently the judge has said that "he could envision a scenario in which the accused tried to make a case on the less severe law".
So can I - hell, 5 years compared to life imprisonment makes it worth giving it a go - but I somehow can't see it being used successfully in (for hypothetical example - yes, I know military law is completely different, but go with me here OK?) the case of the recent Fort Bragg shootings. Trying to protect the innocent living in Afghanistan? Probably not a goer.
It will be interesting to see if it succeeds though. For starters it'll take off in Kansas like nothing else as the defense of first resort.
George Tiller was the doctor who was shot in the foyer of his church by an anti-abortion activist. The prosecution had asked the judge to rule that the defense not be allowed to use the "voluntary manslaughter" defense, which is quoted as being "the honest but unreasonable belief" that the force used was necessary in defense of another person.
(Actually I'm not sure what that means - is that carte blanche to go and shoot someone you believe to be (for example) stalking your brother with intent to kill them? Or just stalking them? Just curious. Or is it more if you managed to accidentally kill someone while trying to stop them attacking someone else? Wouldn't that just be manslaughter? This legislation has me confused. Actually the postbourgie article defines it better, and it seems more like the "Provocation" defence which was recently chucked out here, not least because of the Julie Ramage case.)
I'm not sure that this defense could be used for "the unborn" - are "the unborn" a legal entity in Kansas? - in order to plead guilty to a lesser charge, but apparently the judge has said that "he could envision a scenario in which the accused tried to make a case on the less severe law".
So can I - hell, 5 years compared to life imprisonment makes it worth giving it a go - but I somehow can't see it being used successfully in (for hypothetical example - yes, I know military law is completely different, but go with me here OK?) the case of the recent Fort Bragg shootings. Trying to protect the innocent living in Afghanistan? Probably not a goer.
It will be interesting to see if it succeeds though. For starters it'll take off in Kansas like nothing else as the defense of first resort.
