Why Is sonya massey Trending Today?

It doesn’t even have to be that long after, manslaughter or 3rd degree in most jurisdictions usually means you didn’t intend to kill someone but you too actions that a reasonable person knows could potentially result in death. 2nd degree is heat of the moment or what might be called blind rage or crime of passion but can always apply to cases of unintentional homicide with malice. You walked in on your spouse cheating and grabbed the nearest object and hit them on the head would be heat of the moment but going to get your gun from the safe would make it premeditated. In the other case randomly shooting a gun off or speeding through a parade but not intentionally targeting anyone are second degree murder. Actions that will almost certainly result in death but aren’t taken with the intent to kill someone.

> Actions that will almost certainly result in death but aren’t taken with the intent to kill someone. There was a case a while back that I heard about, where they applied a different crime that I was not familiar with but unfortunately can not remember. Some teens were chucking bricks off an overpass into fast traffic. They had no target in mind, weren’t exactly even aiming at specific cars, but they were doing something where their intent would likely cause death. They were charged with something that was above second degree, though I don’t recall if it made full first degree equivalent. It was called something like Malicious Negligence? Except that’s not it, I remember it sounded oddly old fashioned.

Well there are 50 different sets of laws in the US so this doesn’t apply everywhere just a generalization.

Eh, context matters. If you tell someone you’re going to bring a gun in tomorrow and shoot them that’s absolutely premeditated. You had to plan to take your gun on that specific day to that location to commit that specific act. Threatening to shoot someone during an argument then shooting them isn’t exactly “premeditated” there was no plan to go and murder someone, the threats were made in the “heat of the moment” so to speak. Now if they made those threats then left to get a gun and come back, that’s premeditated. Their intention there. Not a justification for the incident, but I think it’s a bit disingenuous to call threats in the middle of an altercation “premeditated”.

why is it disingenuous? There is a woman having a mental health episode that you clearly know is having one and you give her instructions to do something she does it then you threaten to shoot her and then you shoot her and don’t render her first aid and not only that but he told his partners not to render her first aid.

Murder is the intentional killing of another. It requires “malice aforethought”, or the intent to kill. If I say I’m going to kill you and then kill you, that’s intentional murder. So an argument where I say I’m going to kill you, and then I do, that can absolutely be premeditation. “Heat of the moment” doesn’t absolve you. It can potentially mitigate murder to manslaughter. Which is the unintentional killing of another, usually when someone is killed due to reckless behavior that provides a gross disregard for human life (i.e firing a gun recklessly in my backyard). “Heat of the moment” is an affirmative defense to murder. It’s saying I killed this person, but I did not have malice aforethought. I did not go into this situation intending to kill them, but they provoked me to kill them, and that provoking action, whatever it was, was enough to make a reasonable person in a similar situation react the same way. And in most places, offensive language is usually not enough to mitigate murder.

The reason its 2nd degree not first is because his threat to shoot her is in response to seeing the pot of water or her coming closer with it. He didn’t go there with the intention of killing her. Regardless of what actually was going on he perceived she was doing something that was going to harm him so he used the threat of shooting her as a deterrent. Intent can formulate quickly, but its pretty clear he didn’t have a plan to murder her. He just decided to make every bad decision possible anyway, not listening to the poor lady, escalating the situation, insanely quick and willing to just shoot an old lady in the first place. This guy was a serious problem. Personally I think he got lucky with 20 years, 2nd degree murder for sure but its scary how trigger happy cops can be. Stay safe fr

I was writing generally, not this specific case, because the person above me wrote that threatening to kill someone and then killing them is not intent to kill, but it absolutely can be. I also believe this guy is very lucky.

Oh interesting. I suspect it also depends on the jurisdiction.

It’s also easier to convict of second degree murder than first degree I think.

oh 100% specially when it’s a cop on trial.

I would think premeditated has more to do with target a specific individual and planning the murder instead of, I’m gonna kill someone.

You would think but premeditation doesn’t require you to actually plan anything. You just have to have intent to kill before the action. Like if you get into an argument with your friend and then decide to grab a gun and murder him in that moment it’s premeditated murder because you took actions with the idea in mind you were gonna kill them even if you didn’t intent or plan on it before that argument. I

I dont think this is correct. Pretty sure premeditation includes some form of planning prior to the incident.

Going to get a gun is a plan. Threatening someone and then following through with it is a plan. There is no minimum timeframe for premeditation.

I disagree. Thinking about something in the moment and then doing it, and planning to do it are different things. As a silly example – Let’s say I wake up in the morning and decide I want Taco Bell for dinner that night. I go to Taco Bell, look at the menu, and think “Hmm, yeah a Crunchwrap sounds good I might get that”, look at the rest of the menu, then order a Crunchwrap. I obviously planned to go to Taco Bell, but I don’t think anyone would say I planned to get a Crunchwrap.

Let me try to find a case to explain what i’m taking about but premeditation doesn’t have a required time and can be as short as a few seconds. I would argue in this case specifically telling the person to do an action then threatening to shoot them and then shooting them would fall under first degree but jury didn’t agree so it doesn’t really matter what i think

I’m not a lawyer, but by your definition wouldn’t every intentional homicide therefore be first-degree murder? It’s not possible to intentionally kill someone without having at least a few seconds of “premeditation” if that just means choosing to grab a gun and pull the trigger. What would a second-degree murder even look like by your definition?

I’d be curious if you can find one. Even outside of the legal term, I’m pretty sure I’ve only heard it used in the context of having a plan prior to whatever happens.

This is not entirely correct. If you shot him right away that would be “heat of the moment.” If you waited 4 hours then drove across town to his house and shot him, that would be premeditated. The premise being that excitement (general form) of a moment affects how people think and react. Blinded by rage, driven by jealousy, etc When emotions are high people do dumb shit and the law recognizes that part of the human condition. After that excitement wears off/moment ends, is when premeditation begins. It’s not a defined red line and lawyers often are arguing about when that moment was/should have been.

But it wouldn’t be heat of the moment if you were able to walk away and go retrieve a firearm and have time to reflect before you actually commit the action right? even if only for a minutes. It’s definitely not black and white and i’m no lawyer obviously so i’m open to being wrong

It’s not just about having any opportunity to reflect, but also the mental state to actually do it. The critical part of this is that the provocation needs to be sufficiently large that a reasonable person would control. If I saw my wife in bed with my best friend (the classic ‘heat of the moment scenario’), walked to another room to grab a weapon, then came back I had time in the technical sense to think. But I’d be in a fit of rage and not actually thinking. Is it 30 seconds, a minute, 5 minutes… that’s what the prosecution and defense try to convince the jury using any context they can find that I was/was not out of my mind during the time in question.

Also depends on the locality’s specific distinction, as most states use slightly different language from each other

Premeditation can, depending on your jurisdiction, happen very quickly.

It depends on the state and how they categorize it.

For 1st degree under California state law, the key is intent – you made a calculated decision to kill and carried it out. The amount of time is not necessarily relevant – you can make the decision in a split second. 2nd degree shows desire to injure, recklessness, etc but not a premeditated decision to kill. I hope this helps!

Pre-meditation is defined a bit vaguely in most jurisdictions. It’s kind of subjective on the part pf the prosecutors and pre-meditation can be formed in a matter of minutes or even seconds in most places in the US at least. A lot of times when it isn’t super obvious they can reasonably prove pre-meditation, they’ll also include second degree and sometimes manslaughter as lesser includeds, so they don’t fail to convict purely for not proving premeditation, which seems to be what happened here. The prosecutor usually argues for the top charge, then explains the situations in which the jury can find the lesser includeds during jury selection if they don’t agree with all the elements of the top charge. It’s sort of a fail safe in case the jury doesn’t agree that all the elements of the too charge are met but still think the person is guilty of some elements of the crime. This can occasionally work against prosecutors though, since some juries will feel the defendant was overcharged and find prosecutors disingenuous for arguing for something they can’t definitively prove, and will acquit on all or almost all charges altogether, (see Karen Read). Source: I am NOT a lawyer and if you are one, please do correct any mistakes I’ve made, I don’t want to put out false information if I have misunderstood!! Just the kid of a police chief who grew up watching forensic files, fbi files, etc and has court tv on in the background all day every week day while I work.

1st degree murder would’ve meant he walked in the door with the intent to kill her – highly unlikely

Every state is different. In this case, premeditation isn’t all that’s needed to make it first degree. The prosecution has to prove he didn’t think he was in danger. Per the article: > Illinois allows for a second-degree murder conviction if evidence shows the defendant honestly thought he was in danger, even if that fear was unreasonable.

I absolutely am not defending this POS human being, but one of the body cams did show her attempt to throw a pot of boiling water at them, right before they shot her. I could see that being the argument for the “in danger” part

Youre right. It’s not enough. And if you take this guy to court on a premeditated murder you risk him walking free because of double jeopardy. Whereas if out take him on a lesser but much more easily provable charge, you have a higher guarante of at least some degree of justice.

It’s a jury. They aren’t legal experts. Juries are made up of either morons too stupid to figure out how to get out of jury duty or people that actively want to be there because they get some kind of thrill out of deciding other people’s fates.

It’s also people who know that the most power a citizen truly has is in the Jury box. This is a big deal that he was tried and convicted of murder and sentenced for two decades. Same thing with Chauvin. Police have been killing black folks for centuries in the United States without anyone batting an eye for the victim. We can literally change legal precedent by participating in juries. This guy and Chauvin and any other police that get thrills from violence against people of color are all cowards. They will feel attacked and keep their bullshit to themselves. Just like harassing confederate flag flyers. They are cowards too, apply a little pressure and they fold like grass.

That’s my point though. Currently the only people that participate in juries are activist types or people that don’t know how to get out of jury duty. The people that we need on juries either can’t afford to take the time off or just don’t want to do it, which is probably true for the vast majority of us

Some states require full/partial pay. All states have to protect your job while on jury duty. Federal jury duty pays $50 a day. I agree they need to pay a bit more and all the states that don’t are assholes. But people need to understand the amount of actual power they are absent minded throwing away.

It’s not absent mindedly throwing away power when taking on jury duty could put you into homelessness if the case drags on. If I had to spend a month of jury duty at $50 a day I’d be homeless I personally will never sit on a jury if I can help it because I feel it is never morally acceptable to sit in judgement of another person. I don’t believe there are ever situations where someone can possibly be guilty “beyond reasonable doubt”. I believe there is _always_ reasonable doubt because the absolute truth is always unknowable.

Or people who care about justice and believe a jury of someone’s peers is better than the alternative. Not all of us are angry little goblins.

How is a jury the best answer when we have no “peers”? A doctor on trial for medical malpractice for example won’t get a jury of their peers unless the jury is made of doctors, and I’ve never heard of that happening before. So long as juries are full of laymen they’re barely more than regulated mob justice.

I was actually on a jury once and it did make me realize a lot on how some of these terrible jury decisions happen but it’s still not great to see.

I’m just here for free lunch and a day off work