How NOT to do it...

[ISCS Yoda]

First degree murder is generally defined, these days, as any willful, premeditated, intentional murder with malice aforethought.

The key to first and second degree murder is the premeditation.

As my Criminal Law professor once explained it:

If you come home and find your spouse in bed with another person and pull your gun and shoot them both it is second degree murder. If you come home and find your spouse in bed with another person and run to your closet to get your gun and then you shoot them both it is first degree murder.

There will be variations in the definitions state to state but that is a sufficient way to look at it generally.

In the case at hand, had the store clerk pulled his gun in the heat of their argument and shot the victim it would be second degree murder. Allowing the victim to walk out and then chasing after him to shoot him makes it first degree murder.

I think it is that simple, barring definitional variations in different jurisdictions.

 

[Buford57]

IMO anyone convicted of first degree murder should have the death penalty imposed with only 90 days to appeal and then it's carried out. Empty out lots of prison space.

Plus it would have saved the City of Chicago all that money they had to pay out to the people wrongfully convicted of murder after Burge and Associates tortured them into confessing. A swift execution means no opportunity to talk to a someone about it after your genitals stop smoking.

When the facts are as clear as here, that shouldn't be an issue, but as to First Degree I'm still interested in seeing where the premeditated malice or commission of another felony is in all this.

 

[bigggbbruce]

In the case at hand, had the store clerk pulled his gun in the heat of their argument and shot the victim it would be second degree murder. Allowing the victim to walk out and then chasing after him to shoot him makes it first degree murder.

I think it is that simple, barring definitional variations in different jurisdictions.

Yep.. clerk thought to himself... I'm not going to let him get away with that. Premeditation.

 

[otasan56]

Charge him with 2nd Degree murder at least. He will answer to God one day.

 

[Rastoff]

Yes, we have a right under the second amendment to be armed and yes that should and does extend to concealed carry. But we also have a responsibility to exercise that right in a manner that does not infringe or violate someone else's rights.

This is correct, but this...

A day of training split evenly between safe handling of a firearm, and the laws pertaining to the use of deadly force in the particular state, followed by a couple hours spent qualifying with a handgun, where the instructor can verify both safe gun handling and a minimum level of proficiency isn't too much to expect and doesn't infringe on the right to carry.

...doesn't assure it.

Based on what I've seen, classes don't prevent stupidity. They don't even seem to slow it down.

Murder? Possibly. First degree murder?

The difference between 1st and 2nd is premeditation. In this case, it seems like the clerk said to himself, "I'm going to go get that candy back and I'm going to shoot him if he doesn't give it to me." That's premeditation.



I'm curious, what was the argument about?

 

[rwsmith]

He'd just as well....

Nor should he be able to - if the guy is dead, then it is a capital murder charge

Under those circumstances he should change his name to 'Mud'.

 

[rwsmith]

The people that don't take it....

A voluntary/recommended/subsidized/free supplemental training program would be great. MANDATORY, not so much. It can be a fine line who is ALLOWED the right of self defense & who is not. The old & frail come to mind first.

...would be the ones that need it most.

 

[rwsmith]

Anywhere, the guy would....

Missouri is a Constitutional carry state. Now how do you feel about it . . . ?

Anywhere, I think, the guy would be justified to have a gun in his store. He was in fear for his life that the customer would come back in and choke him on the bag of candy.

 

[rwsmith]

i agree...

No he should not! He should be executed if found guilty.
Tax payers should not have to support him the rest of his life!

But do you think that is really going to happen? They'll make some deal where he gets 50 years but will be eligible for parole in 20.

 

[rwsmith]

My adage.....

Guns are not to be pulled because you are pissed off. Not even if you are EXTREMELY pissed off.

 

[rwsmith]

Under the circumstances...

Because of the immediate situation, I don't think it was premeditated. More on the spur of the moment. That's the ONLY thing he's got going for him, though.

 

[REM 3200]

Originally Posted by REM 3200 View Post

No he should not! He should be EXPORTED if found guilty.
Tax payers should not have to support him the rest of his life!

FIFY. Taleb Rebhi Ali Jawher sounds like he should keep shop in Bangladesh. Or maybe the NorKo's want him, another place he'd fit right in. Joe

pharmer, I don't mind you quoting me but DO NOT change anything that I have said.
I did not say EXPORTED. I said executed.

 

[REM 3200]

But do you think that is really going to happen? They'll make some deal where he gets 50 years but will be eligible for parole in 20.

One can always hope.

 

[Rastoff]

Take him 50 miles out to sea and drop him in the water. If he swims back, OK he can live. Otherwise, he's been punished and we don't have to spend any more money on him.

 

[jhnttrpp]

Missouri is a Constitutional carry state. Now how do you feel about it . . . ?

Muss, my concern was him giving permit holders a bad rap. I haven't formed an opinion about constitutional carry yet. That's another animal all together.

 

[BB57]

It seems the only thing the clerk may have missed was the understanding of the use of deadly force, and that's a maybe. He may have known and just disregarded. He seemed safe and proficient enough to be successful.

Hardly sufficient to place all that infringement on everybody because of a perceived problem of a few individuals.

We're going to have to disagree on this.

Getting in an argument with someone and then shooting him in the back of the head when he leaves your store is more than just not understanding when deadly force is appropriate - the guy had serious issues.

And my point is that a day and half of training isn't an infringement on 2A rights.

 

[Absalom]

You guys are quite possibly having the wrong discussion anyways, for this incident at least.

There is nothing I see anywhere saying the guy carried.

A small store owner or clerk keeping a gun under the counter or next to the cash register is a time-honored American tradition that I'm pretty sure hasn't been affected much at all either way by any changes in respect to carry laws.

 

[Rastoff]

And my point is that a day and half of training isn't an infringement on 2A rights.

How is it not?

in·fringe - act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

Forcing someone to go to a day and a half of mandatory training is indeed limiting their ability to buy or keep a gun. The mere act of forcing the training implies some standard they must meet to finish the class.

I completely understand what you're saying. We've all seen people who probably shouldn't have guns. Even so, I'll take dangerous liberty over safe oppression any day.

People don't really understand hunger until they've been deprived of food for a week. Neither do they understand oppression until they've lived in a state that ignores their rights on a regular basis.

Just because you don't mind going to a class doesn't mean it isn't an infringement.

 

[TomkinsSP]

And my point is that a day and half of training isn't an infringement on 2A rights.

(It is, which makes it unconstitutional, but I don't think that was the point.)

I think the point is that you need to learn not to kill other human beings just because you are angry a long, long time before you are able to buy a gun, and a few hours of classroom instruction is not going to 'do the trick'. Besides which, if he had the gun under the counter, and was not carrying the weapon on his person it is immaterial anyway.

 

[Wise_A]

Getting in an argument with someone and then shooting him in the back of the head when he leaves your store is more than just not understanding when deadly force is appropriate - the guy had serious issues.

(1) Do you really think that a class was going to fix that sort of crazy?

(2) Do you really think that any rule designed to "filter" this guy out from gun ownership would stop him if he was even slightly determined to acquire a firearm? To whit, if he doesn't care a lick about shooting a man in the head, do you think he would suddenly object to making a straw purchase?

(3) What precisely has this guy done in his past, that we know about, that would disqualify him from gun ownership?

These are core anti-gun control arguments. Licensing and class requirements only serve to disenfranchise citizens without access to disposable income and transportation. And for what? There's been no bloodbath in constitutional carry states as the naysayers predicted.