18

No. The language in question dates from when "felony" denoted a much more serious class of crimes than it does today; traditionally, "felony" essentially meant "capital crime." Since then, California courts have narrowed the clause's meaning through caselaw. Incidentally, the provision in question appears in multiple state penal codes (it was a traditional ...


11

It depends. International aviation law is tricky. One effort to set some standards down was the Tokyo Convention, also known as the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed On Board Aircraft. Here are some excerpts: ARTICLE 3 The State of registration of the aircraft is competent to exercise jurisdiction over offences and acts ...


10

The answer is going to depend on what jurisdiction you're talking about. But I can give you some general principles that apply, in most cases, in the U.S. at least. "Homicide" is a general term for the killing of one person by another. If someone died, and another person caused it, it's homicide. "Murder" and "manslaughter" are specific crimes, usually now ...


8

The crime often called "involuntary manslaughter", or simply manslaughter in the second degree, is when, with criminal negligence, he or she causes the death of another person The standards for "criminal negligence" as well as "recklessness" are spelled out here. The first term is defined as: A person is criminally negligent or acts with criminal ...


7

Whether a state has jurisdiction over a crime or not is determined exclusively by the laws of that state, including any treaties the state has signed. It is entirely possible for multiple countries to have jurisdiction over a crime; this is likely to be just such a situation. As a practical matter, if there is a murder on an airplane the plane will be ...


6

State governments (and state courts, employees, etc., as part of that government) are generally immune from lawsuits for all liability. See Governmental Tort Liability : 2017 Tennessee Code : Justia. You're really not going to be able to sue the state, the court, the prosecutor or parole officer over what you see as a negligent decision, considering the ...


6

Murder Which is the unlawful taking of a life with intent to do so. However, the doctrine of self-defence can make killing lawful: A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large. if the ...


6

The consequences for the US are perhaps better addressed at Politics; if you're really interested in those consequences, you can re-post this question there. For the police officer shooting a diplomat, the officer may be charged under state law, whatever is normal for an incident of this type; it doesn't matter whether the person is a US citizen or a ...


5

Not at all. First, the statute does not make it legal, nor does it mean that you can justifiably kill someone to prevent a felony. Rather, it is merely negates the clear and present danger, or direct self-defense prong if a felony is being committed and the criminal is killed. More simply put, a homicide (may be) found excusable if it occurs when someone ...


5

There is pretty much never a right to retaliate against harm to oneself, even blatantly unlawful harm. There is a right to defend oneself and others. One can use force to stop someone from inflicting unlawful or unjustified harm, or to prevent someone from inflicting such harm when the harm is imminent. One is not permitted to use more force than is "...


5

It's important to keep in mind that charges don't really tell us much about what crimes actually occurred. Sometimes cops file charges that aren't justified; sometimes they don't file charges that would be justified. There can be lots of reasons for the gaps between the evidence and the charges. My best guess is that the officers involved don't have quite as ...


4

The distinction is a question of culpability, not just the harm caused. The law, at least in the criminal law context, is not fundamentally consequentialist in its philosophy. The end consequence of an act for which someone is at fault in some way isn't the only thing that matters in criminal law. Instead, there is basically a two dimensional grid. On one ...


4

Murder is intentional and premeditated killing. Manslaughter is also criminal killing but is not murder, because it is not premeditated e.g. someone comes home and discovers the spouse in bed with someone else, and "kills." That's voluntary manslaughter. Homicide is killing, criminal or not, so "self defense" or accidental killing is homicide. All murder and ...


4

This assumes there is a difference under the law between reckless and negligent homicide (which does not exist everywhere). In Washington state there is a distinction between 1st and 2nd degree manslaughter, per RCW 9A.32.060 and .070. What could be called reckless homicide is when (a) He or she recklessly causes the death of another person; or (b) He ...


3

No. This is not possible. You cannot give consent to homicide, and only the state can provide immunity from prosecution. Consent is not a "justification" or "excuse" under Oregon law, as those terms are defined in its penal code (there is nothing even remotely close in the definition of the relevant terms). Assisting suicide under Oregon law is, however, a ...


3

In the first case, under US law, you are not considered guilty in most cases where you are forced to commit a crime under duress (gun to your head would certainly qualify). Murder is a rare exception to this rule, and the patron can be tried for the murder of the prostitute. Given the nature of Doe, who uses situations of duress to force a no win scenario ...


3

Assuming that this wasn't a planned murder or assault, the most serious charge would be vehicular homicide. In the US, this is governed by state law, but states are not radically different in whether this is a crime. In Washington, under RCW 46.61.520, vehicular homicide is a class A felony, punishable by imprisonment in a state correctional institution ...


3

Short Answers Does the Coroner have the final say on cause of death? No. The trial judge (or jury) has the final say. Can police pursue an investigation independent and contrary to that of the Coroner? Theoretically, yes. But I would expect that would happen only in unusual circumstances. Like, maybe an internal investigation. Standard procedure is for the ...


3

For the same reason that double parking isn't They are different offences for which the community, through its political and legal systems, have decided deserve different punishment under the law. For a multitude of reasons, society holds a person who plans a killing in cold blood and then puts that plan into operation more culpable that a person who kills ...


2

Amber Guyger was convicted of murder under Texas Penal Code section 19.02: A person commits the offense of murder if the person 1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual or 2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits and act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual. The Texas mistake-of-fact ...


2

Hypothetical case I am going to answer about the general principles of Mistake of Fact and use as an example a simplified hypothetical case similar to the Amber Guyger case as reported in online news stories. I do not assume that these reports are either complete or fully accurate, so please treat my example only as a hypothetical case where similar ...


2

The laws in the United States vary by state. In Wisconsin, the law on homicide by negligent operation of vehicle says: Whoever causes the death of another human being by the negligent operation or handling of a vehicle is guilty of a Class G felony. However, he also fled the scene. Under Wisconsin law: The operator of a vehicle involved in an ...


2

In the United States, most Speeding in Excess is a misdemeanor as is Failing to Stop for pedestrians, who have the right of way in a crosswalk in all situations (even if they do not have the light). Leaving the Scene of an Accident is known as Hit and Run and can be anything from an infraction to a misdemeanor to a felony and the status would be based on ...


2

The facts would probably support a conviction for manslaughter; you cause the death of another person through recklessness. If a motive could be established so that it could be shown that you planned to cause the person's death in this manner then a murder charge could be proved.


2

My answer pertains to Washington, which has a similar law. The circumstances where it is legal for one person to intentionally kill another are highly limited in all states: using Washington terminology, you must be justified, and "because he asked me to" is not an legal justification. "Death with dignity" does not allow a doctor to kill a patient, it allows ...


2

Under U.S. laws there is no need to identify the victim to charge and convict a person of murder. Furthermore, the identity of the victim does not offer any defense against a charge of murder under any U.S. law. (Just to clarify this answer should it be considered in isolation: Given circumstances that are not contemplated in the question, the identity of ...


2

No. You have no idea whether this person is even likely to be infected by anything whatsoever. Second, even if you did know they were infected, you are not facing an immediate threat of violence. Third, even if you knew this person were infected, and they began to approach you, and that was deemed an immediate threat of violence (it wouldn't be), you would ...


1

Everyone is entitled to legal representation; if you can't afford one, one will be provided by the state, however, that is not your question. Clearly lawyers in Europe are massively underpaid if the best of them can only charge 200 Euros per hour; a middle of the road barrister in Sydney will set you back about $800. How is that kind of defense funded? ...


1

In Canada, I think Tommy would be found guilty of criminal negligence causing death. Criminal negligence 219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who (a) in doing anything, or (b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. (2) For the purposes of this ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible