Eps 2: Killing is not okay it's dangerous
| Host image: | StyleGAN neural net |
|---|---|
| Content creation: | GPT-3.5, |
Host
Crystal Barnes
Podcast Content
Most state laws permit justifiable homicide in defense of self or others in the face of credible threats of physical injury, such as rape, armed robbery, or murder. Homicide is considered justified when a state law allows deadly force in self-defense. A verdict for non-criminal homicide, typically committed for self-defense or defense of another, exists in U.S. law.
The killing of a police officer while on duty is generally considered to be justifiable homicide. Homicide per se is not necessarily an offense -- e.g., the justified killing of a suspect by the police, or killings committed in self-defense. Preventive self-defense, where someone kills another person out of a suspects belief that the victim may end up becoming dangerous, is not justifiable.
Nor is it necessary to the preservation of the human race for one man to forego acts of modest self-defense to avoid killing the other, for man is bound to care for his own life better than that of the other. The words quoted by Augustine relate to a situation where a man plans to kill the other to spare his own death. There are times when a person ends the life of another, which seems to defy reason.
As it is unlawful to take a mans life, except by public authorities acting for the common good, as stated above , it is not lawful for a man to intend to kill a man in self-defense, except by those who have public authority, who, in intending to kill a man in self-defense, relate it to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against a foe, and in the case of a magistrate fighting against robbers, though even these sins, if moved by private animosity, kill that such as have public authority. Nor is it lawful for a layman to kill any person in self-defense. Nor is it murderable for a person to kill another person in self-defense.
Someone may be guilty of murder if a death occurs in the commission of a dangerous crime, even if that person is not the killer. Here, Aaron would be guilty of murder under a criminal statute, since a death occurred in the course of a dangerous felony, and death was the intended outcome of Aarons actions. Bill may not be guilty of first-degree murder, although the death occurred in the course of a dangerous felony.
Instead, New York charges defendants only with first degree murder if a defendant killed a police officer, killed a witness at a trial, or killed in the commission of terroristic acts. New York applies New Yorks rules to first degree murder, but also allows courts to use a premeditation standard to charge a first-degree murder, should a court decide to do so.
Rather than framing this rule as the Felony-Murder Rule, the Model Penal Code establishes a rebuttable presumption that killings committed while the specified high-danger offense is being committed demonstrate extreme recklessness, as required by other provisions in the Code regarding homicide. The Model Penal Code deprecates, but does not preclude, application of the death penalty to murders that occur while the offense is in progress. Our criminal justice system has essentially reserved the death penalty for killers who murder white victims.
Some murders, which would be covered by criminal laws for either involuntary manslaughter or murder, are not. Murder and manslaughter both fall into the illegal killings category. In rare cases, murder is classified as legitimately justified forA self-defenseA or for some other reason, and is not punished as an offense.
Depending on the circumstances, a killer can be charged with either murder or manslaughter -- or they can be exonerated, if the courts determine that the murderer was acting in self-defense. Family members of victims can bring suit against alleged criminals, even if they are not found guilty in a criminal trial for murdering another individual. The murderer can argue that the act of murder was a case of temporary insanity--a condition difficult to prove in court.
The victim must have reasonably believed, in light of all the circumstances, that the murderer intended to commit an unlawful act which was likely to cause the death or potentially serious bodily harm of the innocent. The key to a justification defense under law is the belief that it is reasonable for a person under consideration that an imminent and otherwise unavoidable threat of death or serious bodily injury is present in the victim of homicide committed by a deceased person.
If one planned to kill one person, but killed another by accident, the killing was still deliberate and premeditated. Since then, killing an evil-doer is legitimate under some circumstances, killing an innocent or just man is far more legitimate. Now, being killed is more grievous for a sinful person than for an innocent one, for the latter, through death, passes immediately from the misery of this life into the glory of heaven.
The killing functions in largely the same way that a depraved-heart rule in the common law would. Because life is precious and death is irrevocable, killing is abhorrent, and the state-authorized killing policy is unethical. Even in a universe comprised of people who kill out of spite, law regards some people as more dangerous and more morally culpable than others.
These include cases of what is called the Suicide-by-Execution Syndrome--people who wish to die, but are afraid of taking their own lives, and commit homicides to have the state kill them. While this is not the first time that I have seen a Black man killed by the police, it is the first time I have witnessed the killing occur right in front of me.