Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
A question about what can be charged for murder?
lets say that Velma hates bald people, and thinks that they are of the devil. The neighbor, fred, who is bald, needs to borrow a ladder and notices that velma has a ladder in there backyard. Fred tries to get permission from velma but velma is no where to be found so fred hops the fence and picks up the ladder. Just as fred is picking up the ladder, velma walks around the corner and is obviously startled and fears that fred will whack her with the ladder. Fred drops the ladder trying to explain while walking backwards to his property. Velma picks up a can of gas she had for the lawn mower, and douses fred with it. Fred now, starts hurrying back to his place. Velma seeing this as an opportunity to rid the world of a bald person then precides to throw her zippo lighter at him and burns him alive.
what can velma be charged with in a court of law (ie manslaughter, first degree murder, etc)? What can be proven in a court of law?
good point about the castle docrtine. for the purposes here, lets say there is not castle.
where the info comes from aside, we can assume for this fictional purpose it is accurate.
the part i am struggling with is whether or not this is premeditated. We know that Velma hates bald people. we also know that she saw this as an opportunity to inflict harm on a bald person. But she did not exactly plan this out perse. She merely took advantage of the situation at hand.
3 Answers
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
Most likely 2nd Degree (non-premeditated) Murder. Depending on the state she might be able to get away with it under the Castle Doctrine since he was trespassing, but that's unlikely.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
In Castle doctrine states the laws are just being tested. I truly doubt that this completely non self defense case could come under the doctrine.
The problem is where did we get this info? The victim is dead. Did Velma tell us the details? does the physical evidence (like marks left by the ladder dropping. position of the victim, which way facing etc) support what she said.
What to others that know the victim and Velma say about the way the victim acts normally and what Velma talks about (can go to motive, even if hearsay sometimes).
Decisions on charging take a lot more information then you could possibly provide in a question.
Otherwise my old 16 hour investigations with a confession and smoking gun along with my 40 page report where not needed. The prosecutor (the one who decides the charges) could just go on what they know from TV or mystery books.
Source(s): retired & bald cop, 11 years as homicide detective - Anonymous4 years ago
particular i have self belief so. The officer in question who shot Mr. furnish become Mr. Johannes Sebastian Mehserle, 27 on the time of the taking pictures, become born in Germany to a father of Bosnian descent. it truly is likewise a black difficulty on condition that I learn the tale. Mr. furnish is black. There are countless tale of police officials manhandling black human being both interact in fisticuffs or robbery. i come upon that contained in the U. S. once you're black and also you're contained in the line strolling without notice there's a radio for suspected black youngsters for armed robbery, the black guy or woman who's now strolling contained in the line fairly at evening is the common suspect. i'm satisfied i'm no longer contained in the U. S.. furnish become shot contained in the lower back no longer contained in the top as pronounced by using means of between the lads accurate the following contained in the talk board. That penetrated his lungs. regardless of the really simple truth that furnish had previous crime of drug dealing this can no longer be an excuse to in simple words shoot a guy. he isn't any longer on bypass away yet on duty contained in the cost of the crime as a BART police officer. He become value with homicide. No the officer won't be able to smash out clean fairly this one become captured by using means of the CCTV digital camera and a kind of of different celphone video's. Your hypothesis, what if a widely used citizen by using twist of destiny shot someone, might want to prefer to he be dealt with as the same a police might want to prefer to be. NO for particular no longer. First you pronounced he's a widely used citizen otherwise pronounced as a civilian no longer a police officer.